[davidhollander]

For information which functions as advertising to also be a candidate for fraud it must first assert something as fact.

There are many forms of advertisement which do not assert facts or even include language. An advertisement could simply consist of a graphical fictional portrayal of consumption or brand usage done in a glamorous light.

If something does not include a representation of facts, it does include a potential for fraud, and it would not make sense to regulate it as such solely on a principle of equivalence.

[vidarh]

> For information which functions as advertising to also be a candidate for fraud it must first assert something as fact.

That's sort-of fine, again, when dealing with competent adults. Though plenty of research demonstrates that even competent adults are incapable of avoiding being influenced by good advertising in ways that may very well be against their own interests.

But when targeting children, it takes very little before your slight manipulation gets treated as if it was fact by young children. That it isn't "asserting something as fact" by adult standards is meaningless when discussing advertising that is targeting children.

And as a parent: Short of locking my child in the house with no access to any media, there is no way I can prevent my son from being exposed to advertising that he (at 4 years old) is in no way prepared to objectively assess the fact content of.

[leot]

That's not the point. The point is that commercial advertising isn't full-blooded speech (and thus may be subject to regulation for the same reason that fraudulent speech is subject to regulation).