[chromoblob]

I propose a law: nobody can advertise a product without mentioning all the brands which offer same or similar product on the market (and the mention must be neutral or positive).

Or: all advertisers of all brands with a same or similar product must collaborate. Only voluntary input counts as collaboration; if a brand simply doesn't care about presentation of itself in the advertisement, they have trivially collaborated. Easiest way to implement this is giving every owner of all relevant brands a right to veto every entire final advertisement product (this right could also be surrendered, for all or some possible vetoed advertisements, in exchange for something in a contract).

Ignoring flaws of this proposition itself, what could be society's reasons for rejecting it? Does society perhaps want havers of more money to gain further advantage over havers of less money?

[pixl97]

>nobody can advertise a product without mentioning all the brands which offer same or similar product on the marke

Maybe 50 years ago that would have worked. Today, not so much. Go to Amazon and look, well, just about anything. What is BEHENO, what is DINGEE, what is Etoolia, what is Romedia, what are the over 300 different 6/7 letter companies that show up when I search up some random product.

Unfortunately your consideration causes its own parasite effect of countless companies forming up to feed of the big advertisers budget.

[chromoblob]

Since the product is standard, why is it actually bad? If there are too many brands to be included in a single advert, just choose randomly (the lower the price, the higher the probability for a single brand; I don't know the function).

[pixl97]

Because, in the US, this will quickly fall foul of free speech laws. Over 'public' airwaves maybe you could go some distance with this, but advertising on private property, as long as it is not fraudulent will present a constitutional challenge to what your saying.

And, you're also crating a regulatory nightmare. Say I put up an add for XXYZXX company, and it includes ZZXYZZ and YYXZYY information (I mean totally random picks), and I just happen to have a stake in those companies too. Now you're going to have to track hundreds of thousands of these entities to ensure no fraud is occurring, and in most cases the fines for this kind of behavior are well under the cost of doing business.

Everything you've said so far just creates bigger messes and solves nothing.