[figassis]

> The agency argued that a Tesla disclaimer, which says the "features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous," is not enough to make the advertising truthful. The "disclaimer contradicts the original untrue or misleading labels and claims, which is misleading, and does not cure the violation," the DMV said.

Is this not the same as saying the fine print does not override marketing claims? Does that not apply to all the cases of sneaky clauses hidden in the TOS by most businesses? Especially wrt privacy and selling data, etc?

[stefan_]

There is a difference between the fine print adding conditions and the fine print going "not actually the case jinx". They say the latter is happening by asserting the fine print contradicts the marketing claims.