[derleth]

> I don't think a simple claim that can be shown to be false qualifies as fraud.

Then what does? If they're using claims they can't back up, or that they know are false, to sell their product, that's pretty clear-cut fraud to me.

> If evidence was doctored to back up the claim that might qualify, but otherwise it's just be an opinion.

Well, you have a much different standard for fraud than I do. I think my standard is more useful for preventing harm and sending scammers to prison, however, so I'll stick with it.

[grannyg00se]

"Then what does? If they're using claims they can't back up, or that they know are false, to sell their product, that's pretty clear-cut fraud to me."

Why do you think they know the claims are false? Do you even know the claims are false? It doesn't seem so clear to me based on a quick bit of searching. They don't have to back anything up, they only have to reasonably believe it to be true.

"I think my standard is more useful for preventing harm and sending scammers to prison, however, so I'll stick with it."

Your standard would prevent harm. It would also render a large fraction of all advertising illegal. Fortunately we don't go around sending everybody to prison just because their company included some questionable claims in their marketing.

[derleth]

> Why do you think they know the claims are false?

It's just as bad if they don't know the claims are true. Bullshitting when someone's health is on the line is simply sociopathic.

> It would also render a large fraction of all advertising illegal.

Not all advertising. Just advertising connected to things that are claimed to be healthier, make you healthier, or prevent or treat disease.