Like it or not, the law requires that for a communication to be an offer, it must appear to a reasonable person to manifest a willingness to enter into a bargain. People with the capacity to contract expressing a willingness to do or give one thing in exchange for another, in circumstances that warrant taking their communications seriously, should make markets. Although the law of advertising is outside the expertise of most of us, I had thought that there are legal penalties for false and misleading advertising. The social utility of these laws and their enforcement consist of their being the necessary legal ground rules for effective markets, rather than expressions of markets themselves.
Markets find prices or express values through people expressing their desires or appetites.
The actors in markets should not constrain their appetites or values, but they must act according to rules, or the market will not have the utility that it might. These rules include honoring bargains, but a communication that a reasonable person would not have thought manifested an intent to be bound cannot be the basis of a bargain. That they lost does not prove the social dis-utility of the law suit. Anyone who has seen or done warranty or products liability litigation can appreciate the difference between the unrealistic expectations created by advertising and the reality of what is being produced. There has been, I would suggest, some social utility in that litigation, even though I saw and defended against a fair amount of what I would call frivilous warranty litigation.