Opinion ID: 1158402
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Legislative intent behind section 17537.6

Text: (5) Morse contends: The idea of giving free information out to individuals with the option of performing a service for a small fee is not exploitive, misleading or fraudulent in any way. The Homestead Information Sheet [that he mailed] may have, in some cases, cleared up some confusion about the Homestead Exemption laws.... Petitioner [Morse] never received a complaint from anyone about the service he provided. Therefore, Petitioner has not participated in false advertising and the legislative intent [for section 17537.6] does not encompass the type of mailing sent out by Petitioner. This argument barely warrants a response. As explained above, the Court of Appeal and the review department found that Morse's advertisements were misleading in multiple respects. (Pp. 201-202, ante. ) We agree. Moreover, Morse's assertion that he was performing a free service is specious. He was clearly engaged in his homestead business for profit. Advertising is, by its nature, generally free to the recipient, at least in the sense that he or she does not directly pay to receive the advertisement. (The recipient pays for the product or service, not for the advertising itself.) Under Morse's convoluted view, there is no such thing as deceptive advertising because advertising is free to the recipient. We are not persuaded. As the Court of Appeal aptly observed, [t]he Legislature intended to prohibit attorneys from doing precisely what Morse did in this case. ( People v. Morse, supra, 21 Cal. App.4th 259, 271.)