Promise or puffery? How companies’ product representations impact consumer litigation

Your privacy is our priority (1).

We’ve taken every step imaginable to ensure that your data remains private, with you (1).

Your satisfaction is important to us and is the reason we are committed to providing you with state-of-the-art equipment and service.

Our experience, technology, and people make the difference in your security protection (2).

To consumers searching for a new smart home device, these statements make their next purchase seem promising and certain to enhance the safety and security of their home environments.

However, from a legal standpoint, such assurances should not be treated as material truth. Rather, they are puffery, statements that “convey an overstated belief about some good or service to a prospective buyer with the goal of making a sale of that good or service" (3). While the definition of puffery varies slightly by geographical location and across the hierarchy of courts, there is general legal consensus that such subjective statements which are unable to be proven true or false fall under puffery’s purview.

A 2024 class action lawsuit against Defendant Anker Innovations and involving their eufy security ecosystem highlights puffery’s impact on consumers and how the courts handle such misleading statements.

To provide context, Lauren Nieto, an MIT student pursuing a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and Political Science, a member of my Ethics and AI research team at MIT AgeLab, examined a case with me that illustrates this concept well. Anker marketed its eufy smart cameras and video doorbells as a privacy-focused alternative within the smart home security market. For these products, Anker emphasized on-device processing, local video storage, minimal or no cloud reliance, and user control over personal data. Additionally, such products included advanced features such as facial recognition (through eufy’s BionicMind system), which Anker similarly highlighted that sensitive data collected would remain local and protected.

In 2022, users and security researchers discovered that images from eufy devices were being uploaded to cloud servers without encryption and that live video streams could be accessed by external actors via a simple browser workaround. Such findings directly conflicted with Anker Innovations’ repeated representations of local-only data handling paired with strong privacy safeguards. This ultimately prompted a class of plaintiffs to initiate a lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs made several main claims:

• Violation of the Wiretap Act: They argued that uploading users’ images and videos to cloud servers without proper consent violated the Wiretap Act. This federal law prohibits the unauthorized interception, use, or sharing of electronic communications.
• Violation of Illinois biometric privacy law: They claimed that Anker did not follow the required rules under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). This law regulates how companies collect, store, and use biometric data such as facial scans or voice recordings.
• Misleading privacy and security claims: They alleged that Anker misrepresented how private and secure its products were, which could violate state consumer protection and fraud laws.
• Unjust enrichment: They claimed that Anker unfairly benefited from these practices at the expense of its customers.

In response, Anker asked the court to dismiss the case and argued that:

• The Wiretap Act did not apply because Anker was a “party to the communication,”1 and such parties are exempted by the act.

• The data was not biometric information under BIPA because the video thumbnails and image clips collected by eufy products did not qualify as biometric identifiers.

• Many of its privacy statements were too general to be legally actionable. Anker argued that statements about valuing privacy or making privacy a priority were general marketing language. It claimed these were not specific promises that could support a legal claim (1):

  • “Your privacy is something that we value as much as you do.”
  • That’s just the start of our commitment to protect you, your family, and your privacy.”
  • “Privacy and protection are our top priorities.”

The Outcome of the Case

In the end, the court dismissed the Wiretap Act claim. It also dismissed parts of the consumer fraud and unjust enrichment claims that were based on general marketing statements, or “puffery.” However, the court allowed claims based on more specific statements, such as promises about local storage and encrypted data, to continue. The court also allowed the plaintiffs’ BIPA claim to move forward.

Takeaway

This case shows why the difference between a broad marketing claim and a specific product promise matters. General statements like “privacy is our priority” may sound reassuring to consumers, but courts may treat them as puffery rather than enforceable commitments. By contrast, more concrete claims about how a device works, such as whether data stays local, whether it is encrypted, or whether biometric information is collected and stored, can carry legal consequences if they turn out to be misleading. The uplifting statements above lack key material details, such as how privacy is protected, what security measures are in place, or what data practices actually occur. This absence of objectivity and technical specificity is a key indicator that such protections and practices needn’t actually be adhered to by companies.

For smart home companies, the lesson is that privacy and security representations should not be treated as vague branding language. They shape consumer trust, influence purchasing decisions, and, when tied to specific technical practices, may become central evidence in litigation. Additionally, consumers should approach companies’ product marketing statements with greater caution, making sure to assess the subjectivity of such statements rather than assuming them to be promises of a product’s performance.

(1) Sloan v. Anker Innovations Ltd.., 711 F. Supp. 3d 946, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40553, 2024 LX 165588 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. 2024).

(2) Edenborough v. ADT, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147106, 2016 LX 34099, 2016 WL 6160174 (United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Oct. 24, 2016). LexisNexis.

(3) Cornell Law School. (2020, July). Puffing. Wex: Legal Dictionary and Encyclopedia. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/puffing.