31. While, in its policy statement, the Commission makes an exception for what it terms as merely business "puffing" in advertisements, the Happy Cows ads are not covered by this exception. The CMAB has created, through the Happy Cows ads, a broad depiction of the California dairy industry that reasonable, but uninformed, consumers are likely to believe is accurate.

32. Certainly, one might dismiss as "puffing" the claim that either the quality or flavor of cheese produced by a "happy" or humanely treated cow is any different than that produced by an "unhappy" one. And while nobody would reasonably conclude that cows talk to each other or sing songs because they are so content, it is reasonable to conclude that because the pastoral beauty and luxury of California are so prominently portrayed in the ads, as are references to "clean air," "good food," and "sunshine," that they accurately portray the typical "high quality" housing and raising conditions of a California dairy cow. For the vast majority of cows in the state, however, this is simply not the case.

33. PETA recognizes that, despite the statement (in paragraph 29) made by the ad writer, the CMAB might claim that the Happy Cows advertisements are primarily intended as a light-hearted attempt to promote the California dairy industry in general and not as a specific representation as to the conditions under which its cows are kept. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is true (although it is difficult to imagination that the CMAB neither intended nor foresaw that a reasonable and natural interpretation of the ads would be that they depict a typical representation of the California dairy industry), whether or not a particular representation, or misrepresentation, is an intended effect of an advertisement is not authoritative for a final determination of whether the ad is unlawfully deceptive. As set forth in the Commission’s policy statement, if a seller’s representation conveys more than one meaning to reasonable consumers, one of which is false, the seller is liable for the misleading interpretation. From a consumer’s perspective, an unintended deception is as misleading and injurious as an intended one, and so both are impermissibly unlawful.

34. In this case, the ads portray beautiful, healthy dairy cows roaming through grass-covered pastures of rolling hills and shade trees and make references to clean air, easy living, and the like. It is, therefore, reasonable for consumers to conclude, that this is representative of the California dairy industry and to, consequently, purchase California dairy products that they otherwise would not have purchased had they not been misled.

35. Thus, because the Happy Cows ads are likely to mislead reasonable consumers who care about the way cows are treated by the dairy industry, they are unlawfully deceptive.