Domino’s Pizza Ad Addresses Puffery

I admit, it’s a little strange that I’m writing about pizza, particularly such awful pizza, on a blog about Enron. But a new ad by Dominos actually has a legal component which relates to Enron. In the ad, Domino’s “head chef” is standing in front of the John Minor Wisdom Court House in New Orleans — that’s the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals where Jeff Skilling’s appeal and many others from the Enron cases were heard, including Broadband, Nigerian Barges, and NatWest Three. The “head chef” says that they (Domino’s) challenged the Papa John’s slogan in court, and Papa John’s stated that their slogan was “puffery.”

A definition of Puffery is given (“an exaggerated statement based on opinion, not fact.”)

This (finally) connects to Enron because the issue of puffery was brought up in the case of Ken Rice, Joe Hirko, and Jeff Skilling. During Jeff’s appeal at the 5th Circuit, his attorney, Dan Petrocelli argued that some of the “false statements” the prosecution alleges that Skilling made amount to no more than puffery. Puffery is not a crime. Prosecutors also made the allegation against Ken Rice at the 2000 analyst conference on January 20, 2000. Ken Rice made approximately 45 statements during his presentation and four were considered controversial. None of them rose beyond puffery – which might be why the prosecution agreed to let him plead guilty to something unrelated to those statements.

In any case, I thought the ad was a nice, simple way to illustrate puffery. In Enron’s defense, there was not a software company alive in the late 1990s or early 2000s that did not use puffery. They would have had no market if they’d talked down their products, or merely blathered about the technical specifications.


2 thoughts on “Domino’s Pizza Ad Addresses Puffery

  1. The sentiment is great. However, no one has ever shown that there were even puffery statements made at the Analyst Conference 2000. The statements were about what was in place, what was being put in place and what was announced to be developed or deployed in the future. They did not say the had something they did not have. The DOJ did get some witnesses to say that there were lies but those witnesses all were proven wrong during trial according to the actual record.

    The DOJ is using Puffery if you are nice, lying if you are honest, to try to convict people.

  2. You’re right. I missed that – the DOJ didn’t allege puffery, they alleged fraud. I just went off on a tangent there. : )

    I agree that at the 2000 analyst conference, every statement was demonstrably true.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s