Dupelet

That’s not what profiteering means

Yes, but the ruling stated that they violated defamation rules, which implies defamation did happen.

The question I was asking is, how is it defamation if it’s true. You seem to have wandered off onto a tangent of what constitutes ethical / civilised advertising.

one can easily see what happens when it is allowed to talk about your enemies instead of what you provide. Just look at the logical end of this in form of the attack ads of the US political campaigns.

More countries than not allow comparative advertising, and the world is not ending. Why use politics as an inaccurate example when the majority of countries actually practice it to some extent?

The question was how is it defamation, you’re giving a non-answer that’s nothing more than a blatant appeal to authority.

So if an ad were to make fun of how horrible Tesla’s Full Self Driving feature is, that would be unfair and misleading? As opposed to the pain simple truth?

How is it defamation if it’s true?