It was true at the time the advertisement was made, which was the point of the accusations made which I was responding to. Don't try to play semantic games to make your false statements appear to be true (oddly enough Dogie appears to be the rational one in this case... Mind blown).
Dick Trickle there was asking about false advertising and I was responding. We did absolutely believe we would tape out in August when that ad copy was created.
I don't think you understand what your being sued for or what false advertising entails.
Just because the statement may have been true for a few days doesn't mean you can advertise it for months after it becoming false.
You guys edited the monarch page several times in the past months yet decided to conveniently leave up all the now false advertisements in order to bring in more customers.
FTC is will soon prove that your little games do not fly.
To refresh your memory, here's what you're being sued for:
Deceptive Acts or Practices
An act or practice is deceptive where
A representation, omission, or practice misleads
or is likely to mislead the consumer;
"accidentally" leaving up "tapeout in August" long after August is indeed likely to mislead the customer don't you think?
Or what about accidentally leaving up the totally fair comparison that showed the competition at $17/gh and 2.5w/gh?