What is the current state of the law on misrepresentation of product information?

It appears, then, that under the traditional view of fraud, plaintiffs must sustain a greater burden to prove fraud than to prove unfair competition or false advertising. Recent developments do suggest, however, [673 P.2d 678] that the lines between fact and opinion, and between "untrue" and "misleading" statements, may be more apparent than real, at least in the consumer protection area. In Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 120 Cal.Rptr. 681, 534 P.2d 377, for example, a manufacturer claimed that its "Golfing Gizmo" was "completely safe," and that the ball attached to the device "will not hit [the] player." (Id., at pp. 108, 109, 120 Cal.Rptr. 681, 534 P.2d 377.) This claim was [35 Cal.3d 225] held to be an actionable misrepresentation of fact. (Id., at pp. 111-114, 120 Cal.Rptr. 681, 534 P.2d 377. ² ) Justice Tobriner, writing for the court, noted that sellers had traditionally been given a wide latitude to "puff" the virtues of their products, but that " '[t]he tendency of the modern cases is to construe liberally in favor of the buyer language used by the seller in making affirmations respecting the quality of his goods ....' [Citation.] [p] This expansion of sellers' liability has been necessary to counteract the shrewd technique of those sellers who, instead of making broad factual assertions about their products, seek to couch their representations in opinion form." (Id., at p. 112, fn. 7, 120 Cal.Rptr. 681, 534 P.2d 377.)