The original point was that the price itself was a misrepresentation.
I think that there existed some debate about what qualified as misrepresentation though...
If I have an average imported ball python that I paid twelve bucks for because I bought fifty of them and wanted to sell them individually... I've had them for three weeks and have given a single round of panacur/flagyl and attempted a single feeding...
Selling them as:
"LTC ball pythons, eat great, beautiful healthy animals $120"
Is misrepresentive of the product. I think most people would agree on that...
How about if LTC is taken out? Is three weeks enough time to really verify their health?
How about "eat great"? While eating the first meal offered is a good sign, it's not entirely ethical to sell an animal as eating with no problems because it took a single meal.
Now... what if the ad read:
"Ball pythons, beautiful healthy animals $120"
Those same three week imports that ate once are being advertised, they're probably just as likely to have small ticks or start to refuse food or possibly have infections which haven't surfaced yet... Is it still dishonest to sell them for $120, when the price is going to give buyers an impression of quality that isn't accurate?
Or... how about a very specific situation which prompted a similar debate... A long while ago, Upstate was selling eastern legless lizards as being super-rare animals... I forget the exact wording on their ad, but the price was four times what I had seen similar animals *retailing* for earlier the same week. Now... eastern legless lizards may not be for sale frequently but this isn't because they are rare or hard to find... it's because they don't have much appeal as a pet to the majority of the buying public. The price was inflated to give an impression of value that wasn't accurate... Was this dishonest or not? I think so... but others at the time disagreed.