I have frequently proposed a objective legal standard for false advertising that handles that: "Technically, your honor". If somebody says that in court, they lose.

The words they used, as commonly understood by the target audience, were intentionally crafted to be interpreted differently than what they were going to say they meant in court. They spent time, effort, and money, ran focus groups, and carefully selected and curated their words to be incorrectly interpreted by the target audience to reach knowingly false conclusions.

The correct standard should be that they spent time, effort, and money, ran focus groups, and carefully selected and curated their words to be correctly interpreted by the target audience to reach true conclusions. Their statements should only be accidentally incorrect in proportion to the time and effort spent crafting and distributing them.

"Technically, your honor", should be treated as the ethical abomination it is.

I know there's some tort caselaw in Australia towards both parties actual understanding of the contract vs written word. We went over a few of these cases in high school commerce. Its been further enshrined by the ACCC, which tends to take the view that the verbal understanding provided at the point of sale can often supercede terms and conditions.