Editing False advertising (section)

=====How this case demonstrates all three cases=====
#'''Poor moderation''' - StockX demonstrated poor moderation by allowing bricked SCTs to be sold, had StockX thoroughly inspected the user delivered product themselves as they claim<ref name=":0" /> they would have discovered that it no longer functions; this in of itself justifies updating the product description.
#'''Poor self-moderation -''' StockX demonstrated poor self-moderation when they did not update the page after the planned discontinuation bricking was announced. It is possible that they had never learned of this, there is no
#'''Retroactive sale falsification -''' Spotify's decision to discontinue the product resulted in StockX's product information suddenly becoming incorrect, not by the fault of StockX.

The purpose of the StockX example is to demonstrate that false advertising does occur in marketplaces and that determining who is to blame can be difficult to establish. While it is undeniable that StockX did not update the page, it is difficult to determine how much of it was a moderation failure versus a genuine lack of knowledge caused by the sudden decision by Spotify.