依據本文之論證，1.公平法第二十一條之「虛偽不實」與「引人錯誤」，並沒有區別之必要，而應以公平法第二十四條之「欺罔」為其共同之上位概念。詳言之，「欺罔」、「虛偽不實」及「引人錯誤」三者應該是可以交互替代的。 2.不論欺罔、虛偽不實或引人錯誤均欲防範行為相對人有受到誤導之虞，亦即標示或廣告未能符合行為相對人主觀認知上之期待，至於該標示或廣告在客觀上是否絕對的正確，並非重點。故公平會「處理不實或引人錯誤之表示或表徵原則」七之 (三) (:「表示或表徵具有多重解釋峙，其中一義為其者，即無不實。惟其引人錯誤之意圖明頭者，不在此限。」) 見解之妥通性，即不無商榷之餘地。具體言之，若一「多義表示」被其相對人中相當數量之人所理解之某項意義，並不符合實際之情況，可能構成「引人錯誤」，縱使為表示之人並未意識到此種多義性，亦不得不允許他人對其主張該項表示中一種對其不利但卻是可合理理解的解釋。 3.見證廣告以客觀第三人對系爭產品主克服務之真實經驗為訴求，並非訴諸感性或形象的廣告，所以會被消費者重視，因此必須就其「具實經驗」所陳述之資訊與事實的真實性負責。 4.標示或廣告之內容的具實性可以證明者，例如其主張之市場占有率、銷售量、商品之特性、功能、數據或特殊成分等，應由從事該標示式廣告之事業為其內容之真實性 (當然強調感覺與形象之廣告並無具偽可言) 負舉證責任。至於系爭廣告是否有誤導相當數量行為相對人之虞，則應由公平會負舉證之責。 5更正廣告可使受誤導之虞的相對人修正其認知與決定，甚至修改其與廣告主之契約關係，較單純課處罰鍰卻容忍相對人繼續受誤導，更具積極意義與防止虛偽不實與引人錯誤之標示或廣告的效果，公平會實應多加利用。

This paper comes with the following conclusions: The terms "false" and "misleading" used in Art. 21 of the Fair Trade Law should be equivalent to and interchangeable with the term "deception" used in Art. 24 of the Fair Trade Law. It is needless to distinguish between "false" and "misleading". What is to be prevented by suing those terms is the disappointment of one's subjective expectation with objective reality. Advertising using endorsement and testimonials and appealing to exact experience instead of emotion must be truthful. In the case of litigations, the truthfulness of an ad which can be verified must be proven by the person who made this ad. However, the likelihood of misleading a substantial number of people, is to be proven by the Fair Trade Commission. The so-called correction ad helps the misled to correct his misconception and decision-making, and even to modify his contractual relationship with the person who made this ad, is therefore more meaningful in preventing misleading advertising and should be demanded by the Fair Trade Commission more often when deception is determined.