I think we disagree about two main things.
- You think it’s OK, reasonable or even beneficial/necessary for lawyers to throw argument spaghetti at the court without regard for only making good or reasonable arguments. I think it’s irrational, unnecessary, actively making the world worse, and much less effective than its advocates believe (and it can easily be counter productive).
- You don’t seem very concerned with what the arguments imply about reality, specifically about the company making them. Like if they say “no reasonable customer would believe our ingredients are good quality or healthy just because our packaging said ‘finest ingredients’”, they are saying they don’t try to tell the truth on their packaging and don’t respect their customers.