Phillip Nelson argues that regulation of advertising is inefficient because it creates deception. Some oppose this arrangement saying that government regulations should not be limited because advertising and exaggeration deceive the customer and without regulations advertising would become useless. My purpose in this article is to defend Nelson's view on limiting government regulation by demonstrating that this objection can be met. Nelson's view on advertising regulations is that the government would not do an effective job of reducing deception of customers. Nelson explains that “deception requires not only misleading information but also someone to mislead” (156). Deception is often found in advertising, but is mostly used to exaggerate and not be taken as fact. Allowing more government regulations would only create more confusion. Nelson states, “If all advertising were not eliminated, such government roles would be counterproductive” (156). Customers would see the advertiser's credibility increase with increased regulation, causing a greater willingness to believe what is advertised, causing customers in turn to believe that all advertisements were not deceptive. To put it simply, “the more the law protects against fraud, the more people think the law protects against fraud” (156). People will assume everything is true and will no longer question any advertising that may not directly fall under the term false advertising. This would also create a lot of confusion among customers as most would not be aware of the actual regulatory rules. Without knowing what is properly regulated, customers may believe that deceptive advertising is true, thus defeating the purpose of regulating deception. Furthermore, to re...... half of the document ...... other groups of your choice (159). Advertisers regularly choose to center messages on certain demographics or select target markets. Furthermore, Nelson argues that if advertisers choose not to work with a certain product because they believe it is morally wrong, someone else in the market will (159). Nelson concludes that completely releasing regulations would not be efficient, but instead suggests less regulation of advertising. Inefficient advertising policies and creating more deception than alleviating it can be described as Nelson's main point of view. It is said that advertising deceives the customer, that the government should have stricter regulations on exaggerations, and that without regulations advertising would be useless to critics who oppose Nelson's point of view. It is clear that Nelson's point of view on limiting government regulation can be perceived as a plausible solution.