Ah, missed this post cos you didn’t make it a reply.
I think there’s lots of maybes in there. I did actually look past the advice page you linked to see the specific rules and the only one that I thought they might be in breach of was the one around product availability. But only if you’re talking about Overbridge as the product in question. And it’s more about whether a product is in limited quantities, but advertised as if its fully available.
It honestly boils down to whether you’re arguing the boxes and Overbridge are the same product. And as I’ve said once or twice, I don’t believe they are - in a legal or colloquial sense.
Others disagree, but the logic is odd to me:
A: Overbridge is a separate product
B: No it isn’t
A: So what’s the problem?
B: We can’t use it because it’s not out yet
A: How can it not be out yet if it isn’t a separate product?
So you get yr Toblerone when you point me to an actual rule which has unambiguously been broken, or caselaw which suggests buying one product on the promise of using it with a future product which is then delayed (by nine whole days at the time of writing!) constitutes misleading / false advertising.
An example might be, say, buying a games console because you want to play the new Zelda game which is advertised for release in February. The release date on Zelda then gets pushed back but the adverts for the console still show pictures of the Zelda game, and state the game is playable on the console. If something like that has ever resulted in a verdict of false advertising then you may well be proven right.