"Under the FTC Act, an act or practice is deceptive if there is a material misrepresentation or omission of information that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances.  A misrepresentation is material if it is likely to affect consumers’ choices or conduct regarding an advertised product or the advertising for the product.

In evaluating whether an ad is deceptive, the FTC considers the net impression the ad conveys to consumers.  Because ads can communicate information through a variety of means – text, images, sounds, etc. – the FTC will look to the overall context of the interaction, not just to elements of the ad in isolation.  Put another way, both what the ad says and the format it uses to convey that information will be relevant.  Any clarifying information necessary to prevent deception must be disclosed clearly and prominently to overcome any misleading impression."

I would suggest that it may be a good idea for Reallusion to send its Marketing Department on a refresher course before Reallusion's advertising practices land it in serious strife. There are numerous examples of where Reallusion advertising has misrepresented, concealed, omitted or misled consumers into buying products that turn out to be substantially different from what was presented in the advertising. The latest example being the Professional Outfits pack.

How can any ethical marketer depict in advertising for a clothes pack, hats (which are fundamental to the profession depiction) then rely on the small print direction for the customer to refer to the inventory list to work out for themselves which items depicted are actually included in the pack. This is not a small oversight, I counted 16 images on the page of hats that are not included in the pack, that equates to nearly 30% of the characters depicted being misrepresented on hats alone. It seems to me that you were relying on the overall size of the inventory to overwhelm the customer into presuming that fundamental items would be included rather than checking everything.

I thought the Professional Outfits pack would be very useful and I bought the additional accessories and motions offer with high expectations. Having started to use it, I now realise it is incomplete and missing many key items depicted in the advertising. The thing I find hard to understand is why such items would be omitted because they are surely not that difficult for Reallusion to create. Why on earth would you want to disappoint your customers on such simple items?
I know I can get a refund, but I really want to be able to use this pack. However, I feel its incomplete for the job intended and that I have been deliberately duped by the advertising. 

As a marketer, I feel Reallusion has breached one of the key fundamentals of advertising by "over promising and under delivering" leaving the customer disappointed, rather than elated that the product turns out to be even better than was depicted. Over the last couple of years I have seen numerous examples of this, where Reallusion's good product innovation has been misrepresented in its advertising and led to disappointment and complaint, when there should have been a celebration of new innovation. So many of the issues in this forum can be traced back to a sense that "this is not what I expect or thought I was buying" and you can't blame the customer for misinterpreting, it is the job of the advertising to raise awareness and excitement, inform, build the relationship, not to mislead or fool the customer by covering up the shortcomings of the offer. Fine print disclaimers and putting the onus on the customer to work out what is included in an offer ultimately says Reallusion (Marketing) don't have the confidence in the product being able to meet the advertising claims, that if people see what it really is, they won't buy it. Do it too often and people become suspicious of all the advertising and become cautious about making a commitment to buy = "Hype until its tripe!"

I'm sure you will want to sweep this under the carpet and file it under "miserable old man complaints", but can we have the complete attire so we know the guy doing the sweeping is not from Marketing or some fat guy in an apron who wants you to think he's a chef!

  

Living in the US and knowing the FTC's actual (in)effectiveness as far as consumer rights go, the following note (in regular print) on the pack's product page would most likely satisfy them:

---