You could, but their lawyers would probably make up some crap about how it does what they implied, not what they actually said. Probably not worth it, and you didn't pay much for the Lysol to begin with. That is, if you bought any Lysol (I'm assuming you did, or you probably couldn't sue them).

I say screw all comman sense and go for it ;]

Yes, I agree. You can sue them, but you probably won't win on such a technicality, and I don't think it woud sit well in your sense of morality.

Define alive.
I would think that viruses are alive, if eukaryotic cells can be considered alive.

I dont think you could get much from lysol if you sued them and the would somehow just change the label.

No one has seen "Osmosis Jones"? ***SPOILER ALERT*** At the end, the virus (which is very much alive) falls into a beaker of alcohol and dies. (In the words of Hank Hill: "Is there anything beer can't do?")

well actually a virus cant "live" without a host cell that it infects and uses to reproduce itself. So maybe lysol uses the word kill as a substitute for destroy.

Dawkins had a good discussion on the definition of life in The Ancestor's Tale

kestas, I pulled out my copy but I can't seem to find it.

S.P.A.O. Why would that be? Prokaryotic cells, which are simpler than Eukaryotic cells are often considered to be the base unit of life because they are the first metabolizers, while viruses lack such metabolism. This is highly significant because most definitions of life agree that life reduces internal entropy by reducing the free energy of it's surroundings, which is essentially metabolism. Viruses, prions, and DNA or RNA alone do not exhibit these traits.

Actually you wouldn't even win on a technicality because Lysol could easily cite the broader definition of life to which many biologists ascribe. This definition is typically based on replication and heritability and the consequent potential for Darwinian evolution, which firmly places viruses in the realm of the living.

Cameron killed the car in Ferris Bueller. The word "kills" doesn't mean it has to be alive by some definition. It is synonmous with destroys.

It might depend on what country and state you were in, as regards to a law suit. Often one of the aspects of a legal case is to show damages. You would have to show how their statement caused financial harm.
For example there are a ton of advertisements on the Web talking about various body enhancements etc., but unless you have purchased the product ((insert laugh track here)) you have no standings to bring a law suit.

Societies create governments to deal with the over issues of things such as this and that is where complaints are often directed in the US to the various agencies to crack down on this sort of thing.

if you want to sue and make money, 2 words:

CLASS ACTION

You'd have trouble proving standing, for one thing.

Also, you'd have to prove they were being intentionally misleading. Ultimately it's rather subjective.

In short, you can't sue Lysol and expect to win by saying viruses aren't alive.

well there goes my summer spending money

Miles, why class action? All that is a collectivisation of legal resources. You need to wronged, and have other people wronged and then you split the costs of suing and then split the settlement.

Ultimately the legal system is designed to compensate you for damages. Even if you were wronged by lysol, in what way were you damaged? Perhaps the cost of buying it?

"Often one of the aspects of a legal case is to show damages. You would have to show how their statement caused financial harm." - Edi

So drink a bottle of Lysol next time you get a nasty flu. Then say you did it because Lysol advertises that it kills 99.9% of viruses. Then produce all of the medical bills you now have as a result of the ER visit. (Or get a relative to do it and add in their funeral costs as well).

Note: this has to be a relative you really, really don't like. But someone close enough where you can claim to have loved them. Then, you can add the hefty cost of "emotional damages"

Oh man dangermouse, that would so not be worth it. Drinking Lysol or bleach would be up there in my most painful things you can realistically do. It's considered the most excruciating way to commit suicide, even more so when you survive, which is quite likely.

@diplomat: Well, that guy wasn't very virus-y. Although it was certainly alive-y.

@xcurly: That was your spending money? You haven't applied for bailout funds?

@dangermouse: That is really, really evil. Enough that they won't think you did it on purpose. Wait, no, they have lawyers too.

@Onar: Now we're getting somewhere.

Sent from: xcurlyxfries (890 ) Sent: Tue 11 AM
well there goes my summer spending money
====================================================
I thought that you were quitting, you piece of shit.

So quit; go away.

whoa, maple and xcurly are not exactly BBF

what do you call it when you make it so that a virus can no longer infect you? 'Kill' is the best word I can think of

How about sterilise? Neuter? I forgot the other term...

@Onar: No you did not. You only forgot all the letters except for "c". Umm, so did I.

"C"?
C is for cookie?
C is also for... erm... I can only think of one other term of the top of my head, and it's rather inappropriate.

To have a cause of action you would need to show:

1.You relied on the information
2. to your detriment
3. and the business knew about the improper labeling

this doesn't take into account defenses they could raise

diplomat, you just invoked a warner brother movie whose plot is a policeman white blood cell, who with the help of a cold pill, stop a deadly virus from destroying the human they live in, Frank.
how are you not 14?


also lysol is very effective. just gotta say.
in labs where they study deadly virus' all the drains lead to a tank where the water is boiled with lysol.