https://blogs.ubc.ca/ryantaggart/2013/09/23/microsofts-anti-iphone-ads-backfire/

Clearly, there is a recognizable difference between the approach of Microsoft and Samsung in terms of criticizing the iPhone. Technically, advertisements that attack a specific product/service is legal, but a firm must be very cautious of not allowing their ads to be associated with slander or libel. The U.S. law states that ” Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation.” In addition to this, “advertisements must be crafted very carefully to avoid accusations of slander of libel, which means they should only present facts which are on public record. However, attack ads are not required to provide a fair or balanced portrayal of those fact.”. Essentially, an ethical advertisement must respect three moral principles, which are respect to “truthfulness”, “social responsibilities”, and the “dignity of each human person”.

Based on these grounds, I don’t believe Microsoft has done anything immoral in terms of falsifying facts to deceive the public about the product, but rather, insert a different perspective towards the iPhone in a dull and negative manner. They’ve highlighted specific features in a negative light such as the “colors” used, “plastic”, “cheap”, etc. The unfavorable public reception may be caused by the unhumorous acting and uninteresting criticisms raised by Microsoft, instead of “slander” or “libel” that may be treated as unethical. Just a poor attack by Microsoft that’s all.

Sources:

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-attack-ads.htm

http://www.carroll.edu/msmillie../busethics/ethadvertising.htm