That said, now that we've discovered something inaccurate, as long as that information gets back to them, what matters is what they do with the new information. If, after having been informed of what's correct, they continue to say what they had been saying, then we have a real problem. Otherwise, I don't think we have enough information to say anything.
Really, my problem with your statement was calling what they did the "next worst thing". I think that's a bit extreme for what was said, given the little we know about the situation.
That's a somewhat different topic, but it's relevant. Not all scientists can be relied on to deliver accurate claims. Case in point:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/10/report-dut...
All Stapel's papers were published in refereed journals. It will be years, possibly decades, before Stapel's many retracted papers are no longer referenced in the scientific work of other psychologists.
My point? Advertising copy must be vetted by knowledge, not appeals to authority. It only took me 15 seconds to find a source that falsified the claim about mosquitoes, and it's not my field. It can't hurt that I knew it was false at the outset.
The problem with claims about mosquitoes and light is that there are a lot of dishonest vendors who lie about this, and a copy writer with insufficient training will almost certainly repeat the lies of others. I think that's what happened in this case.
You're comparing ordinary conversation with advertising copy. They aren't comparable. Advertising copy must meet a higher standard -- misrepresentations are sometimes severely punished, and such statements always hurt the company's reputation.
A different standard is at work, and it should be.
