It's very difficult to prove fraud. There are just so many loopholes in the language, like Bill Clinton's argument on the definition of the word "is."
Not trying to prove fraud, that is legally very complex. Bait and switch, far less difficult to prove. Quite simply, collectors believing for 7 months that they had a chance to obtain ebayer and minute mud with their purchases is bait and switch. Showing Rotz which is not part of the collection baited collectors to buy cups to get it. Showing a checklist of 66 titles when there was a 0% chance to get half the titles in target boxes is bait and switch.
"The intention of the bait-and-switch is to encourage purchases of substituted goods, making consumers satisfied with the available stock offered, as an alternative to a disappointment or inconvenience of acquiring no goods (or bait) at all"
We got dupes of the same titles over and over again as opposed to getting the goods advertised to be available. It wasn't bad luck, it was ZERO LUCK there is a huge difference.
At a minimum, it is false advertising! "collect them all", checklist of 66 titles, box that shows Rotz, yet no chance to get them all in the cups being purchased.
"False advertising is described as the crime or misconduct of publishing, transmitting, or otherwise publicly circulating an advertisement containing a false, misleading, or deceptive statement, made intentionally or recklessly to promote the sale of property, goods, or services to the public."