New Teeth Ltd $($NT$)$ has recently entered the toothpaste market with a paste called "Brilliant". As part of its campaign to launch Brilliant, the following newspaper advertisements are set to appear in newspapers published by Melbourne Press Ltd $($Melbourne$).$ The text of these advertisements is as follows: Introducing the "Rolls Royce" of toothpaste $-$ Brilliant! Tests show that brushing with Australian made Brilliant will fight tooth decay and eradicate gum disease. A recent poll of ordinary Australians elicited these responses about Brilliant: "Brushing with Brilliant is so much better than brushing with other brands"; and "Other brands are history now I have Brilliant". Brilliant is environmentally friendly and you can also save money by brushing with Brilliant. Now isn't that Brilliant? Before going to press, NT and Melbourne wish to know whether any of these advertisements could expose any or all of them to liability under the ACL. Your advice is: