For grins and giggles, in a false advertising claim the plaintiff must prove that the message or ad claims (actual words used as well as supporting visuals to the message) are "literally false" or "literally true but misleading" to the target audience. One or the other with different burdens of proof and remedy. I say "for grins" because I don't ever see a competitor or customer being materially affected by the ad, enough to cause them to bring suit. But it is helpful to better understand what you claims you can make or the risks with making them. What is the claim? "With DirecTV you can start watching in one room, pause, and continue watching in any room". This is accompanied by visuals of a person hitting a single button on their remote and the robots in the ad pausing in mid-air (not stopping and disappering). My layman conclusion is that it is "literally false". It is supposed to be a literal, at face value, interpretation. Does it bother me? Not in the least. But as someone who has at one point had to review and approve every advertisement made by my company and consider claims made within them it is an area I've had to pay attention to.