You're #4 seems legally dubious at best. I can't imagine any court in the land upholding the idea that purchasing any education material with an implied promise of results grants the purchaser 'consequential damages'.
An easy smell test for this idea is the "get rich quick in real estate" infomercial.
Quote: "Commercial speech holds a special place in First Amendment analysis. It is not an unprotected category of speech, nor is it afforded the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. In addition, there are sub-categories within commercial speech. Truthful commercial speech is afforded protection while false or deceptive commercial speech is not protected."
Here is another account that makes the same point:
Quote: "In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned Kevin Trudeau from appearing in any infomercial promoting any product except publications, which are protected by the First Amendment, provided he did not misrepresent the content of the publication."
What these rulings mean is that the contents of a book are protected by the First Amendment, but promotional claims about the book are not.
An easy smell test for this idea is the "get rich quick in real estate" infomercial.