You use an example from advertising but also refer to Wittgenstein, which suggests you are interested in a philosophical dimension. That dimension is what I'll address. Luis Henrique is right : it is not our (knowingly) misusing language that causes philosophical puzzles and false ideas. Rather, 'language itself misleads us'. Wittgenstein is very clear on this : 'Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language', 'Philosophical Invesigations', 1953, I, §109.
Plato in the 'Phaedrus' mocks the written word as, separated from the living mind, incapable of reproducing thought clearly and with certainty (274c).
Plato aside, at least since the time of Aristotle, philosophers have been aware of and have tried to guard against the specious and deceptive use of words. In 'Sophistical Refutations' (De Sophisticis Elenchis) Aristotle identifies six kinds of skids of language that produce false arguments or slippery claims.
More recently - 'recently' at least in terms of the history of philosophy' - Francis Bacon (1561-1626) identified certain, actually four, idols of the mind (idola intellectus) among which which were the idols of the marketplace ('idola fori'). These derived from the deceptive use of language. Confused and ill-defined terms, for example, generate endless empty controversies.
Hobbes in 'Leviathan' (1651) hankered for 'perspicuous words' to keep us firmly away from the 'absurdity' of our speech ('Leviathan, ch. 5). Later Locke had two chapters in the 'Essay concerning Human Understanding' (1690) which focus on the unreliability of language : III.9 'Of the imperfection of words' and III.10 'Of the abuse of words'.
Mention should also be made of Leibniz's (1646-1716) project or dream of a 'characteristica universalis' or universal language : a flawless system of deductive theories formalising our knowledge of the world and framed in terms a perfect language - of which we were sorely in need. (A language in which it would be impossible to go wrong.)
In another jump across the centuries we can cite the work of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). Derrida notably holds that we can never in spoken or written language have any present stable or decidable meaning. (A claim that applies to itself ?) Note, however, that this is not a claim that language is misused, only that it has inherent limitations insufficiently recognised in the past.
Many other examples could be cited but you probably have a sense now of how much and for how long the pitfalls of language have vexed philosophers.