There was no way to know what the rewards table for the Moment of Glory would be ahead of time based on the official calendar of events: [Calendar] Aug 26 - Sep 1, 2019
All that was shown was a picture of the required character, i.e. Calliope, and the challenge, i.e. Heartcoil Deeps. I think it is reasonable to assume that the reward table would be equivalent to the reward table of the normal Heartcoil Deeps, just as all the previous VIP and non-VIP Moment of Glory challenges have been equivalent to their normal challenges.
Remember, VIP-exclusive challenges exist to incentivize subscription to the VIP service. People are paying money in order to access the rewards.
If the Calendar of Events happened to have convinced players to subscribe to VIP in hopes of getting 25 free runs of the Heartcoil Deeps challenges for the Heartcoil Deeps challenge rewards, they would be sorely disappointed at getting access only to the rewards for the Frostsilver Mines challenge.
It wasn’t until I was 3-4 runs into the challenge before I noticed that something was off with the rewards. And I believe I have already demonstrated that I am at least a somewhat observant individual. I imagine some VIP-subscribers missed that the rewards were 3.5 times lower than expected completely.
If you want to dig really deep into what is or what is not misleading advertising, we can just look at the jurisprudence in Ludia’s own jurisdiction of Canada. The Competition Bureau is the federal agency who deals with deceptive marketing practices. They have a helpful digest that elaborate on how advertisers cannot rely on disclaimers and “hiding information in plain sight” to weasel out of allegations of deceptive practices here: https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/03946.html
In particular, I will reproduce the passages from “2.3.2 Second fundamental principle”, which I think are relevant to this discusion:
The potential to mislead consumers increases significantly when a disclaimer is used to restrict, contradict or somehow negate the message to which it relates. If the main body of the advertisement creates a materially false or misleading general impression in itself, before any reference is made to a disclaimer, then fine print may not do much to alter the general impression in a way that ensures that consumers will not be misled.
An easy guide is to examine the disclaimed text alone. What is the plain meaning readers would ascribe to it? Is the fine print being used to protect the advertiser from the consequences of that meaning? If yes, then the fine print is being used to limit or contradict the general impression conveyed by the disclaimed text.
— 1990 Misleading Advertising Bulletin.Footnote12
Advertisers employ the unique characteristics and constraints of a medium to full advantage when designing advertisements to grab attention and succinctly deliver a compelling message. Disclaimers, however, are not usually composed or positioned with the same intent. Even when simply worded, they may not be an effective means of altering the strongly persuasive and attention‑grabbing elements of the representation.
To illustrate this principle, the author of our 1990 feature challenged readers to recall if they noticed any footnotes in the article, whether they bothered to read them, and if so, whether they remembered what the footnotes said.
The likelihood that disclaimer statements will have a significant effect on the general impression conveyed to an average purchaser by a false or misleading advertisement is small. Indeed, it is arguable that the manner of presentation of disclaimers usually ensures the very opposite result.
— 1990 Misleading Advertising Bulletin.Footnote13
The likely impact of disclaimers is further compromised when they are worded in a way that is confusing or difficult to understand, are buried in lines of dense fine print or are otherwise presented in a way that effectively obscures their true meaning.
Finally, advertisements are not contracts, and disclosing the truth in fine print may not immunize advertisers from the consequences of making materially false or misleading representations.
The courts must not approach a written advertisement as if it were a commercial contract by reading it several times, going over every detail to make sure they understand all its subtleties. Reading over the entire text once should be sufficient to assess the general impression conveyed by a written advertisement.”
— Supreme Court of Canada in a case involving the interpretation of advertising under the Quebec Consumer Protection Act.Footnote14