It probably is illegal to switch the before and after shots, but how would law enforcement prove it? The model has been payed to keep his or her mouth shut (and won't get any more work, if they complain). And I wouldn't be surprised if the photographers use different cameras (possibly even using older film to shoot the fake "after" shot, so that if they were sued there would be no physical proof from the film, in the event they were they prosecuted. Or worse, the physical evidence would seem to substantiate their claim of the after shot being genuine).
Also, in order to prosecute they have to get proof of damages, and would need people to complain in order for law enforcement to be aware of the problem, and people would have to testify in order to prosecute. The problem is that people who have spent their money on these scams are often too embarassed to complain, and even more embarassed to testify, because they know they "should have known better."
Last edited by kaplods; 08-07-2008 at 12:13 PM.