There used to be advertising transparency laws that advertised products had to mention the parent company of a brand.
These days you mostly see it voluntarily done when a company is afraid to sunset an ancient brand with good history but also wants their brand noticed and associated (things like "Columbia Pictures, a Sony Corporation"), but some of those sorts of disclosures in the past were required for certain forms of advertisement (even if just in fine print) and maybe it is time to go back to enforcing that sort of thing.
There is the "Lenovo strategy", where some of the companies do sunset the original brands once licenses become too expensive and they've established their own brand. Lenovo went from "IBM ThinkPad by Lenovo" to "Lenovo ThinkPad" over a relatively few years. I'm still curious if, among others, "GE Appliances, a Haier Company" is a short-term play of this sort with the end goal to drop the "GE Appliances" name and logo in a few years or if Haier is less confident in their own brand and will stick with the mouthful (and GE licenses) long term.
(The other example of Sony would probably be too much for American consumers if they killed Columbia and/or TriStar brands. There's a deep-seated stickiness to the old Hollywood studio brands. Amazon seems to have learned this lesson real quick post-MGM acquisition and backpedaled quite fast on dropping MGM branded stuff for the Amazon Studios brand. They've even backpedaled so hard that they resurrected the Orion brand decades after MGM mostly let it retire. It weirdly blew my mind seeing an Orion Pictures logo on a 2023 trailer for an upcoming film.)
(Though today with tools like Wikipedia more information of that sort is "easily" researchable than ever before. But truth in advertising laws have always said it is better to save the advertising reader/viewer the research work than to trust people will do the research.)