Attorney General Sues Affiliate

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by Rueann42

This makes sense. However, I could be easily duped. There are so many messages and "ideas" and plans, it is hard to know what is real and what is not. I am going to make the assumption that Warrior's offers are "for real" and not just a lot of hype. Does admin here check out the claims? Does anyone?

This forum USED to be basically CLOSED! People PAID to register. THEY, it became just a sort of secret. A couple people broke that trust, and it became PUBLIC! Fraud, OF COURSE, SKYROCKETED!!!!!

There are a number of rules put into the WSO threads, and restrictions were put elsewhere. Further, there is a charge now! WHY? One reason given was to limit fraud. Allen has done as much as he can without having to inspect each product. Have you seen some of them? YIKES! Just ONE product coul take a while.

So the WSO forum SHOULD be RELATIVELY safe. Still, it doesn't guarantee anything. Disclaimer? I haven't sold or, to the best of my knowledge, bought anything from it. I haven't even gone there.

Steve

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by Jay Truman

okay, stupid question...

but if someone is really being seen on those sites (by advertising on them), why can't they use "as seen on", since that would be accurate?

TWO reasons!

1. It IS a lie! The ads are SEPARATE from the show!
2. It implies endorsement by the show, and the inferrence is what is REALLY being challenged.

Why not simply say "as seen on TV"? THAT would then be TRUE!

[davemiz]

this govmnt thing is such BS... people don't read what they're getting.... I run a (14 day trial offer), we have the offer PLASTERED everywhere on the site.... when they're signing up, when theyre paying for it.... at the top, at the bottom, in the email we send them.... the whole thing...

and you'd be absolutely amazed at how many people fail to read ANY of it.

obviosuly these acai berry guys went nuts with things, but i can tell you why they weren't cancelling customers who called to cancel (which is HORRIBLE)

we personally answer every call and talk to our clients... we find out really good info to make our product better, our marketing more in line with our customers, and to refund them (if needed) right on the spot.

why run a shady business? not worth it.

Here's why these problems are happening:

they are paying the NETWORKS on *trial orders*, REGARDLESS if they bill or not, so do the math..... your offer is getting MINIMUM 100 orders a day, you're paying about $40 CPA on it.

you rebill in about 14 days, but still have to pay out 100 orders x $40 per day.... if the card declines, you still pay.... if they want a refund, you still pay.... doesn't matter.

so the affiliate makes out well who sent the traffic, the network does as well.... the merchant can make a TON of moolah, but they've gotta deal with this stuff.

its the whole cpa model for this thats bad.

oh and ads on tv promoting blowflex aren't misleading? like you're going to get a body like the actors on there?

did you know...

1. is a muscle & fitness cover model, and...
2. another is a former miss olympia

how is that not misleading?

[Jay Truman]

Originally Posted by seasoned

TWO reasons!
1. It IS a lie! The ads are SEPARATE from the show!

why do you assume "as seen on" means "from the show"?

I never mentioned anything about the show.

its vague, but how is that not true? If im advertising on CNN, im seen on there. Thus, "As Seen On".. maybe its illegal, but i dont see how its lying...

Originally Posted by seasoned

Why not simply say "as seen on TV"? THAT would then be TRUE!

why are you mentioning TV? if im advertising online, how is saying "as seen on TV" true?

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by Jay Truman

why do you assume "as seen on" means "from the show"?

I never mentioned anything about the show.

its vague, but how is that not true? If im advertising on CNN, im seen on there. Thus, "As Seen On".. maybe its illegal, but i dont see how its lying...



why are you mentioning TV? if im advertising online, how is saying "as seen on TV" true?

I think you know, as does the FTC, what the customer would assume. And saying as seen on TV is more general than as seen on oprah. In this case TV would be true and oprah would be at least misleading. And you aren't advertising "as seen on TV" because you are on the internet, but rather saying you ran ads on TV as well. CNN, TNT, CBS, MTV, etc... are technically different from OPRAH, NBCNEWS, etc... They could be considered networks, though I think I would STILL stay away from CNN, and the like.

Hey, why risk it? Why not REALLY get on there? One girl did something a newscaster found interesting. They had her on ONE SHOW, BRIEFLY, and she TRIED to run a business from it. She is having a LOT of trouble! WHY?!?!?!? HER SERVER KEEPS CRASHING because of the load! And that was a simple little product. They ran a followup to mention it, and crashed her server AGAIN! Meanwhile though, she is BACKLOGGED!

Steve

[JayInOrlando]

Dave you hit the nail on the head here. The problem is the high payout the CPA networks want. If there was a clause that said the payout wasn't valid, unless the person kept on for at least 1 month for the trail, that would fix the problem. But no one would promote it. It's a catch 22.

Jay

Originally Posted by davemiz

this govmnt thing is such BS... people don't read what they're getting.... I run a (14 day trial offer), we have the offer PLASTERED everywhere on the site.... when they're signing up, when theyre paying for it.... at the top, at the bottom, in the email we send them.... the whole thing...

and you'd be absolutely amazed at how many people fail to read ANY of it.

obviosuly these acai berry guys went nuts with things, but i can tell you why they weren't cancelling customers who called to cancel (which is HORRIBLE)

we personally answer every call and talk to our clients... we find out really good info to make our product better, our marketing more in line with our customers, and to refund them (if needed) right on the spot.

why run a shady business? not worth it.

Here's why these problems are happening:

they are paying the NETWORKS on *trial orders*, REGARDLESS if they bill or not, so do the math..... your offer is getting MINIMUM 100 orders a day, you're paying about $40 CPA on it.

you rebill in about 14 days, but still have to pay out 100 orders x $40 per day.... if the card declines, you still pay.... if they want a refund, you still pay.... doesn't matter.

so the affiliate makes out well who sent the traffic, the network does as well.... the merchant can make a TON of moolah, but they've gotta deal with this stuff.

its the whole cpa model for this thats bad.

oh and ads on tv promoting blowflex aren't misleading? like you're going to get a body like the actors on there?

did you know...

1. is a muscle & fitness cover model, and...
2. another is a former miss olympia

how is that not misleading?

[Eric Lorence]

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Not true ... the first two lawsuits are against the suppliers.


Madigan filed two separate lawsuits against three suppliers and their related entities. In the first lawsuit against an acai berry supplement supplier, Madigan sued Advanced Wellness Research, its successor, Netalab, and Nicholas Molina, the former president of Advanced Wellness and an agent of Netalab. Both companies are based in Florida and operate out of a fulfillment center in Wood Dale, Ill. Madigan’s second supplier lawsuit is against Crush LLC and its owner, TMP Nevada, Inc., based in Utah.

In the third complaint filed today, Madigan sued Amirouche & Norton, LLC and Larby Amirouche, an affiliate marketer that uses Internet search engines, pop-up ads, Web sites, and advertising on social networking sites to drive Internet traffic to suppliers’ Web sites. Madigan’s complaint alleges that the marketer misleads consumers through false advertising and false endorsements.

Well, that's good to hear ... maybe it will help.

Until the next "MOJO berry" or "YAYA root" fad ... then the same crap all over again ...

[Don Schenk]

Originally Posted by Rueann42

This makes sense. However, I could be easily duped. There are so many messages and "ideas" and plans, it is hard to know what is real and what is not. I am going to make the assumption that Warrior's offers are "for real" and not just a lot of hype. Does admin here check out the claims? Does anyone?

Hi Rueann,

The thanks button is in the lower right hand portion of any posts.

I'm not an attorney so I can't answer your question about liability. Maybe Brian Kindsvater can jump back in with a comment for you.

I think you will find most warriors here to be straight foward, honest people, but every now and then someone offers a WSO (warrior's special offer) and it turns out to be a scam. This is rare, yet does happen.

No, the admin doesn't check out claims, but when someone turns out to be running a scam they can get banned. It is still a case of buyer beware.

:-Don

[soooted]

Well, most Warriors may be guilty of aggressive internet marketing but look what else the suit alleges:

through aggressive Internet marketing techniques – and then charge customers’ credit cards prematurely, do not always supply the product and make it nearly impossible to cancel.

I'm pretty sure if all you did was aggressive internet marketing then you're not much at risk. But if you start charging customer credit cards prematurely, don't ship the product, and don't let them cancel... well then of course you're breaking the law.

[Sylonious]

Picture Of Rachel Ray Flog Ad on Reuters Homepage -
hxxp://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp67/MarkMitchel/1-big.gif

They mention Rachel Ray in the Ad posted on Reuters and not on the flog site itself. HA HA!
Now it looks like they will have to Sue REUTERS to get that ad taken down.

I guess this is the way they plan on getting around the whole copyright infringement thing.

* Hint - Change to hxxp to http

** - I don't have url/image posting privalleges here.

Anyway, I wonder how this stuff will effect the CPA/trial offer model in general. I'm kind of shying away from promoting CPA offers now.

[.X.]

Opportunity generally falls between
the panicked and the complacent.

X