Attorney General Sues Affiliate

[kindsvater]

Lots of news today about the Oprah lawsuit in New York against dozens of Internet marketers, but don't forget to pay attention to the Illinois lawsuits filed yesterday.

In one, the Illinois Attorney General has specially targeted an affiliate marketer who allegedly used false claims and endorsements to promote a weight loss product - probably a fake blog.

A press release from the AG is here: Illinois Attorney General - MADIGAN FILES LAWSUITS AGAINST ACAI BERRY COMPANIES

"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. [the Attorney General's] complaint alleges that the marketer misleads consumers through false advertising and false endorsements."

There are many marketers, including Warriors, at risk for such a legal action.

Not just fake endorsements.

There is a 'g.u.r.u.' whose very popular ClickBank product promoting how to make big money as an affiliate says to use fake claims that a product has been seen on USA Today, NY Times, CNN, AOL, eg. That sort of fraud is a big no-no.

[Barry Unruh]

Of course, if you do get sued and make the news....all those claims of being on USA Today, NY Times, CNN, etc.. are suddenly true.

OUCH!

I'd prefer to build a sustainable business. One I can tell Mom about.

[Peter Adamson]

Lies run sprints, but truth runs marathons. The truth seems to catch up sooner or later...

[George Wright]

Hi Bryan,

Thanks for the heads up. Yea, I just saw the story about Opra and Dr. Oz. However I did not see anything on the other story. You would think the Big guys would know better than to make up false claims. "As seen on..." can be so easily disproved... Are they living on another planet or??

George Wright

[Michael Mayo]

Brian, Thanks for the info.

It's funny that your last statement included this

There is a 'g.u.r.u.' whose very popular ClickBank product promoting how to make big money as an affiliate says to use fake claims that a product has been seen on USA Today, NY Times, CNN, AOL, eg. That sort of fraud is a big no-no.

As I just came across that product yesterday and said to myself,
"This person is in for a lot of trouble"

I just couldn't believe that someone would stick their neck out like that to
make money. Not very Smart IMO.

Have a Great Day!
Michael

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by George Wright

Hi Bryan,

Thanks for the heads up. Yea, I just saw the story about Opra and Dr. Oz. However I did not see anything on the other story. You would think the Big guys would know better than to make up false claims. "As seen on..." can be so easily disproved... Are they living on another planet or??

George Wright

No, they are trying to get those that blindly follow and don't read. It is SICK how many advertise in these types of scams.

[BIG Mike]

The real shame of it is that there is so much money to be made by simply being honest and running a legitimate online business...it makes no sense to set yourself up for inevitable failure.

[rosetrees]

Soon after I jointed the WF I posted a thread asking if the false claims made on sites were legal. I was shot down in flames by several warriors and the thread was deleted.

Interesting changes of opinion now.

[Rezbi]

Originally Posted by rosetrees

Soon after I jointed the WF I posted a thread asking if the false claims made on sites were legal. I was shot down in flames by several warriors and the thread was deleted.

Interesting changes of opinion now.

Rose, I've seen that several times and not just on WF.

People in business who use dishonest methods don't want to be shown anything which goes against what they want to do.

[Jason Moffatt]

Originally Posted by BIG Mike

The real shame of it is that there is so much money to be made by simply being honest and running a legitimate online business...it makes no sense to set yourself up for inevitable failure.

I'd say the real shame is that the offenders will still probably profit wildly since the amount of their fines/penalties will probably be much less then they've already pocketed.

[JayXtreme]

Originally Posted by rosetrees

Soon after I jointed the WF I posted a thread asking if the false claims made on sites were legal. I was shot down in flames by several warriors and the thread was deleted.

Interesting changes of opinion now.

:: Pass the Kool-Aid :: ?? wtf?

I very much doubt any of the Warriors who have contributed in this thread were ones who "shot you down" with regards to this topic...

So to imply that some of them have now "changed their opinion" in any sort of interesting way is ludicrous to say the least.

[kindsvater]

Originally Posted by Jason Moffatt

I'd say the real shame is that the offenders will still probably profit wildly since the amount of their fines/penalties will probably be much less then they've already pocketed.

Possible, but doubtful. Fines and penalties are usually on top of restitution.

How it works is the marketers have to account for everything they've earned. That will be easy as sales records are available from the merchant, the CPA network, and their bank deposits.

All of that money will likely be paid over to the government to be reimbursed to consumers. If a consumer cannot be located the money is not returned to the affiliate. Instead, the AG will pocket it. (A little known secret is that government agencies can collect huge amounts of money from cases like this.)

Of course, this is assuming the affiliate marketer has any cash left after living the high life.

Additional problems for the marketer are the possibility the government will seek to freeze their bank accounts. This really puts the squeeze on, especially when the marketer is looking for an attorney to defend them.

Not only is there restitution to consumers, but sometimes the govt seeks 'restitution' of its expenses. It can get ugly.

Instead of profiting wildly, I'm guessing this is a complete disaster for the marketers. Some will lick their wounds then eventually come back to IM. Others will be permanently done.

[BIG Mike]

Originally Posted by Jason Moffatt

I'd say the real shame is that the offenders will still probably profit wildly since the amount of their fines/penalties will probably be much less then they've already pocketed.

Unless they've got to spend some time with Bubba

[Catalyst eMarketing]

Wow that's a lot of fines and penalties. Hope lots of Acai, rebill and flog type affiliates read this and get wise.

[LIndaB]

I'm surprised they are just going after affiliates. There are lots of CPA network offers that have Oprah, USA Today, etc., etc., plastered all over their landing pages in misleading ways. Probably most of the Acai offers. So if the government really wants to stop this, why wouldn't they go after the source?

[Nigel Greaves]

Hmmm, sounds like I should re-think my "Attorney General Madigan recommended my snake oil ebook live on Oprah" blog.

[Michael Mayo]

Originally Posted by BIG Mike

Unless they've got to spend some time with Bubba

I actually met a guy named Bubba a few days ago and he was Huge.
6'7" 285lbs. and I asked him from a distance who let him outta jail...lol

His reply was he hadn't been in jail for a few years now!

I said, "Well it was good to meet you Bubba" and headed at an accelerated
pace in the opposite direction mean while keeping an eye on him using
the reflection on my watch as if I was checking the time...

Ooops, Sorry about that Brian.

Have a Great Day!
Michael
PS, True Story

[sevenish]

What about going after the advertisers?

25. Defendants were aware that these websites failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose to consumers that they were enrolling in the a (sic) subscription program if they failed to cancel their order withing 14 days of placing said order.

26. Defendants were aware that consumers' credit or debit cards would be charged for each sequentially delivered product, without the consumers' consent.

The above essentially states that the advertisers' landing pages were misleading. If the defendants are liable for having "known" that the LPs were misleading, why aren't the advertisers liable for doing the misleading in the first place?

[kindsvater]

Originally Posted by sevenish

What about going after the advertisers?

There are multiple lawsuits. The complaints against the advertiser/sellers are a given. Complaints also targeting affiliates is something new this year, which I've mentioned before. That is what makes this more important for Warriors.

[Dave Ward]

Originally Posted by BIG Mike

The real shame of it is that there is so much money to be made by simply being honest and running a legitimate online business...it makes no sense to set yourself up for inevitable failure.

So true Mike, so true, but sadly it's always been this way.

[kindsvater]

I have no doubt the "flog" was the tipping point for the complaint, but if you do affiliate marketing, consider what else the affiliate is being sued for:

- The affiliate is being sued for having a misleading ad on their website. The banner showed Oprah Winfrey and claimed she had a secret diet. From the various lawsuits, it appears the banner ad was created by the merchant, provided to a CPA network, and used by the affiliate.

Bottom line: affiliate sued for using a banner ad created by the merchant.

- The affiliate is being sued because he linked to the merchant's website and the merchant's website did not properly disclose all important terms and conditions - such as enrollment in a continuity program that had to be cancelled within 14 days after purchase.

Bottom line: affiliate sued for sending consumers to a merchant engaged in illegal activity.

In other words, as an affiliate you need to pay attention to what the merchant is doing. If you know the merchant is engaging in fraud or ripping people off, it's not necessarily buyer beware - you'll send traffic to get commissions anyway.

The next step, of course, will be the affiliate sued for recklessly or negligently sending consumers to a bad merchant.

For example - all those ridiculous emails some IMers continually send that pump the latest ClickBank product and how it can make you money - and the sender knows nothing about the program except that it pays a good commission. Just received one the other day from a respected Warrior pumping what turned out to be a pyramid scheme.

As an affiliate, you need to pay attention to your promotional statements, your terms and conditions, and what the merchant is doing on their website.

[rosetrees]

Originally Posted by JayXtreme

:: Pass the Kool-Aid :: ?? wtf?

I very much doubt any of the Warriors who have contributed in this thread were ones who "shot you down" with regards to this topic...

So to imply that some of them have now "changed their opinion" in any sort of interesting way is ludicrous to say the least.

I most certainly didn't intend to imply that anyone in the thread has changed their opinion. I was trying to make the point that I don't see anyone piling in and saying how terrible it is that lawsuits are being brought against people. Yet when I made the point, as a newbie, I was told things along the lines of - the internet is a free place, its global, there are no laws against it, etc etc.

I was just saying it's interesting that people support the "law" but weren't prepared to support the "idea" of truth!

As the thread was deleted, I can't quote from it.

That quote, coming from someone who signs his posts "peace" is just the sort of bashing that, sadly, is prevalent in this forum sometimes.

[Eric Lorence]

I agree with Jason, though the "affiliates" may be in trouble - there is little mention of the people actually behind these products.

It seems a lot of little guys will get "burned" while the deep pockets behind these products will just go on to enlist more affiliates.

While his makes for attention grabbing headlines ... I don't see any real "winds of change" coming.

[Cash37]

I guarantee that affiliate's campaigns made more than enough to cover the lawsuit. Cost of business.

[Cash37]

Originally Posted by Jason Moffatt

I'd say the real shame is that the offenders will still probably profit wildly since the amount of their fines/penalties will probably be much less then they've already pocketed.

This is what I'm thinking.

[camforbes]

Saw this on Good Morning America this morning while I was having my coffee and before padding down the hall to my office. Thought it was interesting - especially seeing Dr. Oz so pissed off!

But yeah, I commented on the whole flog thing awhile back and kinda knew at some point it would come to this. Surprised it took so long though!

-Cam

[sbucciarel]

Originally Posted by Eric Lorence

I agree with Jason, though the "affiliates" may be in trouble - there is little mention of the people actually behind these products.

It seems a lot of little guys will get "burned" while the deep pockets behind these products will just go on to enlist more affiliates.

While his makes for attention grabbing headlines ... I don't see any real "winds of change" coming.

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.

[Luke Graham]

Not really surprising...

"Illinois Attorney General - MADIGAN FILES LAWSUITS AGAINST ACAI BERRY COMPANIES"

Acai berries.... 'nuff said. The fact these are pushed so hard and yet there is STILL no supporting medical evidence about the claims is a joke; I blog about this frequently, and the amount of comment spam for AB's are a joke.

Frankly, i'm glad and I hope the AG wins. If you going to promote something, at least research it first, dont just jump on the bandwagon.

wow - im grumpy today

[Andyhenry]

Originally Posted by kindsvater

There is a 'g.u.r.u.' whose very popular ClickBank product promoting how to make big money as an affiliate says to use fake claims that a product has been seen on USA Today, NY Times, CNN, AOL, eg. That sort of fraud is a big no-no.

WOW! - I would never have believed it. How could someone suggest something like that, let alone advise it in a product?

[NetworxNZ]

What you say is true here Nathan - there must surely lye a level of responsibility with the media providers / carriers in terms of their culpability in terms of providing the access to the false claims.

I think it's interesting that they have terms of trade etc that prevents portraying porn, hate stuff etc (and as I discovered yesterday) some fairly stringent policies around using any terms within the adwords network to do with pharmaceuticals or indeed anything purporting to be a "treatment" and yet won't be held accountable for supporting fraudsters.

But then on the otherside of that discussion however is the fact that who should be responsible for validation of information and it's authenticity on the Internet? It's a dangerous place to go when we give the likes of google right to say who should or should not be able to sell their wares on the 'net. I understand plans are underway already for web 3.0 which is around developing authentication "platforms" to deal with this sort of issue - but even so, I think there are are serious ramifications in this.

Ultimately - The responsibility and integrity of the business transaction must lye with the individual offering the product or service.

[jasonl70]

flogs: I still don't get this. Whether or not a person uses a real blog install, or just makes their site look like a blog, really doesn't mean jack. The problem is with the lies they tell - not the format they display those lies in. Would posting their crap to a real WP install magicaly make them less scammy?

An advertiser in a magazine or newspaper isn't (usually) trying to run a scam with an 'advertorial' - it's just a format that get's read a lot more often.

Sorry - it just bugs me. Particularly when most affiliate sites I come across are equally dishonest (fake reviews, etc) - just because they use a 'real' blog platform doesn't make better.

Originally Posted by kindsvater
There is a 'g.u.r.u.' whose very popular ClickBank product promoting how to make big money as an affiliate says to use fake claims that a product has been seen on USA Today, NY Times, CNN, AOL, eg. That sort of fraud is a big no-no.

Originally Posted by Andyhenry

WOW! - I would never have believed it. How could someone suggest something like that, let alone advise it in a product?

I actually came across this as well. I wish I could remember who it was - but he actually did say to just put those logo's up on your site!
The original people who did this were actually putting logo's up of sites their ads were on (often just via adwords content network) - while not being an endorsement, it could be argued that it was technicaly true. Evidently a lot of others jumped on the bandwagon and just put logo's up w/o realizing this (whether it's actually any less questionable is another issue).

[SMP]

Why they do this when they can achieve such high incomes running legitimate online businesses mystifies me.

It's running the gauntlet, that's for sure. More fool them.

Steve.

[sevenish]

Originally Posted by jasonl70

flogs: I still don't get this. Whether or not a person uses a real blog install, or just makes their site look like a blog, really doesn't mean jack. The problem is with the lies they tell - not the format they display those lies in. Would posting their crap to a real WP install magicaly make them less scammy?

An advertiser in a magazine or newspaper isn't (usually) trying to run a scam with an 'advertorial' - it's just a format that get's read a lot more often.

Sorry - it just bugs me. Particularly when most affiliate sites I come across are equally dishonest (fake reviews, etc) - just because they use a 'real' blog platform doesn't make better.





I actually came across this as well. I wish I could remember who it was - but he actually did say to just put those logo's up on your site!
The original people who did this were actually putting logo's up of sites their ads were on (often just via adwords content network) - while not being an endorsement, it could be argued that it was technicaly true. Evidently a lot of others jumped on the bandwagon and just put logo's up w/o realizing this (whether it's actually any less questionable is another issue).

I'm shocked ... SHOCKED!

[YesIamSam]

I don't get how anyone could be shocked by the fact that there are internet marketers who recommend using logos, even if it's no true????

Look at a majority of all "make money now"-products that are being sold. "How I made a gazillion bucks in 12h"....geez... False income statements, false claims...and they still make thousands and thousands of dollars off of them.

I don't endorse it in any way, but hello? I'd even go as far as saying that a majority of all self-proclaimed gurus are a bunch of liars, who steal and deceive and never actually make any money on anything else than gullible newbies who buy their products, over and over again. Same ****, different package.

[Matt Wahle]

It would be helpful if the name of the product which advocates the (improper) use of major logos could be posted here. I've no desire to promote a product which suggests this, nor do I intend to spend my money buying it. You'd save me (at least) a lot of trouble.

MW

[Sylonious]

Originally Posted by rosetrees

I most certainly didn't intend to imply that anyone in the thread has changed their opinion. I was trying to make the point that I don't see anyone piling in and saying how terrible it is that lawsuits are being brought against people. Yet when I made the point, as a newbie, I was told things along the lines of - the internet is a free place, its global, there are no laws against it, etc etc.

I was just saying it's interesting that people support the "law" but weren't prepared to support the "idea" of truth!

As the thread was deleted, I can't quote from it.

That quote, coming from someone who signs his posts "peace" is just the sort of bashing that, sadly, is prevalent in this forum sometimes.

That's a very subjective argument, IMO. Even "honest" marketers don't tell the whole "truth".

How honest can anyone be when they earn money on products they review? No amount of disclosure makes up for the fact that you get paid as an affiliate for reviewing a product. That alone is a conflict of interest. SMH

And if you follow the FTC requirements you'd basically be required to spell out exactly how much money you make for promoting products.

Example: "I make $10 when you buy glasses through my affiliate link".

Why would anyone buy through your affiliate link if they knew they they could sign-up as an affiliate and pocket the commission themselves?

and don't think you can escape controversy by sticking with adsense

Privacy advocates consider adsense the "real culprit". If they have their way your visitors will have to opt-in via splash screen before they see a single ad on your site.

Originally Posted by jasonl70

If publishers are going to lose much of the value they gain by providing free content in exchange for serving ads, they will go to a “gated” model just like with paid content. With even draconian opt-in regulations, users will simply be required to click a terms of service (”I opt-in to targeting”) before accessing the site’s content. If the user doesn’t want to opt in, then many publishers will send them to a payment form to access the content for a fee. The vast majority of users will simply accept the terms, and opt-in to targeted advertising in exchange for free content.

The FTC is trying to push through this new regulation right now. If they succeed you can say goodbye to at least half (if not all of) your adsense revenue.

My point is that there will always be someone who has a problem with your business tactics no matter how considerate and helpful you are to your visitors. Of course these Acai Berry sites are completely outrageous, but I don't think the Government will make a distinction between an "honest" marketer and these flog sites when they start regulating IM.

Originally Posted by jasonl70

I actually came across this as well. I wish I could remember who it was - but he actually did say to just put those logo's up on your site!
The original people who did this were actually putting logo's up of sites their ads were on (often just via adwords content network) - while not being an endorsement, it could be argued that it was technicaly true. Evidently a lot of others jumped on the bandwagon and just put logo's up w/o realizing this (whether it's actually any less questionable is another issue).

Two words: First word is "Commission" second word begins with "B" and ends with T"

[marciayudkin]

Thanks for the heads up on this lawsuit.

kindsvater, could you say something about what I'd call "indirect endorsements"? What I mean by this is where people don't have any celebrity endorsements of their own, so they post a bona fide quote from Brian Tracy or Oprah or whoever on the general topic of the product. The celebrity really did say that, but not in a connection of praising this particular product. A careful reader would see this, but the quick reader would think there was a celebrity endorsement here of the product for sale.

Is this ever okay?

Thanks,
Marcia Yudkin

[bhopkins]

Well, right now this is just a lawsuit. People can be sued for anything, but that does not mean there is a judgment yet. That's why we have judges to counter act the lawyers.

This will be interesting to watch as it works itself out. Some of the companies are just too aggressive. As marketers just protect yourself and don't mislead. Conversions may not be as much, but they still come. Instead of saying Oprah endorsed this product say Oprah had a show on the effects of Acai Berry. Same connotation for the visitor, but the statement is accurate as Oprah did do a show on this, but not a specific product.

Instead of saying you will lose weight with this say many people believe this product can help you lose weight. This is a matter of opinion and not fact

Don't say free trial say get a trial for x.xx shipping charge.

All these statements are true if you change the wording a bit. People who are getting in trouble are the ones who are trying to state things as fact when they can not back up the facts.

Of course I'm not a lawyer and everything in this post is a matter of my opinion. Opinions are free speech and protected by the Constitution of the United States.

[Paul Schlegel]

Originally Posted by Andyhenry

WOW! - I would never have believed it. How could someone suggest something like that, let alone advise it in a product?

In fact there was a very popular product, done by a well-known marketer that included GENERIC web templates that any product could be plugged into that ALREADY had "As Seen On" built right into the template - including for the HEALTH templates "As Seen On WebMD.com".

[Paul Schlegel]

Originally Posted by Matt Wahle

It would be helpful if the name of the product which advocates the (improper) use of major logos could be posted here. I've no desire to promote a product which suggests this, nor do I intend to spend my money buying it. You'd save me (at least) a lot of trouble.

MW

Why wouldn't you spend your money buying the products you promote - especially if you do reviews on them?

[BIG Mike]

Some of the companies are just too aggressive

For good reason - they're protecting their own interests, especially from something they're not profiting from. With Harpo, inc., they're losing out on significant endorsement fees.

Trust me one this - if your own business ever reaches the size of one like Oprah's, you're going to have lawyers out the wazoo being agressive as hell to protect your brand.

This isn't going to go away - it's going to become more and more common place. A lot of marketers scoff at it now, but this isn't like the early days of IM where marketers were getting away with murder.

In this respect, I'm willing to bet over the next 3 to 5 years you're going to see some amazing cases out there and some heavy regulation regarding IM.

[bhopkins]

I was not really talking about Harpo, etc.. being too aggressive, I actually totally understand someone protecting their image and intellectual property. I was referring to the CPA companies and networks. It is a competitive industry which is probably what breeds the aggressive tactics employed.

A lot of marketers have started to employ the same tactics and basically just lying in their copy. Of course the Gurus have been doing this for years and teaching others to mislead consumers.

I have no doubt that you are right Mike. Things will become much more regulated as time goes along just because of many of these deceptive business tactics. I personally think that is a lot of the problem here.

I really would not be surprised if it comes out that the AG in Illinois was actually duped into ordering one of these products and is why she is so pissed about them. :-)

[Greg Jacobs]

the tipping point was that these rebills were 'impossible' to cancel leading to people to cancel their credit cards to stop the charges, hence the CC merchants lean on the AG.

If they could be canceled, then the 'false' advertising would have been forgiven.

This will most likely lead to a one-click cancel requirement for all rebills much like unsubscribe for opt-in lists. . or even like paypal has. simply login to your dashboard and cancel the subscription. end of story.

you will notice that Clickbank which has many 'dubious' products is still in the Game because they have an unconditional 60 day refund. Selling these types of products and not being quick and easy to refund leads to troubles.

[Rueann42]

Originally Posted by Peter Adamson

Lies run sprints, but truth runs marathons. The truth seems to catch up sooner or later...

If I have a Click Bank product on my web site and someone takes exception to it (or its claims) am I liable?
(P.S. How do I say "Thanks" in the posts?)

[Rueann42]

Originally Posted by bhopkins

I was not really talking about Harpo, etc.. being too aggressive, I actually totally understand someone protecting their image and intellectual property. I was referring to the CPA companies and networks. It is a competitive industry which is probably what breeds the aggressive tactics employed.

A lot of marketers have started to employ the same tactics and basically just lying in their copy. Of course the Gurus have been doing this for years and teaching others to mislead consumers.

I have no doubt that you are right Mike. Things will become much more regulated as time goes along just because of many of these deceptive business tactics. I personally think that is a lot of the problem here.

I really would not be surprised if it comes out that the AG in Illinois was actually duped into ordering one of these products and is why she is so pissed about them. :-)

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?

[Jay Truman]

Originally Posted by kindsvater

There is a 'g.u.r.u.' whose very popular ClickBank product promoting how to make big money as an affiliate says to use fake claims that a product has been seen on USA Today, NY Times, CNN, AOL, eg. That sort of fraud is a big no-no.

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?

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by rosetrees

Soon after I jointed the WF I posted a thread asking if the false claims made on sites were legal. I was shot down in flames by several warriors and the thread was deleted.

Interesting changes of opinion now.

I don't know how true what you said is, but that is the problem with a "democracy", or public moderation. Democracies are OK, and can work, and Dictatorships are great, as long as the majority of people in the group are just, and have their informed opinion counted. Just to avoid jokes, YEAH, I know! A dictatorship is a group of ONE! But HEY, that person WILL have their opinion counted and that person hopefully WOULD be informed. SO, if they were just, it would be great.

In a "democracy", a group of uninformed or biased people can vote and, without any informed votes being counted, get their way. That group may even be one person voting multiple times, since such things may not be verified.

Even in the U.S. government, they try to argue how a conflict of interest can be worked out in the best interest of both parties WITHOUT a conflict. Precedent clearly shows that the goal should be that there is no question. If a conflict of interest is POSSIBLE, the person or group has to abandon one post/position.

Steve

[jesa8406]

I'm glad to see this finally happening

People get scammed online, they'll be too scared to purchase my products later on.

Bad for everyone in the long run

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by NathanFalkner

Here's what I've never understood.

Maybe someone can enlighten me.

Why are the companies that accept
fraudulent advertisements (think along
the lines of Google Adwords) seemingly
never the subject of litigation?

Example: Crooked affiliate drives traffic
via Google to a flog. Google makes a lot
of money. Affiliate makes a lot of money.
Merchant/vendor makes a lot of money.

Result: people get scammed and AG's go
into action to stop the fraud.

When the dust settles, the affiliate has
to disgorge ill-gotten gains, as does the
merchant/vendor. But not Google (etc)?

WTF?!

Someone help me understand, thanks.

P.S. This is also seemingly true in the
late-night infomercial world. When was
the last time a TV station was shut down
or heavily fined for airing fraudulent ads?

The VENDOR broke the law!
If the affiliate misrepresented, THEY broke the law!
Google did not do ANYTHING to break the law. Precedent going back to the 70s could be used to defend that! Although they still may need a good lawyer, they CAN get away with it. That is ESPECIALLY the case since their moderation seems on an even keel.

THAT is where it gets shaky. I believe it was AOL that once lost a case because they had left a message up when history said it would likely have been taken down, and it offended people. Had they moderated ALL, or NONE, they would have won the case!

Steve

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by Matt Wahle

It would be helpful if the name of the product which advocates the (improper) use of major logos could be posted here. I've no desire to promote a product which suggests this, nor do I intend to spend my money buying it. You'd save me (at least) a lot of trouble.

MW

MAN, that is actually ILLEGAL! GRANTED, truth is SUPPOSED to be a good defense, but proving some things may be hard and who wants to be tied up in court, or pay a lawyer?

Steve