Jeff Paul and the FTC ruling

[ThomasW]

How does Jeff Paul's Shortcuts to Internet Millions infomercial that talks to his success stories about how they make 10,000 up to 100,000 dollars a week using his system stay on the air? This is the most blatant in your face contradiction/violation of the recent FTC ruling I can imagine - and yet it is on the air every day, multiple times.
-

[Hamida Harland]

I don't think the ruling is being enforced until Dec 1st. It'll be interesting to see how alot of these marketers comply.

[thmgoodw]

Its not a FTC "ruling." It is a FDA regulation that has an effective date of December 1st, 2009.

[Sosu]

I saw this guy on TV this weekend. He makes a million dollars a week! Wow... How does he do it? LOL

[intromaster]

I thought about Jeff Paul too, when I heard about the new FTC ' marketing 'crackdown

That infomercial is so wack! It doesnt even tell you what the product does or how it works.

[Josh Anderson]

He's already being sued by the FTC and is included in this suit:

Federal Trade Commission v. John Beck Amazing Profits, LLC, a California limited liability company, et al

He was in violation well before the new rules came out.

[intromaster]

Thanks for the link, Josh.

checking it out now!

[InternetMarketingIQ]

"Its not a FTC "ruling." It is a FDA regulation that has an effective date of December 1st, 2009. "

Food and Drug Administration?

[thmgoodw]

Originally Posted by InternetMarketingIQ

"Its not a FTC "ruling." It is a FDA regulation that has an effective date of December 1st, 2009. "

Food and Drug Administration?

Sorry, typed too fast (and I deal with the FDA regularly). My point was making a distinction between a ruling and regulation.

[Black Hat Cat]

Originally Posted by Josh Anderson

He's already being sued by the FTC and is included in this suit:

Federal Trade Commission v. John Beck Amazing Profits, LLC, a California limited liability company, et al

He was in violation well before the new rules came out.

He is alleged to be in violation:

NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of complaints when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. A complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law.

[darrin_cooper]

He is already being sued. In addition, it is also up to the PEOPLE which is the main premise of the overall regulation where mass people will have to state these facts & share them with the FTC.

You need to report Jeff Pauls infomercials as well as websites. Then you will rapidly see changes in especially their commercials.

[Killer Joe]

If you are paying attention to some of the ads on TV now you will start to see some of the disclaimers that are being added to get the advertisers in line with the FTC guidelines.

This is just starting, and the difference is quite noticable.

One of the things you could bet money on is that these high profile media companies are going to be in full compliance with the new guidelines and have spent considerable sums of money to make sure the get it right.

This will be good for us as we will be able to see how some of the big players are implimenting the new changes regarding testimonials.

Keep your eyes open and pay attention. You can learn a lot if you do.

KJ

[Josh Anderson]

Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat

He is alleged to be in violation:

NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of complaints when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. A complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law.

You are right... according to them the violation was alleged...

But my statement was not about their opinion but rather my own.

I drew my conclusion when I saw one of his ads on TV which contained a fabricated testimonial, with an earnings claim falsely implied to be due to the Jeff Paul package being sold.

I immediately recognized both the earnings claim and the individual making it, who did not even reveal his full identity or use his full name in the testimonial... the reason was because the same individual had made the same earnings claim years earlier and attributed it to something completely different... and this is a widely known and highly successful multi millionaire internet marketer who was giving the fabricated endorsement.

It was falsely attributed, deceptive, and atypical earnings claims illustrated at their best.

[Charann Miller]

Right now all I see is "Results Not Typical" on all the infomercials here, must be nerve racking for them to quickly change all of their media to be FTC compliant under the new ruling especially since they usually book their ads in blocks and usually months in advance.

Dec 1st will be very interesting indeed.

[Killer Joe]

Originally Posted by Charann Miller

Right now all I see is "Results Not Typical" on all the infomercials here, must be nerve racking for them to quickly change all of their media to be FTC compliant under the new ruling especially since they usually book their ads in blocks and usually months in advance.

Dec 1st will be very interesting indeed.

Reserving airtime and airing the infomercial are two completely different actions.

The production companies that write and film these must be thanking their lucky stars that the vast majority of what is showing now will need to be amended or replaced.

Go times for that end of the business.

KJ

[jimmorris]

Not surprised that Jeff Paul is on the list, but here's my thing and a perspective most never see.

I was heavily involved in the litigation where the firm I worked for represented Nancy Garen (a book writer) whose intellectual property was ripped off by Steven Feder, the guy behind the infamous Miss Cleo network with the paid black Hollywood actress with the fake Jamaican access.

Article: Miss Cleo's website and psychic phone lines sued for copyright... | AccessMyLibrary - Promoting library advocacy

"In a lawsuit filed jointly last week by the law firms of R. Sebastian Gibson in Palm Springs and Keats McFarland & Wilson, LLP, in Beverly Hills on behalf of Plaintiff Nancy Garen, defendants Steven L. Feder and numerous corporations and individuals in Florida, New York and Nebraska were sued for copyright infringement for damages in excess of $250 million."

By the time the firm was litigating the case, the Attorney Generals in 5 different states had seized offices.

But see, the problem is by the time these guys get to the point where they're rolling in the bookoo neck deep, they are shoveling the funds just as fast offshore, through other corporations, buried in clearing house companies and enough estate lawyers are hired for the crooks to have just enough money to survive, while all of it floats somewhere waiting for them to get through the storm so they can go claim it.

It's sickening because by the time the action comes down, much like the litigation I oversaw above, the money is gone, the offices are abandoned.

Either way, I did a two hour long discussion about this and had some interesting ideas come up. Should you wish to listen to it, you may right here...

Round Table Discussion with Jim Morris of NicheBOT.com Scott Paton of ExtremeCopy.com and Andrew Han

[archiebunk]

He won't be there long. Everybody is going after him. The Atty. Gen., FCC, BBB, Postal service and the credit card companies. If you got scamed out of your money, contact these agencies and you have a good chance of getting your money back. File a complaint with one or all. It can be done over the net.

[actionplanbiz]

Almost Everyone with an infomercial got sued..

has anyone tried it?

Heres a ripoff report

Ripoff Report: Jeff Paul Systems - Instant Profits Organization ripoff scam, false TV advertising, VERY costly, false business opportunity that can damage your own credit history Bartlett Illinois *EDitor's Suggestions on how to get your money back i

[James_Harkin]

It is going to be difficult, because a lot of people who buy info-products like hyped up sales letters. Therefore you will not be able to state specifics but can I am assuming you can say "You can make '000s from this topic" or "My friend's wife made Thousands since she started on the route to prosperity" and in testimonials "I am happy with the product it generated me a few hundred in my first weeks" ... vagueness seems to be ok ... since you are not specifying a result ... '000s, Thousands, Hundred .... it doesnt specify a number or timelimit and doesnt specify if it is a dollar amount or an amount of frog skins.

"You can be a .com millionaire by pressing a few little buttons" ... should be ok ... because anyone can become a .com millionaire ... it doesnt give a specific amount of revenue in a specific timeframe.

What do you think?

Regards

James

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat

A complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law.

Don't worry, he's violated it. Every US citizen has violated a federal law and does so an average of 3 times a day due to our vaguely written and conflicting laws. It's just a matter of who the government chooses to persecute for it.

[davemiz]

i don't condone any of the 'monkey business'.... but here;s a question for you...

whats the difference between jeff paul and these 'bogus' testimonials and say....

blowflex using paid fitness models so you THINK using it, you'll get that type of physique?

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by thmgoodw

Sorry, typed too fast (and I deal with the FDA regularly). My point was making a distinction between a ruling and regulation.

Well, rulings, if not EXPLICITLY mentioned already, DO often lead to regulations!

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

Don't worry, he's violated it. Every US citizen has violated a federal law and does so an average of 3 times a day due to our vaguely written and conflicting laws. It's just a matter of who the government chooses to persecute for it.

Most DON'T conflict! And there is a DIFFERENCE between parking several inches too far from the curb, and FRAUD!

[Josh Anderson]

Originally Posted by davemiz

i don't condone any of the 'monkey business'.... but here;s a question for you...

whats the difference between jeff paul and these 'bogus' testimonials and say....

blowflex using paid fitness models so you THINK using it, you'll get that type of physique?

Flat abs and tight buns.

[jimmorris]

Originally Posted by davemiz

i don't condone any of the 'monkey business'.... but here;s a question for you...

whats the difference between jeff paul and these 'bogus' testimonials and say....

blowflex using paid fitness models so you THINK using it, you'll get that type of physique?

That's definitely bordering on it - no doubt, but I don't believe those paid actors are sitting there reporting that they burned 25 inches off their right arm, and 60 inches off their gut either.

I've watched the Jeff Paul commercial in amazement that ANYONE would even buy into it with the lambos and the fake made-up woman. But the thing is, these people get up and boldly claim "I make $50,000 every week when I used to make only $20,000 a year!"

I mean, it's one thing with actors sitting there in a commercial with money and women and cars that it implies the person is making good money or made money from whatever program being pitched.

But if the actor/actress doesn't directly SAY direct results which may impact a consumer's decision, well then, I would say it's not as egregious.

Your example, Dave, is just like what many advertisers use to connect sexual innuendo (or content) with their product. They know it works because it seductively plays on people's desires by using the hottest models or the tightest bodies for the infomercial.

Whether whose right or whose wrong, the FTC is going to be more than busy enough enforcing the Jeff Paul's of the world, while others will stand as low priority (or barely noticeable).

[TheAtHomeCouple]

lol - Jeff Paul is a nobody.

He is in direct violation of the awesomeness clause laid out in the "101 ways not to suck at making money online" bill that was passed when IM was conceived.

[Mr. Goof Off]

Is Peter Popoff on the list? That is the most outrageous infomercial I have ever seen in all my years of living. I know he was exposed some 20 years ago,but, it baffles me how he is able to stay on tv since his comeback!

[jbr]

Originally Posted by Josh Anderson

He's already being sued by the FTC and is included in this suit:

will being sued stop him?

Kevin Trudeau has been sued plenty of times and I still see him around.