FTC Sues 19 More for Unsubstantiated Income Claims

Adam Roy

14 years ago

How exactly would these people be checking on whether testimonials are real or fake?

Thanks
6 replies

Signature

Finding high value, low competition SEO keywords too difficult? NOT ANYMORE!...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2053983].message }}

Bcrewse1 14 years ago

I would also add that creating multiple forum accounts has nothing whatsoever to do with making unsubstantiated income claims.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
Residential Solar Power Kits
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054001].message }}
- Chris Grable 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Bcrewse1
  
  I would also add that creating multiple forum account has nothing whatsoever to do with making unsubstantiated income claims.
  
  If you say something good (or bad) about a product.... it's a testimonial. If you create a fake forum profile to do it.... it's against the law.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054009].message }}
Bill Farnham 14 years ago

Originally Posted by friend

How exactly would these people be checking on whether testimonials are real or fake?

To CYA you better have the original testimonial from the person who gave it to you. If you can't provide it, or that person can't be found to substantiate it, don't count on them taking your word that it's genuine.

That game is over...

~Bill
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054016].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

14 years ago

Originally Posted by friend

How exactly would these people be checking on whether testimonials are real or fake?

My guess is...

If they ask for proof you have to provide it. If you don't have proof, they'll consider it as fake. You should keep a record of any testimonials you use, including the contact information for the testimonial giver.

Edit: Oops, I see Bill said essentially the same thing. That's what I get for starting a comment and then getting distracted for a few minutes before finishing it.

@ Brian - I don't use income claims, but I appreciate you sounding the warning alarm just the same.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054025].message }}

Bcrewse1

14 years ago

Well, I'm not going to split hairs here but if I say something good or bad about a product that is my own personal opinion...not a testimonial and proving whether or not a forum profile is fake or not is a very slippery slope.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Residential Solar Power Kits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054036].message }}

Tsnyder

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Bcrewse1

Well, I'm not going to split hairs here but if I say something good or bad about a product that is my own personal opinion...not a testimonial and proving whether or not a forum profile is fake or not is a very slippery slope.

Come on... this is easy to understand. You are free to offer all
the opinions you like but when a marketer then takes that opinion
and uses it in a sales letter it becomes a testimonial because the
purpose for using it is to entice a buyer. It's called social proof.

The key is being able to prove the social proof is real.

Tsnyder

Thanks

Signature

If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055562].message }}

psresearch 14 years ago

Originally Posted by friend

How exactly would these people be checking on whether testimonials are real or fake?

It depends on the situation. In the cases where sites were using stolen photos (flogs, etc.) the FTC was sometimes contacted by the people who's photos were stolen.

Sometimes the FTC investigators will also look on Stock Photo sites.

The new twist is the new disclaimer saying "these photos are illustrative only and not the real photos of people". It will be interesting to see how the FTC views that kind of disclaimer.

According to commercial litigation attorney Michael Webster, one of the reasons the FTC implemented the No Safe Harbor is because it makes it easy for them to find cases they can easily win.
- Thanks
Signature
Work At Home Truth - Extra Income Edition | Swindles.org
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054434].message }}

BrianMcLeod

14 years ago

Originally Posted by friend

How exactly would these people be checking on whether testimonials are real or fake?

There's this thing called a subpoena...

It's very compelling.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Brian McLeod

Direct Response Copywriting

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054945].message }}

psresearch

14 years ago

Originally Posted by BrianMcLeod

There's this thing called a subpoena...

It's very compelling.

They may or may not use a subpoena - they don't like to tip off a company before filing charges and if filing charges depends on getting certain information they try to find it through their investigators first.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Work At Home Truth - Extra Income Edition | Swindles.org

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055651].message }}

BrianMcLeod

14 years ago

Originally Posted by markquinn

They may or may not use a subpoena - they don't like to tip off a company before filing charges and if filing charges depends on getting certain information they try to find it through their investigators first.

Of course, this is true...

...but targets aren't the only ones who get subpoenaed during an active investigation - especially a vigorous one.

Bank records, former employees and "victims" can and are all frequently subpoenaed - while bound to secrecy.

Certainly not disagreeing with you, Mark.

Just putting a finer point on my broad brush.

Best,

Brian

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Brian McLeod

Direct Response Copywriting

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055937].message }}

psresearch

14 years ago

Originally Posted by BrianMcLeod

Of course, this is true...

...but targets aren't the only ones who get subpoenaed during an active investigation - especially a vigorous one.

Bank records, former employees and "victims" can and are all frequently subpoenaed - while bound to secrecy.

Certainly not disagreeing with you, Mark.

Just putting a finer point on my broad brush.

Best,

Brian

True - espec thru a norwich order which is probably what you're getting at. I had forgotten about that.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Work At Home Truth - Extra Income Edition | Swindles.org

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056000].message }}

tj 14 years ago

Originally Posted by friend

How exactly would these people be checking on whether testimonials are real or fake?

Doesn't matter how they check it - they are fake.

Timo
- Thanks
Signature
BIG BRAND Copywriting - Sales Letters + Bonuses for Warriors. $97 - Guaranteed! | OFFER NOT CONVERTING ? Need People to take action NOW?
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2057124].message }}

Tim_Carter

14 years ago

Good.

Maybe some of that garbage in the WSO section will go away....

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

New Software Builds Mobile Sites Quickly & Easily. | PLR Version
Free Softare & Videos With Giveaway Rights
My PLR Memberships - Video PLR Monthly | Brown Bag PLR Videos | Software PLR Monthly

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054005].message }}

LetsGoViral 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Tim_Carter

Good.

Maybe some of that garbage in the WSO section will go away....

I doubt they care about WSO's. They probably go after the big guys like "Google Cash Machine" or similar scammy CPA's. Unfortunately there is a very easy way to avoid getting in trouble with FTC. Not being a USA citizen and using fake data for website registration is an example. I predict the scammers will adapt quickly.
- Thanks
- 2 replies
Signature
Time of thinking is over.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054898].message }}
- Mike Anthony 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by LetsGoViral
  
  I doubt they care about WSO's. They probably go after the big guys like "Google Cash Machine" or similar scammy CPA's.
  
  the FTC would not care about one of the top Internet marketing forums on the Internet? Thats a bit of wishful thinking. They may not care about individual sellers but the whole? Now you get a sense of why there has to be a cleanup.
  
  Number 2 in that link is interesting
  
  2) phony work-at-home business opportunities marketed using false and unsubstantiated earnings claim
  
  Thats like a bullseye painted over quite a few WSOs I've seen.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054934].message }}
- Kim Standerline 14 years ago
  
  I wouldn't be too sure that this is a get out clause...
  
  Originally Posted by LetsGoViral
  
  Not being a USA citizen
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  The Easiest Dimesale Script Ever!!
  EasyMemberPro is back with Mama
  How To Write And Profit From Hot Romance (Kindle Product)
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055030].message }}
  
  lina75 14 years ago
  
  Some of the government under-covers are already here watching this forum closely
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055149].message }}
  
  scrofford 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by lina75
  
  Some of the government under-covers are already here watching this forum closely
  
  And you have proof of that too? When the FTC passed all of this stuff a while back, they said that they didn't have the man power to police everyone selling something online. And they don't.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055239].message }}

Floyd Fisher

14 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

Just in case anyone has a WSO or website making bogus or unsubstantiated income claims, the FTC continues to aggressively pursue such issues.

19 more persons and corporations were sued by the FTC last week for advertising, according to the FTC: "phony work-at-home business opportunities marketed using false and unsubstantiated earnings claims."

Again, take note of the fact that incorporating, or using a Nevada corporation, will NOT shield you from liability for your advertising actions.

The FTC is also reviewing testimonials to determine if they are real or fake. That would include creating multiple forum accounts for the purpose of pimping your products.

.

Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a link for this? I'd like to know exactly what is going on here.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054082].message }}

Paul Myers

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher

Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a link for this? I'd like to know exactly what is going on here.

FTC Charges More Defendants and Violations in Matter of Grant Connect, LLC; FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges That Transitions Optical, Inc. Used Anticompetitive Practices to Exclude Rivals

[ 5 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054707].message }}

AP

14 years ago

I think this is great news about Testimonials. I have over 600+ emails from real members and physical addresses in my PayPal account.

Here's what I don't understand. I do Coaching for Offliners. I have some students who are on track to do over $300,000+ year and others who do far less.

How the heck am I supposed to find the "mean" or the "average?"

There's no way I can keep track of that. We all know the 80/20 rule.

What the heck can I say in my WSO about income? I know for a fact if members follow my system they'll make as much money as they like, as I do.

You can make $500,000 or $5 it depends upon the individual.

How can I control that?

Can anyone tell me what I can legally say?

~AP

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

http://www.offlineuniversityblog.com/

Best Offline Thread Ever? http://www.warriorforum.com/main-internet-marketing-discussion-forum/152727-offline-marketers-what-services-you-offering-monthly-fees.html#Zx58MUXaLRT9rdkM

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054754].message }}

butters

14 years ago

Originally Posted by AP

I think this is great news about Testimonials. I have over 600+ emails from real members and physical addresses in my PayPal account.

Here's what I don't understand. I do Coaching for Offliners. I have some students who are on track to do over $300,000+ year and others who do far less.

How the heck am I supposed to find the "mean" or the "average?"

~AP

Why can't you get the mean and the average? If you sat down, put the numbers into an excel and let it do the math for you, it would take you what, half a day? Mean and Average is easy to find out, its just plotting the numbers which is the boring part.

If your thinking about how you actually get the numbers, well ask them or assume the people who don't respond earn 0, even if that isn't the case.

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054774].message }}

AP

14 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Why can't you get the mean and the average? If you sat down, put the numbers into an excel and let it do the math for you, it would take you what, half a day? Mean and Average is easy to find out, its just plotting the numbers which is the boring part.

Testimonials are black and white, I have no problem with that.

I have a big problem with what the "AVERAGE" person will do with my system. Some will make zero because they won't IMPLEMENT and others will make a killing. What's that got to do with my Process?

I don't like the fact that anyone who works my system can make 6 figures a year, but if 80% do nothing with it the average is now $40,000 or $20,000, or $10,000.

Is every plumber the same? What about a doctor? A mortgage broker?

I work with all the above and I can tell you they are all different. I have a surgeon who makes $150,000 month, yet other surgeons make $300,000 year.

Sometimes these laws get waaaaaaaaaaaay out of hand.

~AP

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

http://www.offlineuniversityblog.com/

Best Offline Thread Ever? http://www.warriorforum.com/main-internet-marketing-discussion-forum/152727-offline-marketers-what-services-you-offering-monthly-fees.html#Zx58MUXaLRT9rdkM

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054803].message }}

Len Bailey 14 years ago

Originally Posted by AP

I have a big problem with what the "AVERAGE" person will do with my system. Some will make zero because they won't IMPLEMENT and others will make a killing.

You could always say just that in your copy.
- Thanks
Signature

Len Bailey
Copywriter/Consultant
Feel free to connect on LinkedIn or Twitter
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055259].message }}

MRomeo09

14 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Why can't you get the mean and the average? If you sat down, put the numbers into an excel and let it do the math for you, it would take you what, half a day? Mean and Average is easy to find out, its just plotting the numbers which is the boring part.

If your thinking about how you actually get the numbers, well ask them or assume the people who don't respond earn 0, even if that isn't the case.

Then you'd pretty much have 0 no matter what. I couldn't tell you how much I make to the penny except during tax time. And how would you even have proof? You'd pretty much have to get tax returns from everyone of your students so that you had some "proof". Just not really possible.

Makes it fairly difficult to do business. In my offline business, all of my testimonials are audio testimonials. I'm not even sure those are within the boundaries. I have real audio testimonials, over 300 on my site. But are they typical results? I tend to think so. Would the FTC? Hard to say.

M

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

We do not have to become heroes overnight. Just a step at a time, meeting each thing that comes up ... discovering we have the strength to stare it down. - Eleanor Roosevelt

Your opinion of yourself becomes your reality. If you have all these doubts, then no one will believe in you and everything will go wrong. If you think the opposite, the opposite will happen. Itâ€™s that simple.-Curtis Jackson- 50 Cent

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054805].message }}

butters

14 years ago

Originally Posted by AP

Testimonials are black and white, I have no problem with that.

I have a big problem with what the "AVERAGE" person will do with my system. Some will make zero because they won't IMPLEMENT and others will make a killing. What's that got to do with my Process?

I don't like the fact that anyone who works my system can make 6 figures a year, but if 80% do nothing with it the average is now $40,000 or $20,000, or $10,000.

Is every plumber the same? What about a doctor? A mortgage broker?

I work with all the above and I can tell you they are all different. I have a surgeon who makes $150,000 month, yet other surgeons make $300,000 year.

Sometimes these laws get waaaaaaaaaaaay out of hand.

~AP

Out of hand or not, unfortunately if you want to use it in your marketing legally, you will have to show an average. I am not a lawyer or anything but you might be able to use "these are not typical results" kind of thing but don't take my word on that.

Work out the average, if it comes to like 1k a month say that but you can also tell them about your big successes, unfortunately its the law and to be honest, it makes sense

.

Originally Posted by MRomeo09

Then you'd pretty much have 0 no matter what. I couldn't tell you how much I make to the penny except during tax time. And how would you even have proof? You'd pretty much have to get tax returns from everyone of your students so that you had some "proof". Just not really possible.

Makes it fairly difficult to do business. In my offline business, all of my testimonials are audio testimonials. I'm not even sure those are within the boundaries. I have real audio testimonials, over 300 on my site. But are they typical results? I tend to think so. Would the FTC? Hard to say.

M

I don't like it, I am just saying if you want to use it, you need to add an average or run the risk of getting caught. Unfeasible or not, they needed to do something.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054892].message }}

pappyy3 14 years ago

This is really good news.

In any system that gives people the power to self regulate, con artists, scammers and snake oil salespeople appear out of nowhere to take advantage of this.

Bottom line is, if you make outrageous claims which can't be substantiated, then you deserve to be caught out!

I think the vast majority of members on this forum have nothing to fear.

Those that persist in selling baseless 'dreams' to unsuspecting customers will be weeded out soon enough me thinks
- Thanks
Signature

Tonster
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054841].message }}

Robert Puddy

14 years ago

Originally Posted by AP

I think this is great news about Testimonials. I have over 600+ emails from real members and physical addresses in my PayPal account.

Here's what I don't understand. I do Coaching for Offliners. I have some students who are on track to do over $300,000+ year and others who do far less.

How the heck am I supposed to find the "mean" or the "average?"

There's no way I can keep track of that. We all know the 80/20 rule.

What the heck can I say in my WSO about income? I know for a fact if members follow my system they'll make as much money as they like, as I do.

You can make $500,000 or $5 it depends upon the individual.

How can I control that?

Can anyone tell me what I can legally say?

~AP

you dont have to work out the mean average

the ftc rules are about qualifying how the result was achieved

IE:

I used x system and invested another 2k to get more traffic plus put in an extra 3 hours per day to achieve this result

the usual testimonial says i bought this product and made 100k

What they want is to qualify exactly how the product was implemented to gain the result being highlighted

Thanks

Signature

Testing and tracking is a great way to give yourself a pay raise & itâ€™s easier than ever with hitsconnect

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055196].message }}

Ken Leatherman

14 years ago

Originally Posted by AP

(Edited by Ken to save time)

What the heck can I say in my WSO about income? I know for a fact if members follow my system they'll make as much money as they like, as I do.

You can make $500,000 or $5 it depends upon the individual.

How can I control that?

Can anyone tell me what I can legally say?

~AP

AP, I know you are hoping someone can answer this question for you in this thread, but unless they are a licensed attorney ( preferably one who specializes in IM) take anything said here with a great deal of salt.

In that same line even though an attorney may comment here, there is a good chance they will not consider it as legal advice to you or anyone else. The chances are you will need to hire them for it to become legal advice.

BTW I'm not an attorney and this is my opinion only. Just for your information the original poster of this thread is an attorney and I know several folks here on the forum who use him for Internet marketing legal advice.

Ken Leatherman

Thanks

Signature

Ghost Writing Services Coming Soon

So Check Out My WSO

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055639].message }}

Underground SEO

14 years ago

Thank god for that, time to get rid of the crap in the WSO section. Interesting how you get members berating others for going against sites TOS regarding buying links and then you get those same members posting WSOs with laughable income claims.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054264].message }}

Ernie Lo

14 years ago

Slowly slowly the Internet is going to turn out like real life bloody crap infested government controlled ****hole. Soon the Government will control what we say online too in EVERY aspect. I'm all for punishing scammers but this is going too far. Enjoy it while it lasts people.

[ 6 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054301].message }}

MerlynSanchez

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Ernie Lonardo

Slowly slowly the Internet is going to turn out like real life bloody crap infested government controlled ****hole. Soon the Government will control what we say online too in EVERY aspect. I'm all for punishing scammers but this is going too far. Enjoy it while it lasts people.

Actually, the internet has been the wild west for far too long. When citizens cannot police themselves then the government is sure to step in.

Blame the scammers, liars, thieves, hackers, and everyone else who has ruined it for the people with integrity.

[ 13 ] Thanks
4 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054309].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

14 years ago

Originally Posted by MerlynSanchez

Actually, the internet has been the wild west for far too long. When citizens cannot police themselves then the government is sure to step in.

Blame the scammers, liars, thieves, hackers, and everyone else who has ruined it for the people with integrity.

I wish the world governments would step on hackers and email spammers just as fast and hard.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054339].message }}

TiffanyB 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

I wish the world governments would step on hackers and email spammers just as fast and hard.

The government could make a whole lot more money if they just looked to Hollywood for people not coming out and saying they were compensated to promote a product or service. Celebrities do this all the time and yet I haven't heard one celebrity who has gotten in trouble for it yet. Kim Kardashian is a hug offender when it came to her diet crap she uses. There are a lot of others who do the same thing, so I am wondering why the government doesn't go after them?

Also, I would like to see links to the source of this information as well.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055470].message }}

Ernie Lo

14 years ago

I understand that citizens need to be protected but I just hate the thought of it. Because we all know once the Government get their dirty hands on something they dont stop until the control every damn aspect of it.

Look at society today....theres a rule for everythng and they dont work. They just make people bitter, judgemental and miserable. Most people are sheep and love their governments decisions so I get it, most wont agree with me...I just prefer the goold old days...70s, 80, and the 90s when I grew up for them most part people could do and say what they wanted and not risk being sued for dumb things and thats the great thing about the Internet the freedom.

If people did their research and used a little common sense they probably wouldnt get scammed....but I guess not everyone has the computer "smarts" as we do to access risk.

Originally Posted by MerlynSanchez

Actually, the internet has been the wild west for far too long. When citizens cannot police themselves then the government is sure to step in.

Blame the scammers, liars, thieves, hackers, and everyone else who has ruined it for the people with integrity.

[ 4 ] Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054375].message }}

MerlynSanchez

14 years ago

Believe me, I'm no fan of government intervention. I agree that the "old" days were great and exciting and new (God, that sounds like the theme from the Love Boat!)

But, things have really gotten out of hand and the very worst offenders who are outright lying and cheating need to be taken out of the picture.

Consumers need to do their due diligence but sometimes even smart people get taken by scammers. If it doesn't fly in the "real world" (print ads, T.V., etc.) then it shouldn't fly on the internet.

Originally Posted by Ernie Lonardo

I understand that citizens need to be protected but I just hate the thought of it. Because we all know once the Government get their dirty hands on something they dont stop until the control every damn aspect of it.

Look at society today....theres a rule for everythng and they dont work. They just make people bitter, judgemental and miserable. Most people are sheep and love their governments decisions so I get it, most wont agree with me...I just prefer the goold old days...70s, 80, and the 90s when I grew up for them most part and thats the great thing about the Internet the freedom.

If people did their research and used a little common sense they probably wouldnt get scammed....but I guess not everyone has the computer "smarts" as we do to access risk.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054389].message }}

Eric Graudins 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Ernie Lonardo

If people did their research and used a little common sense they probably wouldnt get scammed.

I don't think that they teach common sense in schools any more.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

The biggest benefit of the internet is that almost everything can be automated.
The biggest curse of the internet is that almost everything can be automated.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054876].message }}
- Ernie Lo 14 years ago
  
  True infact half the subjects they teach are quite pointless indeed.
  
  There should be a mandatory "life" subject where they teach students business/finance and life skills they can use later on in life. The worlds getting harder everything is so expensive, how are these kids going to afford a house without any knowledge.
  
  Originally Posted by Eric Graudins
  
  I don't think that they teach common sense in schools any more.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055146].message }}

discrat

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Ernie Lonardo

I understand that citizens need to be protected but I just hate the thought of it. Because we all know once the Government get their dirty hands on something they dont stop until the control every damn aspect of it.

Look at society today....theres a rule for everythng and they dont work. They just make people bitter, judgemental and miserable. Most people are sheep and love their governments decisions so I get it, most wont agree with me...I just prefer the goold old days...70s, 80, and the 90s when I grew up for them most part people could do and say what they wanted and not risk being sued for dumb things and thats the great thing about the Internet the freedom.

Oh yeah lets just say and do what we want to do. Like have separate water fountains for some people and make others sit on the back of the Bus just because they look different. Uhmmmm..........having Rules is just such a terrible thing !!

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055454].message }}

scrofford

14 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

Oh yeah lets just say and do what we want to do. Like have separate water fountains for some people and make others sit on the back of the Bus just because they look different. Uhmmmm..........having Rules is just such a terrible thing !!

This isn't about having rules. This is about losing control to the government. Big big difference. What you say doesn't make a shred of sense in this thread concerning what the OP was.

Having rules is important. There are rules here in this forum. But the US government doesn't control you in this forum and tell you what you can and can't say.

I think that scammers should get busted, but I don't think that the government...any government should have complete control of the internet or of people.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055482].message }}

Michael Oksa

14 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

Oh yeah lets just say and do what we want to do. Like have separate water fountains for some people and make others sit on the back of the Bus just because they look different. Uhmmmm..........having Rules is just such a terrible thing !!

Let it go.

This has nothing to do with racism.

However, you are totally missing the point that your own words are making...

And that is...

The very things you are referring to WERE FREAKING RULES!!!

Yes, rules. The things you seem to think make everything all better. Hello! It was the RULE that non-whites had to sit at the back of the bus. It was a RULE! It was a RULE that non-whites and whites had separate drinking fountains. A RULE!

It also took a lot of pain and hassle to overturn those very bad rules.

Rules aren't good or bad in and of themselves. They're just rules.

Anyway, get over it and drop your agenda. It doesn't belong here.

All the best,
Michael

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

"Ich bin en fuego!"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055573].message }}

wordwizard 14 years ago

Just wondering...

Does that mean products like Willie Crawford & Co's "20 Ways to Make $100 a Day" (or something like that) can no longer be marketed either?

Or could get me into hot water? What do you think?
- Thanks
Signature

FREE Report: 5 Ways To Grow Your Affiliate Income
Let Me Help You Sell: Sales Letters, Email Series, Pre-Sell Reports... PM me & we'll talk!
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055685].message }}

Nick Brighton

14 years ago

Originally Posted by timmywf

I agree. I think it should be left up to people to make intelligent decisions for themselves.

Therein lies the problem, whether we like it or not...

...the masses cannot make those decisions as easily
and responsibly as you might like to think.

For example, why do we have excessive fines for
people who don't wear their seat belts in a car, or
helmets when on their motorbikes?

The drivers know the consequences, and have seen
the evidence and fates of those who decide not to.

Yet, authorities need to issue monetary fines to people
in order to stop them from killing themselves...despite
logic telling them first.

The truth is, when you start removing government,
society crumbles.

As much as people love to hate the government, I'm sure
they would hate life without out it even more.

In fact, society couldn't possibly exist without one.

Industry couldn't survive. Crimes would prevail. It would
be a free for all, until nobody is left standing...literally.

Originally Posted by scrofford

I think that scammers should get busted, but I don't think that the government...any government should have complete control of the internet or of people.

Who says they are "having complete control" over
the internet or people? That's a mountain out of a
molehill from where I'm standing.

I agree with your sentiment, as I am sure every other
non-megalomaniac in this forum does...

...but to assume the government is out to get you,
the economy stimulating entrepreneur (the same person
who the government wants you to succeed in order to
create employment and stimulate growth, and gives you
grants to do so)

...seems a bit paranoid, and illogical to me.

In regards to the OP, and this thread in general,
the point is that these actions are designed to
protect you, the ethical business person,
along with the consumer.

Remember, when people don't trust the internet, you
get lumped in with that. All they are doing is enforcing
laws which have been around longer than most online
marketers have, in order to ensure that you:

- don't have to compete with outrageous claims

- don't have to spend so much money building trust
with your audience

- don't have to spend more on marketing to overcome
the increasing objections from people, based on the burns
they've suffered from your scamming competitors

I just don't understand how this can be a bad thing.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056668].message }}

TimGross 14 years ago

This thread has gone all over the place. If you actually read the FTC document, they're shutting down full-on scams. Phony claims, fake testimonials, debiting people's bank accounts without permission, recurring billing of unrelated products without permission...

This isn't gray area stuff.
"The Federal Trade Commission has charged additional defendants and violations in the matter of Grant Connect, LLC, a company that allegedly deceptively promised government grants to consumers, and failed to adequately disclose that those who bought their products or services would be enrolled in continuity plans with significant monthly fees, primarily for other unrelated products. The FTC’s July 2009 complaint also alleged that the defendants debited consumers’ bank accounts without their authorization.

The FTC filed an amended complaint adding four individual defendants – Kyle Kimoto, Michael Henriksen, Johnnie Smith, and Tasha Jn Paul – as well as 15 new corporate defendants. The amended complaint also adds five new counts, charging the defendants with participating in three additional deceptive scams, and with using phony testimonials to convince consumers to purchase their products and services. Specifically, in addition to the grant scam that was the focus of the original complaint, the amended complaint alleges that the defendants sold: 1) online shopping club memberships that were deceptively marketed as general purpose lines of credit; 2) phony work-at-home business opportunities marketed using false and unsubstantiated earnings claims; and 3) dietary supplements supposedly containing **** berries that were marketed using baseless health claims."
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Traffic Evolution
My Blog
Free Sales Letter Generator
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056773].message }}

scrofford

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Nick Brighton

Who says they are "having complete control" over
the internet or people? That's a mountain out of a
molehill from where I'm standing.

I agree with your sentiment, as I am sure every other
non-megalomaniac in this forum does...

...but to assume the government is out to get you,
the economy stimulating entrepreneur (the same person
who the government wants you to succeed in order to
create employment and stimulate growth, and gives you
grants to do so)

...seems a bit paranoid, and illogical to me.

Once the government gains control of something, it then starts putting its own rules into affect. The government is out to control the people...always has been this way. It's now worse than ever before. All you have to do is look around and see what is going on now. It's all about greed and power.

The government could care less if you succeed as long as you are giving it power and making it money. The government found a way to make more money through the use of the FTC by cracking down on scammers. If they couldn't make any money at it, then they wouldn't be cracking down. Why did it take so many years for the government to finally decide to crack down in this arena? They now figure they can fine scammers or people they deem as scammers and make more money.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2057833].message }}

ChrisGuthrie 14 years ago

Where is the link to the official story? I'm interested in seeing more details about the suit.

In either case, I'd add that at the end of the day ripping people off can't last forever (which is why the FTC stepped into the game in the first place) and if you're business model revolves around this sooner or later you're going to get caught.

I'm surprised more scammers don't operate their businesses out of other countries to avoid the FTC to be honest... perhaps a potential business idea? (just kidding)
- Thanks
Signature
Want more traffic, leads and sales for your WordPress website?
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2057179].message }}

Ernie Lo

14 years ago

Thats ok...you obviously dont get it and like being controlled, keep supporting your government that cares so much about you

Originally Posted by discrat

Oh yeah lets just say and do what we want to do. Like have separate water fountains for some people and make others sit on the back of the Bus just because they look different. Uhmmmm..........having Rules is just such a terrible thing !!

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056926].message }}

Mike Anthony 14 years ago

So what? The Government can't enforce their TOS? Whats all the complaining about?
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056939].message }}
- psresearch 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony
  
  So what? The Government can't enforce their TOS? Whats all the complaining about?
  
  Don't forget that visa/mastercard themselves are cracking down too - probably due to pressure from the FTC (guess).
  
  Although the moneygram case referred to here:
  The BizOp News | Telemarketing Fraud : MoneyGram Scam and Gate Keeper Liability
  
  ...was possibly more cut-and-dry I think if you look at many things that have happened recently (adwords account suspensions, merchant accounts being terminated) that there is a reasonable possibility that the statement Michael makes that:
  
  "Expect that the FTC will be looking at more enablers of fraud, and very closely at their compliance programs."
  
  may be what's going on in a lot of these cases.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  Work At Home Truth - Extra Income Edition | Swindles.org
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2057224].message }}

scrofford 14 years ago

Originally Posted by MerlynSanchez

Actually, the internet has been the wild west for far too long. When citizens cannot police themselves then the government is sure to step in.

Yeah I love the government control!
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055220].message }}

Vis

14 years ago

Originally Posted by MerlynSanchez

Actually, the internet has been the wild west for far too long. When citizens cannot police themselves then the government is sure to step in.

Blame the scammers, liars, thieves, hackers, and everyone else who has ruined it for the people with integrity.

Yep... like it or not, the internet is becoming the modern west nowadays and that is just a part of evolution... If you keep fighting against that, it's likely that you are left behind in one of the ghost towns...

Adapt now and prosper long...

Thanks

Signature

Need help with your Wordpress sites?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055610].message }}

Kella Bella

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Ernie Lonardo

Slowly slowly the Internet is going to turn out like real life bloody crap infested government controlled ****hole. Soon the Government will control what we say online too in EVERY aspect. I'm all for punishing scammers but this is going too far. Enjoy it while it lasts people.

Personally I think if anyone is making claims they cannot prove and are challenged by any branch of the federal gov they only have themselves to blame. I think anyone in business on the internet knew that sooner or later regulations would hit. It's really about time imo as some folks are going hogwild fleecing people online. It also occurs to me that once the garbage is cleaned up that should make it easier for people who are not in violation of these issues to make more money. :-)

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054323].message }}

scrofford

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Kella Bella

Personally I think if anyone is making claims they cannot prove and are challenged by any branch of the federal gov they only have themselves to blame. I think anyone in business on the internet knew that sooner or later regulations would hit. It's really about time imo as some folks are going hogwild fleecing people online. It also occurs to me that once the garbage is cleaned up that should make it easier for people who are not in violation of these issues to make more money. :-)

Yep leave it to big brother to take care of all the world's problems. And after all the garbage is cleaned up, you won't be able to say a whole lot because it will all be controlled by the government including ecommerce.

How is it about time that the government step in? I guess you like to be controlled and told what you can and cannot do. I am all for stopping scams and lies etc., but I am sick and tired of the US government thinking it can have it's hand in EVERYTHING in the world and in every country.

[ 2 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055218].message }}

timmywf

Banned 14 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055419].message }}

scrofford

14 years ago

Originally Posted by rawstyle

Link for the source please.

Look at Paul Meyers earlier post. He put a link to the source of what the FTC is doing. You might want to read through other posts here instead of assuming there is no info or link to the discussion.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055484].message }}

Paul Myers

14 years ago

Originally Posted by scrofford

Look at Paul Meyers earlier post.

Myers.

It wasn't particularly hard to find. I pasted the quote from Brian's post into Google and there it was, Granted, it was below the WF link for the same phrase, but still...

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055534].message }}

scrofford

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Myers.

It wasn't particularly hard to find. I pasted the quote from Brian's post into Google and there it was, Granted, it was below the WF link for the same phrase, but still...

Paul

I am so sorry I spelled your name wrong!

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055561].message }}

dsmpublishing

14 years ago

Hi guys

it is fantastic news!!!!

we hear about these new rules but how often do we actually see action being taken.

But seriously do you really believe it when people pose with ferraris how often is this their friends car?

kind regards

sam
X

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054350].message }}

Hanz 14 years ago

Originally Posted by dsmpublishing

But seriously do you really believe it when people pose with ferraris how often is this their friends car?
X

....or professionally photoshopped.:p There either is no ferrari in the picture or the ferrari might be real, but the person in the picture who is leaning on the ferrari has actually been superimposed into the picture itself. LOL!
- Thanks
Signature
All The Hottest eBooks, Graphics, Software, Videos, Audios, SEO Reports & Articles You Want with PLR ~ New Products Added Daily in Super Hot Niches! ~ Sign Up to PLR Assassin Today
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056614].message }}

JD Jens

14 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

19 more persons and corporations were sued by the FTC last week for advertising, according to the FTC: "phony work-at-home business opportunities marketed using false and unsubstantiated earnings claims."

Got a link to this story?

Thanks

Signature

Why aren't you earning money in IM? Let's fix that!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2054356].message }}

E. Brian Rose

14 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

Just in case anyone has a WSO or website making bogus or unsubstantiated income claims, the FTC continues to aggressively pursue such issues.

19 more persons and corporations were sued by the FTC last week for advertising, according to the FTC: "phony work-at-home business opportunities marketed using false and unsubstantiated earnings claims."

Again, take note of the fact that incorporating, or using a Nevada corporation, will NOT shield you from liability for your advertising actions.

The FTC is also reviewing testimonials to determine if they are real or fake. That would include creating multiple forum accounts for the purpose of pimping your products.

.

I am all for the policing of unsubstantiated income claims. Desperate people often cling to the hopes of such marketing garbage only to find that they've been had. It seems rediculous that people would fall for a lot of the things that they fall for, but look at how many folks fell for the Nigerian scams.

Thanks

Signature

Founder of JVZoo. All around good guy :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055154].message }}

jjpmarketing

14 years ago

I believe income claims should be removed entirely from sales letters... testimonials included. Think about it. How easy would it be to slap an ebook together, stick a $7 price on it and make claims of $200k per year earnings?

Then drive a lot of traffic to it and sucker the people into giving you $7? Yes there will be refunds but most won't care about the $7. This is what this is going after in addition to the high end scammers with fancily package products.

Look at similar offers in the WSO forum that get repeated questions from prospective buyers about what exactly they are buying and the seller plays dodgeball with the questions.

If you think being from a foreign country will protect you, you are mistaken. First off, any company you do business with in America will be tied to these laws. If they can't go after you directly, they will do so indirectly via your PayPal, Hosting, and Registrar accounts. You will have to be 100% located outside the US. No part of your business can be in the US. Otherwise they will get to you eventually.

Besides... if want to do business with US citizens then you should be held to US laws. They will hold sellers and the sites that are used to facilitate such sales responsible for any violations of these laws. And those protections may not be in place yet... but believe me for every loophole these scammers find it will be another law that gets created to stop it.

Dennis

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055212].message }}

garyv

14 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

19 more persons and corporations were sued by the FTC last week for advertising, according to the FTC: "phony work-at-home business opportunities marketed using false and unsubstantiated earnings claims."

.

That's like saying that the NY sanitation crew picked up 19 more pieces of confetti after the New-years eve festivities in Times Square.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055546].message }}

dlc3

14 years ago

I couldnt agree with Scrofford more , its one thing to go after the crooks who want to scam others with there unreal claims. But, the government also shouldnt have there hands in every aspect of peoples lives. Its not right for everyone else who is trying to be honest to have to pay for the scams of others. My opinion is its just another way for BIG GOVERNMENT to get there hands into peoples pockets !

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2055917].message }}

Mokai

14 years ago

this is actually good for the legit people who are offering good quality courses because its going to weed out the BS

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056015].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

14 years ago

Originally Posted by AP

I have a big problem with what the "AVERAGE" person will do with my system. Some will make zero because they won't IMPLEMENT and others will make a killing. What's that got to do with my Process?

Perhaps the end goal is to eliminate income claims all together, or at least as much as possible?

Originally Posted by butters

Out of hand or not, unfortunately if you want to use it in your marketing legally, you will have to show an average. I am not a lawyer or anything but you might be able to use "these are not typical results" kind of thing but don't take my word on that.

Using the "results not typical" disclaimer used to be the safety valve, it's not anymore. That's one of the things they specifically set out to change.

Originally Posted by scrofford

Yep leave it to big brother to take care of all the world's problems. And after all the garbage is cleaned up, you won't be able to say a whole lot because it will all be controlled by the government including ecommerce.

How is it about time that the government step in? I guess you like to be controlled and told what you can and cannot do. I am all for stopping scams and lies etc., but I am sick and tired of the US government thinking it can have it's hand in EVERYTHING in the world and in every country.

I agree the government is far too big and invasive, but how to you stop scammers without gov't involvement at this point? If the industry was more adept at self-regulation, none of this may have came about. Industries that don't police themselves well enough eventually draw gov't interest, and we all know where that leads.

Originally Posted by TiffanyB

The government could make a whole lot more money if they just looked to Hollywood for people not coming out and saying they were compensated to promote a product or service. Celebrities do this all the time and yet I haven't heard one celebrity who has gotten in trouble for it yet.

Don't hold me to this, but I'm pretty sure celebrity endorsements had some rules tightened up as well.

Originally Posted by Mokai

this is actually good for the legit people who are offering good quality courses because its going to weed out the BS

Perhaps. But good, honest people get stepped on with the big government boot as well. They many not feel the sting of legal trouble, but they sure can be stung with increased operating costs, more paperwork, more oppressive regulations, more restrictions and so forth. When the gov't throws out a net, all kinds of people can get caught in it.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056248].message }}

scrofford 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Mokai

this is actually good for the legit people who are offering good quality courses because its going to weed out the BS

Is it? Or is it going to make it harder on the "legit people?" I think it will make it harder on the legit people and scammers will always be scammers and believe they won't ever get caught. Maybe a majority won't. Who knows? The bottom line is though, it is government pushing more control on our lives.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2057814].message }}

competitive

14 years ago

If the FTC are regulating the internet and this comes under US rules what about other countries or do they pass on the info to say the UK government to deal with if it is a UK website?

Regarding income claims it's the old adage and in particular with clickbank 80% of the commissions are earnt by 20% of the marketers, there are many marketers that are only earning a small amount.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056210].message }}

Tom Goodwin

14 years ago

Originally Posted by competitive

If the FTC are regulating the internet and this comes under US rules what about other countries or do they pass on the info to say the UK government to deal with if it is a UK website?

.

Under US law, foreign citizens or entities can be subject to US law in US courts in criminal or civil matters that have affected US citizens or US businesses.

Therefore, for instance, a website based in the UK and owned by a UK citizen would be still subject to the FTC if that website sold products to U.S. citizens. You can't hide behind the fact that you are in the UK.

Tom

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Masters Powerlifting

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056240].message }}

competitive

14 years ago

Thank you Tom for your clarification. I was not meaning that I or anyone was hiding in the UK, but meant my wider point that effectively the FTC is regulating the internet worldwide regardless what country you are in or what government rules that country has.

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

Under US law, foreign citizens or entities can be subject to US law in US courts in criminal or civil matters that have affected US citizens or US businesses.

Therefore, for instance, a website based in the UK and owned by a UK citizen would be still subject to the FTC if that website sold products to U.S. citizens. You can't hide behind the fact that you are in the UK.

Tom

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056751].message }}

Thomas

14 years ago

Originally Posted by competitive

If the FTC are regulating the internet and this comes under US rules what about other countries or do they pass on the info to say the UK government to deal with if it is a UK website?

The FTC doesn't regulate the Internet, and, as an agency of the U.S. government, doesn't have international jurisdiction. It can, however, pass information to other governments to do with what they will (although, if what you're doing isn't a crime in the UK (in your example), and/or isn't addressed by international agreement, there's a very high chance any such information will go straight into the office shredder, assuming anyone bothers to send it in the first place).

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056247].message }}

Tom Goodwin

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Thomas

The FTC doesn't regulate the Internet, and it doesn't have any international jurisdiction. It will pass information to other governments though to do with what they will (although, if what you're doing isn't a crime in the UK (in your example), and/or isn't addressed by international agreement, there's a very high chance any such information will go straight into the office shredder, assuming somebody even bothers to send it in the first place).

Wrong. Please see above. The US does have jurisdiction if you sell products to U.S. citizens.

Of course, some countries have non-extradition laws, but that is a different question. I doubt Iran will be turning anybody over, for instance. The UK, Canada, Ireland, etc? You'll be on the first boat out.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Masters Powerlifting

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056256].message }}

Daniel Brock 14 years ago

Man white people sure do love their rules
- Thanks
Signature

Clickbank #1 Best Seller: The Deadbeat Super Affiliate.
Click here to learn how to make money online in your bath robe and gym socks!
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056290].message }}

Thomas

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

Wrong. Please see above. The US does have jurisdiction if you sell products to U.S. citizens.

Saying the U.S. can demand the hand-over of anyone in the world doesn't make it so. Neither it, not any other country, can. Outside of American jurisdiction, it doesn't matter what U.S. law says: No State (anywhere in the world) is obliged to give up it's legal authority over an individual, regardless of what that person is accused of, unless it has agreed to do so by international treaty, and even then only if it can be proven to the satisfaction of the national authorities in question (whose decision can also be challenged by the accused through the Courts).

If no crime has been committed under British law (in that example) and the alleged crime is not an extraditable offence, or cannot be proven to be one to the satisfaction of the British authorities (whose decision would also be subject to challenge in a British Court), then the FTC (or anyone else) can hop, skip, and dance as much as they want... but "the first boat out" won't have the accused on it.

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

Of course, some countries have non-extradition laws, but that is a different question. I doubt Iran will be turning anybody over, for instance. The UK, Canada, Ireland, etc? You'll be on the first boat out.

Not "some" countries'; all countries have extradition laws. There are many things even Canada will refuse to extradite somebody to the U.S. for. Similarly, there are many things Europeans will not be extradited to the U.S. (or anywhere else) for. Likewise, the U.S. has refused to extradite people to Britain on many occasions for sometimes very serious crimes. Simply assuming that close political/cultural links mean easy extradition is wrong.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056303].message }}

Tom Goodwin

14 years ago

That is quite short-sighted. Any IMer who thinks that the FTC can't and won't get your hands on you if you reside in one of the "friendly" countries is just fooling themselves. The U.S. has a long history of extraditing people from all of the world for hordes of different crimes.

Not to mention, traveling will be a real chore. Any time you travel to a new country, then you are open to extradition from that country as well. Think that vacationing to Canada or Australia is a good thing? Think again. That's not to mention what would happen if you ever happened to set foot in the U.S. or a U.S. territory.

Then again, if you want to get sued, then go ahead.

Edit: I forgot to add. This only deals with criminal charges. The ability of the U.S. courts to get their hands on overseas back accounts is legendary. Perhaps you like keeping money in your mattress, but most of us use back accounts.

I believe that Paypal is headquartered in California. Got any money on there? ;-)

Originally Posted by Thomas

Saying the U.S. can demand the hand-over of anyone in the world doesn't make it so. Neither it, not any other country, can. Outside of American jurisdiction, it doesn't matter what U.S. law says: No State (anywhere in the world) is obliged to give up it's legal authority over an individual, regardless of what that person is accused of, unless it has agreed to do so by international treaty, and even then only if it can be proven to the satisfaction of the national authorities in question (whose decision can also be challenged by the accused through the Courts).

If no crime has been committed under British law (in that example) and the alleged crime is not an extraditable offence, or cannot be proven to be one to the satisfaction of the British authorities (whose decision would also be subject to challenge in a British Court), then the FTC (or anyone else) can hop, skip, and dance as much as they want... but "the first boat out" won't have the accused on it.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Masters Powerlifting

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056337].message }}

Thomas

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

That is quite short-sighted. Any IMer who thinks that the FTC can't and won't get your hands on you if you reside in one of the "friendly" countries is just fooling themselves. The U.S. has a long history of extraditing people from all of the world for hordes of different crimes.

The whole world has a "long history" of extraditing people from other countries - extraditions have been happening since the 16th century.

As for the FTC "getting it's hands on you": It is well-known that some agencies of the U.S. government have resorted to kidnapping people off the streets of Europe and elsewhere, but I doubt the FTC (a consumer protection agency) has the wherewithal to do that and will, therefore, be obliged to conform to the rules of international law.

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

Not to mention, traveling will be a real chore. Any time you travel to a new country, then you are open to extradition from that country as well. Think that vacationing to Canada or Australia is a good thing? Think again. That's not to mention what would happen if you ever happened to set foot in the U.S. or a U.S. territory.

Then again, if you want to get sued, then go ahead.

Edit: I forgot to add. This only deals with criminal charges. The ability of the U.S. courts to get their hands on overseas back accounts is legendary. Perhaps you like keeping money in your mattress, but most of us use back accounts.

I think you've been watching too many movies. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

I believe that Paypal is headquartered in California. Got any money on there? ;-).

If you mean do I have money in PayPal Europe, a Luxembourg-based bank subject to the laws of Luxembourg and the European Union, then yes, I do. (Having a parent company in California doesn't mean Californian (or US) law applies everywhere that PayPal operates. How could it?)

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056430].message }}

Tom Goodwin

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Thomas

I believe PayPal Europe is headquartered in Luxembourg and, therefore, is subject the European law, not U.S. law. The fact that it's parent company is in California doesn't mean Californian law applies everywhere that PayPal operates.

You missed the point. The U.S. can likely seize funds of anyone with an account at Paypal, whether that's Paypal US or Paypal Europe. In any event, U.S. courts could certainly shut down any accounts you have with any Paypal entity as all it would have to do is issue an order against Paypal HQ.

Paypal HQ would be obligated to abide by the order, and it can certainly force its subsidiaries to do anything that it wants, including not doing business with any individual or entity.

Thanks

Signature

Masters Powerlifting

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056483].message }}

competitive

14 years ago

Unless you have aspergers syndrome like the UK guy that hacked into the US military computers

Originally Posted by Tom Goodwin

Wrong. Please see above. The US does have jurisdiction if you sell products to U.S. citizens.

Of course, some countries have non-extradition laws, but that is a different question. I doubt Iran will be turning anybody over, for instance. The UK, Canada, Ireland, etc? You'll be on the first boat out.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056764].message }}

competitive

14 years ago

Thank you thomas for your clarification

Originally Posted by Thomas

The FTC doesn't regulate the Internet, and, as an agency of the U.S. government, doesn't have international jurisdiction. It can, however, pass information to other governments to do with what they will (although, if what you're doing isn't a crime in the UK (in your example), and/or isn't addressed by international agreement, there's a very high chance any such information will go straight into the office shredder, assuming anyone bothers to send it in the first place).

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056757].message }}

OmarR

14 years ago

It would be a nightmare to check every single affiliate's campaigns. I think they will just check random marketers, so there is still some risk

.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056320].message }}

Dennis Gaskill 14 years ago

Originally Posted by OmarR

It would be a nightmare to check every single affiliate's campaigns. I think they will just check random marketers, so there is still some risk

They also investigate complaints. If you make bold claims and a person who buys it is unsuccessful and resents the time/money they wasted, or thinks you scammed them, then they complain to the FTC, you could go right to the top of their radar. According to what one FTC representative said prior to the new regulations taking affect, there will be a lot more of that than random checks.
- Thanks
Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056375].message }}

KenThompson

14 years ago

Here's something that won't sit well with people, probably, but that's ok...

At this point in life, and the way the gov't certainly seems to be, this may
seem like a novel idea. But...

How about if you get scammed, then it's a lesson learned. If you keep getting
scammed, then maybe you're not terribly bright.

Sure, truth in advertising and all that? Of course. Being honest is best. Always.

But if a person feels like they were burned by someone's product that does have
the potential as stated in the copy, then they're entitled to their feelings. They're
free to feel like it's all a scam, etc. So what? They can cry the rest of their lives
that we're all scammers. Let them cry.

People turn too much to gov't to try to solve their problems. People have been
increasingly enouraged to abandon taking responsibility for their actions, and they
like to put the blame on someone else.

If someone scammed me, and of course that happened many years ago, then
that's my own damn fault. Sure, they were wrong to do it. But, in my mind, it
was my own fault.

People encourage the gov't to meddle in matters they should not be meddling in.

Let's not even talk about how supremely hypocritical all of this is considering not
only the history of business in industrial nations, including of course the US, but
the truly farcical nature economics has become in many business sectors, especially
the energy sector. What a laugh.

And the joke is on all of you, and me. But that's ok, too.

The person who runs the FTC would get fired, or killed, if they really took all this
seriously and started going for the big guns. One phone call would put on end to
that in a NYC minute.

But a hapless schmuck who does not have the ability to do anything, sure... let's
nail that criminal to the cross.

So I'll return to my business and forget this nonsense... because it is nonsense.

See ya'll around...

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056477].message }}

Boricua

14 years ago

My belief and my dilligence:

Inform the visitor before getting the sale about everything that influences a buying decision, anything that's relevant or close to a claim made by you and that you've undeniable proof that what you said can be substantiated with facts or average reality. FTC, fines and this legalities aren't anything new in our offline business world as everyone knows. More importantly, if anyone has questions about FTC rules, call them directly and see what you can extract from different competent agents each time you call. They may tell you very little, but your conclusions might improove on each call or reference taken.

Just like a lawyer, public certified accountant, doctor, RE agent, among others... you've to disclose the realities that might effect your fellow visitor from buying to any extent imaginable compressed in very few short lines. That's why we have Michael E. Young, Robert "Bob" Silber and many other competent lawyers that specialize on internet law to ONLY help in certain extents since the FTC is the one deciding, not a licensed dude.

If this woulda' get done centuries ago, FTC wouldn't step in. But then again, K-PAX is only a delusion:rolleyes:.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056493].message }}

Hesaidblissfully

14 years ago

I don't see how the new FTC guidelines are much different than what's already in place for health supplements. Health supplements aren't allowed to make statements about "curing or treating" diseases or conditions. If they do, they risk being shut down or they have to go through testing/trials and get approval from the FDA.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2056887].message }}

JackPowers

14 years ago

I made $0 while reading this thread.

** Results may vary **

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2057018].message }}

mikewa

14 years ago

I look forward to the FTC taking Internet marketing gurus to task for making unsubstantiated claims. The sooner copywriters stick to fact and not fiction, the better!

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2057085].message }}

Groovystar

14 years ago

Why do they need a new law here? Isn't it already against the law to scam people? Why don't they just get a little smarter about how they enforce existing laws/rules?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2057187].message }}

Anonymous Affiliate

14 years ago

In my opinion (and personal experience) when the government or any form of authority becomes over-protective towards citizens by establishing a thick set of rules, people tend to turn into lemmings: their common sense and their capacity to apply any type of thinking on their own goes down the loo, just because they are being nursed to stupidity by an overzealous Uncle Sam.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2058289].message }}

FTC Sues 19 More for Unsubstantiated Income Claims

Trending Topics

How do I effectively build and nurture an email list for affiliate marketing purposes?

Are Solo ADs the Most Cost Effective Way to Promote your Product?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?