$30 Million Judgment - FTC v. Google Money Tree

by 12 replies
17
Today the FTC resolved a case against Google Money Tree and numerous other "Google" product defendants with a $30 million stipulated judgment and order.

A couple issues that got the defendants in trouble and which are part of the order:

(If you have a WSO or other product representing certain amounts of money can be made, pay attention to this issue )

- Misrepresenting the amount of income a person could make working from home, and not having "competent and reliable" evidence proving how much could be made.

Then there is the "Google" aspect of their marketing:

- Misrepresenting an affiliation, endorsement or sponsorship with Google. Not only was the Google name used in their product, but Google's logo was on their sales page.

(Let me add that buying ads on Google and its network and then using their trademarks, logos, and claiming "as seen in ..." may not be a wise marketing move.)

They also did not properly disclose a negative option monthly payment program, which of course led to consumer complaints.

If you're wondering, the many defendants do not have 30 million dollars. Not even close to it.

The final judgment can be found here:

http://ftc.gov/os/caselist/0923060/1...oogleorder.pdf

Note they had to make a full disclosure of their assets to the government. Then there is a list of what they are giving, including many references to "all funds". Essentially, they are giving up about everything they own. Total collective amount: $3 million. Any falsities in the income representation will make the $30M payable.

.
#main internet marketing discussion forum #$30 #ftc #google #judgment #million #money #tree
  • By "negative option" I assume you mean a prechecked option that the user must uncheck?

    I ask because SOME say that is legal, and I DOUBT it. I guess I was right:

    BTW I LOVE section 4! The ONLY other time I have seen such a section was on LA County's specifications for an ad for a DBA application. The lack of such an understanding clearly, in my book, violates the spirit of a contract as a mutual acceptance and understanding.

    Steve
  • It is about TIME!!!!... I really have noticed a drop in those misleading ads...

    Freakin larnbarggers (just made that up, not meant to be a complement )
  • Makes sense, too many people using the power of Google's branding and slapping up fake testimonials without sufficient evidence of claims. Online is possibly the worst i've seen in trademark breaches next to pirating offline.
    • [1] reply
    • Brian, I'm not a betting man but if I was I'd be willing to bet that one or more of the defendants are not through with IM in spite of the FTC order. Did you catch the name of one of their LLCs? TWO WARNINGS LLC.

      So was this their first warning or the second?

      Kinda reminds of when the hammer finally got dropped on Christopher William Smith, the impetus behind the 2003 CAN-Spam law. This dude was given a number of chances to cease and desist but he was so brash, arrogant and apparently narcissistic that he thought he was the epitome of impunity. Now he's serving 30-years. Christopher William Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      I'm making a mental note of these guys because I don't believe this will be the last time we hear their names in the media or the legal system.

      Knowing their modus operandi, I now know what to look for.

      Giles, the Crew Chief
      • [2] replies
  • Whats with these Imer's getting such huge fines some facebook spammer was just sued for like a billion dollars I mean come on...let's be real

Next Topics on Trending Feed