News-like landing pages sued by FTC

by GENIX
34 replies
I just came across this news that the FTC sued affiliate marketers using landing pages that looked like news sites - full article here

I know some of the top super affiliates in CPA were using these kind of landing pages and they were converting like crazy.

The FTC says that they are deceiving the consumer and that is indeed what they do. They also shut down some normal review blogs where someone reviewed a weight loss pill and "shared" the experience. The problem is that most affiliate and review websites are made up stories that seem like a real user experience.

The days when you could lie through a few blog pages that you lost 30 pounds in 2 weeks with the miracle called **** Berry are pretty much gone. How do you think a proper review or landing page should be made?
I don't see anybody using the weight loss pill for a month to give a "proper"
review.
#ftc #landing #newslike #pages #sued
  • Profile picture of the author Clyde
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    OMG!! It looks like a newspaper! Call the FTC.

    I wonder why in the hell those clowns aren't suing newspapers for running advertorials?

    You'd think they could find something better to do with our money.
    These ad pages that are getting sued have the ads as actual news which is misleading.

    Today's News? "Stay at home mom's make $10000/hour by sleeping at home".

    Different than having a banner on the sidebar.
    Signature

    Generate Unlimited Number of Micro Niche Keywords, Multi-threaded EMD Finder PLUS More!




    50% OFF WSO.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3767001].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Nail Yener
    Originally Posted by GENIX View Post

    The days when you could lie through a few blog pages that you lost 30 pounds in 2 weeks with the miracle called **** Berry are pretty much gone. How do you think a proper review or landing page should be made?
    I don't see anybody using the weight loss pill for a month to give a "proper"
    review.
    Well, weight loss is not the only profitable niche in internet marketing. There are thousands of niches that one can create a nice income in many ways. Why not find a niche that you have knowledge and personal experience about?

    The answer to your question is simple:

    If you haven't used the weight loss pill and you will never use it, do not promote it in a way as if you have used it. Find people who used it or wants to use it and if they get real results, than you are good to write about their stories on your review site.

    Building your income/business based on lies is not acceptable. What would you feel if the author of a WSO that you just bought told lies about his product so that you will buy it?

    I hate those news like sites and sites that have unrealistic claims in all the niches including "make money online" and "weight loss". Nice to have Google and FTC taking action against such crappy sites. This will help the real guys with real products/results stand out of the crowd in long term.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3767074].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
    I'm not in favor of lies about anything for any reason - ever.

    I'll give the FTC a pat on the back when they tangle with
    multi-billion dollar, multi-national corps that actually kill people
    with their "crap" products.

    And I'll give all of you a pat on the back when you start writing
    about it and getting all chest-puffy about them.

    Neither will never happen because it's much more convenient to
    steamroll the little guys, who are easy to steamroll, and for you
    to jump on the bandwagon and start preaching.

    There are no repercussions for steamrolling little guys who have
    no power and cannot hurt them. Plus it makes it easier to justify
    one's existence.

    If people are too lazy to do their due diligence, then whose fault
    is that?

    If someone gets burned over and over because maybe they're just
    lacking something that allows someone else to learn and stop getting
    burned, well... then all one can hope is maybe one day the former
    will learn.

    You want the net to only be populated with honest businesses?

    It's a noble thought, but you need to grow up. Sorry, but you're living
    on another planet, and it's an imaginary one.

    You want another perspective on business ethics and morals?

    Read the history of big business in the 20th century. Read about what
    very many, if not nearly all, big businesses did to get where they are
    today.

    Nothing really big... coups, murders, plundering of countries and economies,
    wars... lies, deception, misuse of national militaries, buying off certain
    people in certain places you would never imagine (or maybe believe),
    mercenary forces, treason, on and on...

    And no, this isn't about the "C" word, either. Facts.

    I could go on, but I cannot discuss politics.

    You think all this stuff is bad? Are you kidding me? You have no idea,
    no clue. This is child's play. It's laughable.

    I know your hearts are in the right place. But there really is a much
    larger picture that really is hugely more significant.

    Is hypocrisy a form of convenient truth? Is a convenient truth a partial
    truth or a partial lie?


    Ken
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3767194].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jamjar919
    Wow. Those pages that were shut down were the ones I noticed spent a lot of money on adsense. You know, the graphics that look like they are part of the sidebar. I was wondering where they had gone for the last couple of days - This is obviously the reason.
    Signature

    Feel free to ask me any IM related questions or add me on skype :D
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3768100].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexandre Valois
    What does the article really tell us?

    "The news sites claimed to feature "objective investigative reports," but the FTC states in its lawsuits that the reporters were "fictional" and never did any tests with **** berry products at all."

    FTC doesn't care about the layout of your site or landing page and whether or not it looks like a newspaper or site. What they care about is blatant lies.

    Everyone with 2 brain cell knows it's illegal to claim results you can't back, to make false claims and trick and cheat the buyers, and that all affiliates should clearly state their relationship with the advertiser or product promoted.

    You play with fire, you get burned.

    Next!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3768357].message }}
  • I see in this article they were also using a pic of Melissa Theuriau, the French news anchor. She's a beautiful woman, to be sure, but I highly doubt she would appreciate anyone using her likeness without reimbursing her, and rightly so, of course. But hey, at least they were smart enough to use UHN instead of NBC like most of them started out doing.

    I have to admit, though, due to their realism I bet a LOT of people fell for it, so it's good they finally started cracking down on them.

    If I'm remembering correctly, I think there was even a WSO offering some of these types of ads. Due to their realism, I would think they would be highly effective but, as others have suggested previously, you have to keep them honest in content.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3768500].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    OMG!! It looks like a newspaper! Call the FTC.

    I wonder why in the hell those clowns aren't suing newspapers for running advertorials?
    Yeah, God forbid that the FTC should do it's job and shut down sites that use deceptive marketing, fake testimonials, forced continuity, and lies to promote products. Doesn't have anything to do with the newspaper layout. Guess you probably didn't read the article and the charges. It doesn't say .... ooooh ... we found someone else using a newspaper theme. Let's get em.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3768658].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

      I expected the self-righteous to come out in force behind a wonderful government that is good enough to supply their morals for them.

      Remember that if they can come for them, they can come for you.

      They need no excuse other than their perception of you.

      That's just fine, right?
      No one dictates my ethics or morals. You are just yet another one of the anti-government fools that post ridiculous statements every time "marketing" is threatened in any way.

      I have never been worried about the FTC or any other agency that looks out for people who scam others out of money. It's not my business model to scam others out of money.

      We have laws against fraud. It is up to law enforcement agencies to enforce them.
      That's exactly what the FTC is doing but I rather suspect that if it were a DA's office doing it instead, you would have the same objections and call them clowns too.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3770424].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

        Sure thing. Those Jews who refused to wear the Star of David in pre-war Germany were breaking the law and deserved what they got, too.

        Right?

        After all it WAS the law.

        Anyone who questions the government is an anti-government fool.

        Anyone who insists on rule of law is aiding criminals.

        I get it.
        whatever. I'm not going to get sucked into a political discussion with you. It is not allowed on this forum and bringing in Jews and prewar Germany to a marketing conversation is just plain irrelevant. Has nothing to do with the role that the FTC plays in preventing people from being scammed by the miserable bunch of rip off artists in this country.

        The federal government created a governing body to take care of scams because local law enforcement cannot handle the job of monitoring the Internet, radio, print advertising, and TV. That's way out of their scope and they're kind of busy with murderers and robbers and Lindsay Lohan.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3770821].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

          It has been my experience that people who think in black and white seldom have the ability to follow analogies.

          If you're comfortable with unelected bureaucrats telling you how to run your business, that's fine with me.
          And it has been my experience that people who use scary analogies for topics completely unrelated are just conspiracy theorists.

          Yes, I'm completely comfortable, both as a business and as a consumer with the FTC not allowing deceptive marketing, lies, fake testimonials, fake and unfounded income/benefit claims.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3771218].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
    It's about time.

    It's a shame so many people have to get ripped off before anyone cares.
    Signature

    nothing to see here.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3768670].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author christopher jon
    No arguments over this from me.

    I've seen the type of sites that were hit and they were misleading garbage.The internet is better off without them.
    Signature
    It buys my product or it gets the hose
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3768814].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Your Brand Ebooks
      When the FTC updated their rules, they were crystal clear about how blogs & review sites should avoid using affiliate links or that they should fully disclose the fact that they will make money if you buy from the link. Heck they even warned about paid tweets.

      Plus, the guru's went crazy with spreading the word.
      For like two weeks, it was impossible to open your email
      and not see a guru's email message about this.

      .. > the FTC sued affiliate marketers

      Man those marketers were stupid for intentionally
      breaking the rules in the face of the FTC's serious warnings.
      Signature
      ONCE UPON A TIME there was a Warrior named Bob. He was sad. And frustrated. You see, Warrior Bob spent every last nickel on Internet Marketing e-books. But nothing panned out. No traffic. No sales. He was one sad Bob. Then one day Bob found a bottle. He rubbed it and out came a Genie who granted him 3 wishes. For Wish #1 Bob asked for a pet Dragon. Wish Granted. For Wish #2, Bob wanted Warriors' websites seen by 53 million TV viewers, for under $5 per broadcast. The Genie said... (click here)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3769044].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Originally Posted by GENIX View Post

    I just came across this news that the FTC sued affiliate marketers using landing pages that looked like news sites - full article here

    I know some of the top super affiliates in CPA were using these kind of landing pages and they were converting like crazy.

    The FTC says that they are deceiving the consumer and that is indeed what they do. They also shut down some normal review blogs where someone reviewed a weight loss pill and "shared" the experience. The problem is that most affiliate and review websites are made up stories that seem like a real user experience.

    The days when you could lie through a few blog pages that you lost 30 pounds in 2 weeks with the miracle called **** Berry are pretty much gone. How do you think a proper review or landing page should be made?
    I don't see anybody using the weight loss pill for a month to give a "proper"
    review.
    That has been agaist the law for DECADES! I wonder now if they will hit those "infomercials". You know, where they act like a news progrram or talk show or whatever.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3769041].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Bruce NewMedia
    While I'm always leery of over-reaching government (we all should be, really) I do think in this case the FTC was right.

    Most of these sites are designed to fool people, that's all. Preying on the most gullible, naive and desperate. In the long run, cracking down on these scammers, leaves a selling environment that's more trusted by the average consumer.

    ..and that's good for honest marketers.
    _____
    Bruce
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3769043].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author christopher jon
    Man those marketers were stupid for intentionally
    breaking the rules in the face of the FTC's serios warnings.
    Depends on what country they are in and how much they made. Residing in a legally lose country with a couple million in the bank, I'd call that a good run.

    However, the noose is getting tighter in the IM wild wild west.
    Signature
    It buys my product or it gets the hose
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3769082].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrick Pretty
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    OMG!! It looks like a newspaper! Call the FTC.

    I wonder why in the hell those clowns aren't suing newspapers for running advertorials?

    You'd think they could find something better to do with our money.
    So, the FTC consists of "clowns?" And those "clowns" should find a better use of taxpayer money than to break up a multimillion-dollar scam allegedly perpetrated by Internet Marketers, Ken?

    Good grief.

    This case is part of an alleged sustained fraud scheme in the **** market that potentially racked up more than $10 million in illicit affiliate commissions. It followed on the heels of a previous **** scam (August 2010) that allegedly fleeced customers of $30 million, affected millions of consumers and allegedly included a continuity-billing scheme and false endorsements.

    So, in the two **** cases since August, losses could be $40 million or more. And it's not simply a matter of losses. The August scam is alleged to have created work for Visa Inc., which said ON THE RECORD that such schemes erode trust in e-commerce.

    “Deceptive merchant practices hurt the economy by eroding trust in e-commerce and undermining the vast majority of ethical merchants who deal and compete fairly," said Martin Elliott, senior business leader, Payment System Risk, Visa Inc.

    "We have tightened enforcement of our rules against banks whose merchants generate excessive levels of cardholder disputes because of deceptive marketing," Elliott said. "We also make it a priority to partner with law enforcement and agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and support their investigations such as this case.”

    I don't know how you read Elliott's comment, Ken. I read it as statement from Visa that it supports Internet Marketing, supports the efforts of the FTC and other agencies and wants the playing field to be level so marketers have a fair chance to compete.

    The new **** case also includes allegations of false endorsements. Promoters are accused of trading on the names of well-known broadcast media outlets, and also trading on the name of Consumer Reports magazine.

    Should affiliates be permitted to confuse the public and injure the Consumer Reports brand in the name of IM profits, Ken?

    In Illinois, meanwhile, it is alleged that the scam masked a continuity-billing scheme. A promoter there allegedly used the letters "CNN" in multiple domain names.

    Should the Illinois AG and the FTC "clowns" permit that to happen, Ken? Should Visa? Should CNN?

    One of the "reporters" depicted on the "fake" news sites is an actual journalist whose image was used across multiple websites that swapped in multiple names. She was "Julia" on one, and "Stacie" and "Karen" on others. I have not seen a shred of evidence that the real reporter licensed her image, her name or the rights to change her name as IMers saw fit.

    Last summer, promoters of a company known as Data Network Affiliates (DNA) stole images of Oprah Winfrey and Donald Trump, along with the intellectual property of Apple Inc. to push an "opportunity" that purportedly enrolled more than 100,000 people. Among the claims was that DNA was offering a free iPhone with unlimited talk and text for $10 a month and had a special "branding" deal with Apple.

    Even as they were pumping the phone scam, they were telling prospects that churches had the "MORAL OBLIGATION" to promote a purported mortgage-reduction program and that DNA affiliates were recording license-plate numbers from cars parked at Walmart, Target, churches and doctors' offices to help the AMBER Alert program rescue abducted children.

    Incredibly, even as they were doing this, they were telling prospects that AMBER Alert, which is managed by the Justice Department and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, had a bloated budget and had recovered "ONLY" 500 or so children.

    Indeed, they were using contempt for the government to drive business to the company, whose domain name used an address in the Cayman Islands -- all while they hid behind the noble name of the AMBER Alert system.

    Despite the claims that DNA had only the best interests of children at heart and was collecting license-plate data to keep people safe, the firm bizarrely then offered a purported "protective spray" that guarded against license plates being photographed by cameras at intersections.

    The company never said whether the criminals it purportedly sought to put behind bars for kidnapping children would be aided by the "spray" that purportedly prevented photos of their license plates from being taken.

    And to top it off, a suddenly materializing, web-based offshoot of the company started positioning at least two products as cancer cures, saying a third product had prevented a leg amputation and also helped tomatoes grow to twice their ordinary size and dairy cows produce more milk.

    When DNA -- the original company -- started to become the source of BBB complaints, someone appears to have changed the name of a DNA "program" to "BBB" -- in what appeared to be a bid to confuse people searching for information about the company.

    All of this was done in the name of Internet Marketing.

    Sorry, Ken. I don't see the FTC as an agency consisting of "clowns." I see it as an agency that is tasked to respond to rapidly evolving, form-shifting threats on the Internet and elsewhere. And those threats are driving up costs for legitimate IMers while contributing to the trade's PR and image problems.

    Attacking the FTC does nothing to help any of the problems confronting IM.

    Patrick

    P.S. In October, the SEC alleged that a murky company operating on the Internet traded on Visa's name without authority and stole millions of dollars from deaf people. There were thousands of victims.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3769283].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author oDigger
      It was just a matter of time before these types of sites got busted. I'm surprised that the FTC is doing something about it though. I would have thought that publishers would want to dissociate themselves with scammy landers and advertisers... but I guess not since the FTC is getting involved.
      Signature
      oDigger - The Largest Affiliate Offer Search Engine.

      Find and Compare Over 65,000 Offers Across 230 Networks.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3769365].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Patrick Pretty
      Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post


      Do you think the government should ban advertorials?

      That's where things are going.
      No. I don't think the government should ban advertorials. I'd fully expect the Supreme Court to rule against the government 9-0 if it ever sought to ban them. But it's hardly the case that banning advertorials is "where things are going." There is no slippery slope to fear in this FTC action.

      If National Review or Reader's Digest or that hideous New York Times files an amicus brief that defends the right of Internet Marketers to trade on the name of Consumer Reports and argues that Internet Marketers should be allowed to rename a journalist, put words in her mouth and publish bogus comments to sell an **** weight-loss scheme, I'll take it as a sure sign the apocalypse is upon us.


      Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

      If the allegations have merit, criminal charges should be filed and a trial should ensue. Instead we have the FTC coming in with a civil suit complete with trumpets and flourishes. They will try them in the press and our First Amendment rights will erode just a little more.

      It's a circus. Bring in the clowns.
      Who knows? Maybe one of those evil U.S. attorneys and AUSA's one day will decide to convene a grand jury. (If that happens -- and indictments are returned -- I'd fully expect you to argue that a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich.)


      Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

      So now we know that the banks have the FTC in their pockets.
      Conspiracy theories, too, Ken? Who got paid off at the FTC -- and by which "banks?" Did the "banks" use TARP funds to corrupt the five FTC commissioners and the 1,200 employees?

      Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

      Yup, there goes Fair Use out the window. Before you start on about how that's not fair use and they're BAD GUYS, stop to consider how this case will whittle away at Fair Use.
      This is absurd on its face. What part of "Fair Use" permits IMers to appropriate the intellectual property of individuals and companies, create fake news sites with this intellectual property and put words in the mouths of reporters to sell an **** weight-loss scheme?


      Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

      Oh horrors! Not the children!! Have these fiends no decency at all? They attacked a hallowed government establishment and a quasi-official non-profit because they are a waste of money?

      How could they do that? Oh the perfidy!

      I'm sorry, but they were perfectly within their rights to do so. Where do you buy that license spray?
      You buy it from Phil Piccolo. Ever hear of him? He's DNA. In August, he tried to chill critics by threatening them with lawsuits and suggesting he could cause them physical pain.

      In November, one of his cheerleaders accused Michael Chertoff, a former federal judge, former federal prosecutor and the former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security of being a "suspect" in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.


      Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

      We'll ignore the fact that the BBB is a glorified protection racket and move on.
      So, the FTC consists of "clowns" and the BBB is a "glorified protection racket?" When I was covering a company known as "Narc That Car" last year, some of the promoters were all over the BBB for giving it an "F." Like Data Network Affiliates, Narc was an MLM that purported to collect license-plate data to help the AMBER Alert program. Narc said it was selling the data to companies in the business of repossessing cars. Some Narc promoters claimed the "program" was associated with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Working for Narc, one rep explained, was like working for the "Census Bureau."

      The Internet Marketer who explained this and went on to become one of the BBB's biggest critics in the Narc flap was a man who once was sued successfully by the bar association in Ohio for practicing law without a license. His deposition, taken after he thought it prudent to sue lawyers representing a bank in debt case in which he was not a party, was one for the ages. (Snippets)

      Q: What was your date of birth?
      A: I don't recall my date of birth.

      Q: Where were you born?
      A: I don't recall.

      Q. Where do you live?
      A. I don't recall.

      Q. What's your home address?
      A. I don't recall.

      Q. How long have you lived there?
      A. I don't recall.

      Q. What's your current occupation?
      A. Who said I had an occupation?

      Q. Are you gainfully employed?
      A. Who said I was employed?

      Q. I'm asking you a question.
      A. I'm asking you, who said I was employed?

      Q. Are you employed?
      A. I don't recall being employed.

      On a quick side note, the Narc rep and BBB critic later moved to a new "program" that made its first financial claim just ONE second into the sales video. Indeed, at the ONE-second mark, a check for $50,000 was displayed. It was not immediately clear if the swiftness with which the check was displayed established a new world record for an MLM opportunity.

      In any event, the respondent in the bar action reminded me of the folks who believe the only thing one need do to reverse a mortgage foreclosure is post a bond consisting of "$21 in silver coinage" at the courthouse. Lots of them also believe that a person can defeat credit-card debt collectors by filing papers that allege that banks do not lend real money and therefore cannot enforce contracts when customers default. For good measure, some of them insist that FEMA is in the business of running death camps and that the United States passed secret legislation in the 1990s in anticipation of a visit by a race of intergalactic, reptilian aliens.

      Many of these folks are "Internet Marketers" who pitch their schemes to the most desperate among the desperate. Some of them insist that they answer only to God and that the government has no authority over them. It is not uncommon for them to declare diplomatic immunity when their scams are exposed.

      Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

      I find the sheep-like undertones of "Yer either fer us or agin us." in your post highly offensive.
      Let's review. A conspiracy involving the "banks" and the FTC, which is "in the pockets" of the banks, is under way? The FTC consists of "clowns"; the BBB runs a "glorified protection racket;" and people who value the presence of both or either entity are "sheep?"

      Meanwhile, you'd like to buy some protective spray from DNA/Phil Picollo, who appropriated the name of the AMBER Alert program to recruit affiliates and told a radio audience that he could arrange to injure critics?

      Does that cover it, Ken?

      Patrick

      P.S. Piccolo also told listeners his Christian faith might force him to rethink his threats to sue critics. He did this a few months after DNA belatedly announced the resignation of its CEO, misspelled his name when issuing the announcement and failed to release the free iPhone with unlimited talk and text for $10 a month. The new company that emerged later tried to plant the seed that its bottled-water product, which purportedly was a cancer treatment, was endorsed by the National Institutes of Health.

      Please know that, if you purchase a product from Piccolo, you're purchasing a product from a man who claims his "magnetic" shower head prevents leg amputations while also empowering gardeners worldwide to grow tomatoes twice their normal size.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3771395].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author James Campbell
        Originally Posted by Patrick Pretty View Post

        the BBB runs a "glorified protection racket;"
        Apparently you missed the news on the BBB.

        Why Did Wolfgang Puck Get an F? Video - ABC News

        http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/bbb-...tings-12129596

        The FTC has overstepped its boundaries on many occasions and has had their ass handed to them in court a few times for this, from people who could afford to fight them.

        They do serve a purpose in a lot of cases, however there are quite a few cases where they overstep.

        Unfortunately, they use a guilty until proven innocent tactic and make it very difficult for any business or individual to defend themselves.

        This thread is full of zealots on both sides, however a few of the longer rants on here (including yours) go way off topic and are not related to affiliate marketing.

        If it weren't for the almost blind, and in a lot of cases COMPLETELY BLIND rebills of the **** supplements, the FTC wouldn't even be looking at it.

        Truthfully, the companies doing the blind rebills, refusing/threatening customers who try to do get refunds, rebilling again after cancelllation, etc... those are the companies that should be the target of the FTC.

        The FTC has too much power as it is, as does the FDA, both of which have been suspect in the past concerning their behaviors, with only some of those actually resulting in legal issues for them (mainly due to their guilty until proven innocent tactics of freezing everything a business and person has). There have been PLENTY of innocent companies that have been put into bankruptcy and people who have lost their livelihoods who have been found to have done nothing wrong in the end.

        If you think otherwise, you're keeping your head in the sand and don't know your facts.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3771899].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Patrick Pretty
        Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

        Your lack of reading comprehension is only equaled by your inability to mount a cohesive argument.

        The allegations against those horrid, horrid, horrid BAD GUYS have nothing at all to do with the clowns at the FTC confiscating money from businesses on what amounts to a whim and suing them into perdition instead of following the rule of law.

        So please stop repeating the allegations against those people as if that justifies the actions of the FTC. It does not and it never will.

        Do you honestly believe that accusation is guilt? Considering your capacity for conflating unrelated facts as argument, you probably do.

        By your own words, banks were indeed working against the best interests of their clients in collusion with the government. Read your own words and try, try to understand what you wrote.

        Please know that I am entirely capable of making buying decisions without the aid of you or the government. I glean from your posts that you do not consider the American public capable of such decisions, a reflection of your misguided sense of superiority, certainly not a fault of the public.

        Please don't insult my intelligence stating that high-handed tactics of questionable legality by the government do not whittle away at our rights.

        They do and any reasonable person knows it.

        If the government has a case against someone, let them issue warrants and try him in a criminal court.
        Ken,

        My "reading comprehension" is fine. So is my ability to mount a "cohesive argument."

        Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

        Is that clear, Patrick?
        "Ken[neth,] what is the frequency?"

        Patrick
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3772612].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

        Please know that I am entirely capable of making buying decisions without the aid of you or the government. I glean from your posts that you do not consider the American public capable of such decisions, a reflection of your misguided sense of superiority, certainly not a fault of the public.
        Well, here's the lowdown on this. Many people who are buyers do not possess a shred of intelligence. Many are easy marks because they are gullible and easily persuaded by deceptive marketing practices, lies, fake testimonials, fake income/benefit claims.

        You only have to look at the stats of how many people have been fleeced by Nigerian scams to realize how many people are just plain stupid.

        Same with eat this pill and eat whatever you want to and lose 50 pounds or buy these little berries and cure cancer and on and on and on.

        A person with a modicum of intelligence wouldn't be a victim of these scams to start with, but the FTC isn't protecting just smart people. They also protect stupid people.

        If you want to compare stats, I'd say that the dollar amount of money lost to these poor, stupid people far outweighs the cases of the FTC squashing a business that was doing nothing wrong. Please cite with a link to the stories of the actual cases of legitimate businesses that were wrongfully destroyed by the FTC. I'm sure there's a few somewhere, but not nearly as many as there are of the public being fleeced to the tune of millions of dollars by scammers.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3774176].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JSProjects
    Not a big fan of government control, but I have no sympathy for these types of sites / banners getting shut down.

    Had a friend that was out of work for awhile and asked me about a site he saw, claiming that he could make no less than $1,000 a week by placing adsense ads on a website.

    That's exactly the type of people these sites target. People who are already out of work and low on funds.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3770039].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author aheil
    Wow that sucks. They are probably going to lose a ton of money from that. I'm sure those ads were converting really well.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3770457].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexandre Valois
      Originally Posted by aheil View Post

      Wow that sucks. They are probably going to lose a ton of money from that. I'm sure those ads were converting really well.
      Are you for real? Or are you just looking to increase your post count?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3770495].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sonicadam123
    I think we can all agree that it's good that these guys got shut down though right?

    I will restrain from going into anything political though, this thread is a good example why it shouldn't be discussed here lol.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3771146].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Firstrate
    Dark times.... one of my new partners is one of the people getting sued.

    The industry is really in for a wake up call.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3771302].message }}

Trending Topics