COPEAC GETS NAILED BY THE FTC

TeeBird said:
Or maybe the FTC is figuring out the best way to prosecute, or settle, these cases by going after the small fish as test cases.
Click to expand...

I think the FTC is way past the point of "testing" and figuring things out thanks to the direct mail industry (and way before the web existed).
 


penguinbc said:
Maybe that is exactly the message they want to send. You don't need to be a "HUGE" pub, they will go after anyone. Seems like a more effective way to get your point across that's for sure.

I know I said it in the other thread but I'd like to see them go after the ad agencies like sonar, pulse and the rest that are responsible for 90% of the ads that get shown to consumers. Knocking some people down for this without going after the ad agencies approving these ads is not going to do anything but have other people with the same ads and pages take their place in the rotation. Hit the big ad agencies that approve these and that will cause them to get more serious with their ad approvals, drive bids back down, and we won't be having these problems anymore. The ad agencies are the ones responsible for what ads and pages get shown to consumers, they have ad approval teams already in place, if they start to think that they may get some blame on this they will quickly change their approval process and that's what the industry really needs right now. If the FTC wants those big settlement numbers and to actually make a difference then the ad agencies are a great place to start, not going to get that with these random average affiliate marketers.
Click to expand...


Agreed 100%. When you go through adsonar legal, they say this is ok to do, as long as you make X alternations to the page. I'm not a lawyer, but that seems like a liability to me. Great point.

@papajohn: If you read the ftc blogs regularly like I do (I'm cool I know), you'll notice that most of what they post is about cases they WON or initiatives they're going to take with broad strokes (like cyber crime prevention week or whatever event they're having). It's about consumer confidence that the agency is always doing their job and winning all the time. I don't really see them posting about an active case until its closed/definitively swinging their way.
 
mattaw said:
Agreed 100%. When you go through adsonar legal, they say this is ok to do, as long as you make X alternations to the page. I'm not a lawyer, but that seems like a liability to me. Great point.

@papajohn: If you read the ftc blogs regularly like I do (I'm cool I know), you'll notice that most of what they post is about cases they WON or initiatives they're going to take with broad strokes (like cyber crime prevention week or whatever event they're having). It's about consumer confidence that the agency is always doing their job and winning all the time. I don't really see them posting about an active case until its closed/definitively swinging their way.
Click to expand...

Even so, they usually post actions on the daily Actions page, or at least something on the "Cases" page would show up for this, but nothing. They did post a quaint little video about "free trials", though.
 
johnjassa said:
Praying for Mike and all the Copeac sweeties
Click to expand...

[1]I'm not. I hope they get their ass nailed to the wall and can't recover.



[1] If they actually did turn on their Affiliates. If they try to claim they had no clue what these people were running that's 100% bullshit.
 
1nspire said:
Why does the url say FakeNews.pdf. Me thinks Jon is blowing smoke up your asses.
Click to expand...

Methinks you're an imbecile. The FTC is calling it "Fake News Site" instead of "Farticle". Jackass.

Yeah... they are going after big and small affs, and networks. Not just in one specific location, all over the US. The reason it wasn't on the FTC.gov site yet is because its considered "sealed" still. But that's how things roll on the interwebz. Sealed or not sealed, once you upload it or send it out, we all get copies lickity splits fast y0.
 
Dear Faggots Who Can't Read Between The Lines:

The FTC is reading every single post here. If you'd like to turn them onto more cases to file, keep writing like a bunch of fucking goons, and point them into the direction to sniff into.

That is all.
 
Dwight Schrute said:
Dear Faggots Who Can't Read Between The Lines:

The FTC is reading every single post here. If you'd like to turn them onto more cases to file, keep writing like a bunch of fucking goons, and point them into the direction to sniff into.

That is all.
Click to expand...

Dear paranoid retard who thinks the sky is falling..

FTC, plz look moar here:

135 Crossways Park Drive
Woodbury, New York
11797
(check the drop ceilings for random buffer corp structure docs, offshore accounts and access codes, and Playboy mags hiding from other sweeties of Copeac... kthxbai)
 
In this context, Defendant is commonly referred to as an "affiliate marketer."
Click to expand...
it's shit like this that further fixates a negative connotation on the entirety of affiliate marketing. whether or not you give a shit how the public views what you do for a living, you can't deny the fact it gets annoying having to dodge, dip, duck and dive away from telling those outside of affiliate marketing what you do all to avoid their likely misconstrued ideas and unneeded opinions about your profession.

the road to riches is undoubtedly lined with a few sheists here and there, but if your business model in its entirety is a sheist, it seems entirely inevitable that something like this will happen eventually.

18. Through the means described in Paragraphs 8 through 15 of this Complaint, Defendant has represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that use of the Acai Berry Products, alone or in combination with the Companion Products, will result in rapid and substantial weight loss, including as much as twenty-five pounds in four weeks.
Click to expand...
i don't have much to say about the above, other than the fact i always tend to lol at legalese like that which is bolded. how you go about defining something as concretely indirect or implicative kind of escapes me. but, that's best left for a discussion on semantics.
 
Barclay&Riddell said:
it's shit like this that further fixates a negative connotation on the entirety of affiliate marketing. whether or not you give a shit how the public views what you do for a living, you can't deny the fact it gets annoying having to dodge, dip, duck and dive away from telling those outside of affiliate marketing what you do all to avoid their likely misconstrued ideas and unneeded opinions about your profession.

the road to riches is undoubtedly lined with a few sheists here and there, but if your business model in its entirety is a sheist, it seems entirely inevitable that something like this will happen eventually.

i don't have much to say about the above, other than the fact i always tend to lol at legalese like that which is bolded. how you go about defining something as concretely indirect or implicative kind of escapes me. but, that's best left for a discussion on semantics.
Click to expand...
Your 'stunning english' is an even bigger mess than this FTC shitstorm. Using big words doesn't make you a master wordsmith or 'cunning linguist' if you're talking gibberish, shithead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom