FTC: Alleged Fraudulent Affiliate Marketers will Surrender Assets under Settlements

[monies]

i used the word tax figuratively. besides, it's not 'against their own will', no one forced them to buy that ridiculous acai shit and yet they did, in droves. every day, qvc and hsn sell a huge amount of near worthless crap to stupid people. the fool and his money are soon parted.

So your saying you've never complained about or returned a product in your life? By your logic it was your fault because you did not do your due diligence. Whats wrong with qvc or hsn? If their products were deceptive then people would have been sued them.

You have actually forced them against their own will. No one wants to scam themselves. By offering a product significantly different than the one described is forcefully taking their money away because if not, you would have delivered the product they bought into. But you haven't, so therefore you have taken their money against their own will.

i was referring to a whole room full of workers being killed at foxconn while they were polishing ipad cases. they were sanding them by hand with no protection or ventilation until all the alluminium dust in the air ignited and exploded. apple could insist on minimally safe working conditions in its contractors' factories, but they don't because their customers don't pressure them to.

In this case you are right. However the majority of society don't actually care about the manufacturing process of the goods but that is ultimately up to individuals to change their values. The apple consumers do have the right to return their products if they disagreed with the manufacturing process.

no, the reason we as a society need consumer awareness is so that companies can be properly incentivized to do the right thing by people voting with their dollars. consumer protection laws may have been defensible as a matter of practicality in an age when researching a product was difficult or impossible (basically a third party performing research on our behalf), but in the absence of an information deficit the unintended consequence of fostering consumer apathy makes this an overall liability, imo

-p

Consumer awareness for finding the most suitable product and determining whether a product is a shame are two different things. The first should be encouraged as it teaches people not to buy legitimate shit that they won't use. Legitimate is the key word because it is the consumers fault that they bought a particular product they found out they had no use for. The latter has no merit as having shit products is the sole reason this type of awareness is needed in the first place. And like I said before, the unwillingness to buy, created by the scams also affect legitimate products.

It's not about the practicality of research, it's about the delivering on the product. Your argument is actually the one that is using practicality as an excuse. As you're saying in this day and age everyone can find out if something is a scam. But even if that is true, which it isn't, it's not the consumer's responsibility to make sure the seller delivers on their product. The consumer's role is to decide whether the product will benefit them, it's the seller's responsibility to make sure they deliver on their own product.

This has nothing to do with consumer protection. This is not about restricting how you sell, as I also don't believe in that, it's about making sure that all parties fulfill their agreement in a transaction.

 

[JarredLv]

You're right. Affiliates who rip off consumers are being oppressed by the evil govt. How dare they defend consumers? That's un-constitutional! I think you should contribute your line of defense to Jesse Wilms. It's winning.

That's right, because you like what the government is doing, it's okay if they are not authorized by the document they are sworn to support and defend. As long as the government fights for what you want, it's all good.

I would much rather see a few shmucks getting screwed over than the government usurping power is has no right to.

 

[goingviral101]

How badly does this affect INTL running rebills?

 

[Your_Pal]

How badly does this affect INTL running rebills?

no worries till you ain't making millions atleast.

 

[jetto]

That's right, because you like what the government is doing, it's okay if they are not authorized by the document they are sworn to support and defend. As long as the government fights for what you want, it's all good.

I would much rather see a few shmucks getting screwed over than the government usurping power is has no right to.

LOL @ making consumer fraud a constitutional issue.

 

[CitizenSmif]

fake news sites? why doesn't the FTC investigate foxnews.com?

I was watching 'The Corporation' for the second time the other day. One part goes into how a couple of investigators/reporters were hired for Fox or CNN. <snip> Long story short - they gained enough evidence about Fox/CNN falsifying the news to take them to court over it, to which they found out it is not illegal to falsify the news.

 

[paulieg]

So your saying you've never complained about or returned a product in your life? By your logic it was your fault because you did not do your due diligence.

merchants establish return policies because they're a competitive advantage.

Whats wrong with qvc or hsn? If their products were deceptive then people would have been sued them.

leaving your violent assault on the english language aside for a moment, the most obvious deception is the '$99 value, but yours for $9.99, order now and get an extra one free.' beyond that, there's the basic issue of them selling crap. 'buy these earrings, they are wonderful and you'll look great in them', when as a matter of fact, they're gauche, tasteless and no one who lives in a more civilized country would buy them for their worst enemy.

You have actually forced them against their own will. No one wants to scam themselves. By offering a product significantly different than the one described is forcefully taking their money away because if not, you would have delivered the product they bought into. But you haven't, so therefore you have taken their money against their own will.

no. these people were promised pills with acai berry extract. assuming the pills they got actually contained acai berry extract, they received the exact product they bought. the claims may very well have been deceptive, but it's up to the buyer to research claims, establish their credibility and determine whether he wants to buy the product on the basis of those claims and the conclusions he reached in his research. in the acai berry case, it's as simple as finding out what the supposed alkaloid in acai is and finding out if it was ever found to correlate with weight loss in a study.

In this case you are right. However the majority of society don't actually care about the manufacturing process of the goods but that is ultimately up to individuals to change their values. The apple consumers do have the right to return their products if they disagreed with the manufacturing process.

the point is, the populace at large has been trained not to do things because 'the government takes care of that.' the 90 year old man who hit me in a car accident, when asked how in the world he came to the conclusion that he was fit to drive a car when he couldn't see well enough to sign his own name on the police report and could barely stand up, simply replied that 'the government hasn't taken my driver's license away', personal responsibility and judgement be damned. people don't think about foreign policy - the government tells them the evil russians invaded georgia for no good reason and no one bothers to think about it twice, even though georgians were responsible for two previous genocides against ossetians in the 20th century alone and the oecd fact-finding mission established what happened quite clearly; yet i would bet 99% of americans would still toe the us gov't line today, if polled. in the same vein, people have gotten used to not doing any research about the shit they buy, hence not knowing about the blood on their ipads.

Consumer awareness for finding the most suitable product and determining whether a product is a shame are two different things. The first should be encouraged as it teaches people not to buy legitimate shit that they won't use. Legitimate is the key word because it is the consumers fault that they bought a particular product they found out they had no use for. The latter has no merit as having shit products is the sole reason this type of awareness is needed in the first place. And like I said before, the unwillingness to buy, created by the scams also affect legitimate products.

It's not about the practicality of research, it's about the delivering on the product. Your argument is actually the one that is using practicality as an excuse. As you're saying in this day and age everyone can find out if something is a scam. But even if that is true, which it isn't, it's not the consumer's responsibility to make sure the seller delivers on their product. The consumer's role is to decide whether the product will benefit them, it's the seller's responsibility to make sure they deliver on their own product.

the number one reason for people doing research on the stuff they buy is to make sure they'll be happy with their purchase. the major reason for being unhappy with a purchase is if the product turns out to be shit. if they get as used to the government policing that as americans have, they'll stop doing said research. consequently, companies that make products which aren't shit, but are manufactured in a way that harms the public good, will be able to get away with it. in fact, that is the state of affairs we have today, which is the point i'm trying to make.

-p

 

[papajohn56]

LOL @ making consumer fraud a constitutional issue.

JarredLv is a lawyer, I do believe

 

[monies]

merchants establish return policies because they're a competitive advantage.

I never asked you anything about a return policy and hurr I didn't know guarantees were a selling point durr.

My question was if you have ever been scammed before?

leaving your violent assault on the english language aside for a moment, the most obvious deception is the '$99 value, but yours for $9.99, order now and get an extra one free.' beyond that, there's the basic issue of them selling crap. 'buy these earrings, they are wonderful and you'll look great in them', when as a matter of fact, they're gauche, tasteless and no one who lives in a more civilized country would buy them for their worst enemy.

I am so sorry that I made that mistake. I have disappointed the masters of English literature. Please forgive me.

Anyway, you can't claim your judgement on something subjective as the beauty of a fashion accessory to be a fact. I'm sure you have purchased a certain product that others would label as "shit" or "overpriced".

no. these people were promised pills with acai berry extract. assuming the pills they got actually contained acai berry extract, they received the exact product they bought. the claims may very well have been deceptive, but it's up to the buyer to research claims, establish their credibility and determine whether he wants to buy the product on the basis of those claims and the conclusions he reached in his research. in the acai berry case, it's as simple as finding out what the supposed alkaloid in acai is and finding out if it was ever found to correlate with weight loss in a study

Show me one berry lander that doesn't claim any weight loss benefits.

the point is, the populace at large has been trained not to do things because 'the government takes care of that.' the 90 year old man who hit me in a car accident, when asked how in the world he came to the conclusion that he was fit to drive a car when he couldn't see well enough to sign his own name on the police report and could barely stand up, simply replied that 'the government hasn't taken my driver's license away', personal responsibility and judgement be damned. people don't think about foreign policy - the government tells them the evil russians invaded georgia for no good reason and no one bothers to think about it twice, even though georgians were responsible for two previous genocides against ossetians in the 20th century alone and the oecd fact-finding mission established what happened quite clearly; yet i would bet 99% of americans would still toe the us gov't line today, if polled. in the same vein, people have gotten used to not doing any research about the shit they buy, hence not knowing about the blood on their ipads.

I actually have to admit that I was wrong to have accidentally defended the FTC. They do have no right to act on consumers' behalf.

This is still consumer fraud though, it's just that the FTC shouldn't be the one prosecuting the scammers.

the number one reason for people doing research on the stuff they buy is to make sure they'll be happy with their purchase. the major reason for being unhappy with a purchase is if the product turns out to be shit. if they get as used to the government policing that as americans have, they'll stop doing said research. consequently, companies that make products which aren't shit, but are manufactured in a way that harms the public good, will be able to get away with it. in fact, that is the state of affairs we have today, which is the point i'm trying to make.

-p

You can't teach consumers how to research for the most suitable product by defrauding them. They are completely different things.

This is whole "it's for their own good" argument is just as wrong as the FTC acting on consumers behalf because you have no right to force people into learning a lesson. Even if you did, it still wouldn't make sense as you're saying "stealing is good because it raises the awareness of stealing".

 

[craigmc]

Ok then let's look at Sham-Wow. Yes it does exactly what it says it does. So does a fucking towel ! And I've got a shit ton of those.

If the average consumer ever rubbed two brain cells together we would all be out of business.

Think about it. How many of you sell a product that is the next best thing to sliced bread?

 

[paulieg]

I never asked you anything about a return policy and hurr I didn't know guarantees were a selling point durr.

apologies, some of what you wrote was hard to understand.

My question was if you have ever been scammed before?

yes. it didn't make me cry and go running to the government.

Anyway, you can't claim your judgement on something subjective as the beauty of a fashion accessory to be a fact. I'm sure you have purchased a certain product that others would label as "shit" or "overpriced".

my main point was the '$99 value, yours for $9.99 if you call right now.' there are two main theories of value: the labour theory of value, which holds that the value of a given product is determined by the labour that went into producing it, and the marginal utility theory of value, which is usually somewhat inaccurately simplified to 'a product is worth whatever someone is willing to pay.' clearly, the labour that goes into any given '$99 value' item on hsn/qvc isn't worth anywhere near $99, as the value contributed by labour usually sets the price floor. beyond that, nowhere near enough people are willing to actually pay $99, or the product wouldn't be priced at $9.99; consequently, its marginal utility is clearly nowhere near $99. quod erat demonstrandum.

Show me one berry lander that doesn't claim any weight loss benefits.

the point is that there is a difference between what the product is and the claims about the product. the product in question is acai berry extract - if someone offered to sell acai berry extract, people bought it and received something other than acai berry extract, that would unequivocally be fraudulent. while it is possible for buyers to avoid most such cases by buying from well-reputed sellers, it's not possible in all cases. claims are different and it is the buyer's responsibility to do enough research to determine if the claims are justified. axe deodorant advertisements claim by inference that using axe will invariably result in herds of women trampling you as they are unable to control their sexual ardor aroused by your use of axe. when you buy axe deodorant, you do indeed get axe brand deodorant. it is up to you not to be a complete waste of oxygen, expecting to be overrun by women hoping to shag you.

I actually have to admit that I was wrong to have accidentally defended the FTC. They do have no right to act on consumers' behalf.

i'm not saying they have no right to do it - under our current socio-economic system of being born into a pre-existing social contract which forces us to give consent to be governed and precludes us from voluntarily disassociating from the group bound by that contract (society at large), they have as much right to do this as the government has to exist and do what it does in general. i would say that this state of affairs is immoral, but that's a different discussion altogether.

what i am saying is that it is undesirable, even in the current socio-economic system and said undesirability stems not just from the notion that all non-voluntarily associative government is undesirable and immoral, but on the grounds that it discourages research by consumers and consequently breaks the incentive system we're supposed to have in our pseudo-free market economy.

This is still consumer fraud though, it's just that the FTC shouldn't be the one prosecuting the scammers.

finally. the best prosecution is consumers googling 'acai berry weight loss studies' or something similar and choosing not to buy as a result of their research. scams can not succeed in the absence of people willing to be scammed, through carelessness, stupidity or greed.

You can't teach consumers how to research for the most suitable product by defrauding them. They are completely different things.

This is whole "it's for their own good" argument is just as wrong as the FTC acting on consumers behalf because you have no right to force people into learning a lesson. Even if you did, it still wouldn't make sense as you're saying "stealing is good because it raises the awareness of stealing".

i'm not advocating using scams to teach consumers to research. i'm simply pointing out that if the government did not step in to regulate this, people would be financially incented to do their own research and since people doing their own research is what makes the 'voting with your dollars' incentive system work, it is desirable that the government stop regulating these matters.

-p

 

[monies]

yes. it didn't make me cry and go running to the government.

There, you said yourself. According to your argument scams cannot exist, there are only people who haven't properly researched their purchase.

my main point was the '$99 value, yours for $9.99 if you call right now.' there are two main theories of value: the labour theory of value, which holds that the value of a given product is determined by the labour that went into producing it, and the marginal utility theory of value, which is usually somewhat inaccurately simplified to 'a product is worth whatever someone is willing to pay.' clearly, the labour that goes into any given '$99 value' item on hsn/qvc isn't worth anywhere near $99, as the value contributed by labour usually sets the price floor. beyond that, nowhere near enough people are willing to actually pay $99, or the product wouldn't be priced at $9.99; consequently, its marginal utility is clearly nowhere near $99. quod erat demonstrandum.

Yes that's all correct but how is this the same a slanging berry rebills? Sure most people would agree that $90 discount is bullshit but the value is totally subjective. What matters is that they delivered on their product.

It can proved that berry pills don't make you lose weight. It can't be proved that the products in hsn/qvc are not worth $99. Even if their bs discount could be proven to be untrue, the buyer in effect has already accepted that the product was worth $99 and is now discounted to $9 by agreeing to the transaction.

the point is that there is a difference between what the product is and the claims about the product. the product in question is acai berry extract - if someone offered to sell acai berry extract, people bought it and received something other than acai berry extract, that would unequivocally be fraudulent. while it is possible for buyers to avoid most such cases by buying from well-reputed sellers, it's not possible in all cases. claims are different and it is the buyer's responsibility to do enough research to determine if the claims are justified. axe deodorant advertisements claim by inference that using axe will invariably result in herds of women trampling you as they are unable to control their sexual ardor aroused by your use of axe. when you buy axe deodorant, you do indeed get axe brand deodorant. it is up to you not to be a complete waste of oxygen, expecting to be overrun by women hoping to shag you.

Find me a berry offer that was sold exclusively as a "berry extract".

In a free market if a consumer could prove that he genuinely believed the axe spray would give him a endless fountain of pussy then sure the seller should be held responsible.

i'm not saying they have no right to do it - under our current socio-economic system of being born into a pre-existing social contract which forces us to give consent to be governed and precludes us from voluntarily disassociating from the group bound by that contract (society at large), they have as much right to do this as the government has to exist and do what it does in general. i would say that this state of affairs is immoral, but that's a different discussion altogether.

what i am saying is that it is undesirable, even in the current socio-economic system and said undesirability stems not just from the notion that all non-voluntarily associative government is undesirable and immoral, but on the grounds that it discourages research by consumers and consequently breaks the incentive system we're supposed to have in our pseudo-free market economy.

This is not about incentivization. Even in a real free market (which I also support) contractual agreements need to be fulfilled by all parties.

finally. the best prosecution is consumers googling 'acai berry weight loss studies' or something similar and choosing not to buy as a result of their research. scams can not succeed in the absence of people willing to be scammed, through carelessness, stupidity or greed.

No the best prosecution is to make sure berry sellers are actually delivering a product which loses 20 pounds in 4 weeks. It doesn't matter how retarded or lazy the consumer is because like I said before, it's not the consumers responsibility to make sure the seller delivers on their product.

i'm not advocating using scams to teach consumers to research. i'm simply pointing out that if the government did not step in to regulate this, people would be financially incented to do their own research and since people doing their own research is what makes the 'voting with your dollars' incentive system work, it is desirable that the government stop regulating these matters.

-p

I also agree that the government shouldn't regulate how we market our shit, however this is about the legality of selling products that don't deliver on their claims.

Unfortunately in this case it's not the consumers that are prosecuting and reclaiming their damages, but the FTC who are wrongfully representing on their behalf.

 

[jetto]

the FTC who are wrongfully representing on their behalf.

Wrongfully? LOL, that's their mandate. Raison d'être. If you want everyone to fend for themselves that's jungle law. There are countries like that if you that's what you're into. You can wrong or even murder someone and it's up to the victims to hunt you down. Would that be a place where you wanna live? Plenty of places like that around the world. Yea "fend for yourself". What a bunch of bullshit.

 

[monies]

Wrongfully? LOL, that's their mandate. Raison d'être. If you want everyone to fend for themselves that's jungle law. There are countries like that if you that's what you're into. You can wrong or even murder someone and it's up to the victims to hunt you down. Would that be a place where you wanna live? Plenty of places like that around the world. Yea "fend for yourself". What a bunch of bullshit.

Of course people should protect themselves. Who gets compensated for the consumers' damages when the FTC gets involved? The FTC.

We should be advocating for a legal system that's more accessible for small claims like these, instead of having an gov agency that does a shitty job at protecting consumers. Because then scammers would have no chance to slip under the radar.

HURRRRR Sure, let's advocate agencies like the FTC/SEC because the government knows what's best and they can protect us better than we can ourselves. DUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

[nickster]

axe deodorant advertisements claim by inference that using axe will invariably result in herds of women trampling you as they are unable to control their sexual ardor aroused by your use of axe. when you buy axe deodorant, you do indeed get axe brand deodorant. it is up to you not to be a complete waste of oxygen, expecting to be overrun by women hoping to shag you.

That is not the same thing at all. If Axe actually states that their deoderant will bring you hoards of women wanting to shag you then that is the same as an Acai seller stating that you will lose weight. But Axe don't say this and Acai vendors do.

 

[suddenly_tits]

and lol @ defending CPA rebill advertisers

 

[blogspotter]

For Release: 01/25/2012
FTC Permanently Stops Six Operators from Using Fake News Sites that Allegedly Deceived Consumers about Acai Berry Weight-Loss Products

Read the full details here:


Ricardo Jose Labra Labra’s $2.5 million judgment will be suspended when he pays $280,000 and records a $39,500 lien on his home.


Zachary S. Graham, Ambervine Marketing, LLC and Encastle, Inc. Graham’s $953,000 judgment will be suspended when he pays $110,000 plus most of the proceeds from the sale of a truck.


Tanner Garrett Vaughn Vaughn’s $203,000 judgment will be suspended when he pays close to $80,000 over a three-year period.


Thou Lee Lee’s $204,000 judgment will be suspended when he pays $13,000 plus the proceeds from the sale of a BMW.


Charles Dunlevy Dunlevy’s $143,000 judgment will be suspended when he pays an estimated $2,000 from frozen assets and the sale of a boat.


DLXM, LLC and Michael Volozin The $594,000 judgment will be suspended because of the defendants’ inability to pay.

All the n00bs who used to start "how much are you making daily threads", you can now guess
PS: Considering these are gross income, over several months, they weren't balling as hard as they claimed to. except maybe Ricardo.. Not that they weren't balling at all, but still..

 

[invisible777]

So basically the FTC just dings people for around 10% of their gross revenue?

 

[blogspotter]

So basically the FTC just dings people for around 10% of their gross revenue?

Looks to me like they had very hard evidence to prove that they were running at 10% margin...
The customers/victims were dinged at gross + advertiser/network/broker-network profit margin though

So basically, who gained?
The media networks, pulse360, adsonar and the likes....
Even google and facebook for quite sometime ;-)

 

[jsphfcll]

LOL at people in this thread not knowing the difference between revenue and profit

this is not even a lot of revenue... these are not the top guys