Attorney General Madigan Files Suit Against local affiliate marketer

vladb2 said:
where did you read this?
Click to expand...
It's not publicly available.
The law is though. It's called the competition act
(1) A person engages in reviewable conduct who, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the supply or use of a product or for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest, by any means whatever,
(a) makes a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect;
(b) makes a representation to the public in the form of a statement, warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product that is not based on an adequate and proper test thereof, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation; or
(c) makes a representation to the public in a form that purports to be
(i) a warranty or guarantee of a product, or
(ii) a promise to replace, maintain or repair an article or any part thereof or to repeat or continue a service until it has achieved a specified result,
if the form of purported warranty or guarantee or promise is materially misleading or if there is no reasonable prospect that it will be carried out.
Ordinary price: suppliers generally

(2) Subject to subsection (3), a person engages in reviewable conduct who, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the supply or use of a product or for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest, by any means whatever, makes a representation to the public concerning the price at which a product or like products have been, are or will be ordinarily supplied where suppliers generally in the relevant geographic market, having regard to the nature of the product,
(a) have not sold a substantial volume of the product at that price or a higher price within a reasonable period of time before or after the making of the representation, as the case may be; and
(b) have not offered the product at that price or a higher price in good faith for a substantial period of time recently before or immediately after the making of the representation, as the case may be.
Click to expand...
A person engages in reviewable conduct who, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the supply or use of any product, or for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest, makes a representation to the public that a test has been made as to the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product by any person, or publishes a testimonial with respect to a product, unless the person making the representation or publishing the testimonial can establish that
(a) such a representation or testimonial was previously made or published by the person by whom the test was made or the testimonial was given, or
(b) such a representation or testimonial was, before being made or published, approved and permission to make or publish it was given in writing by the person by whom the test was made or the testimonial was given,
and the representation or testimonial accords with the representation or testimonial previously made, published or approved.
1999, c. 2, s. 22.
Click to expand...
So onto the punishments, and the directly applicable part
So if you fit into this:
(1) No person shall, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the supply or use of a product or for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest, by any means whatever, knowingly or recklessly make a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect.
Click to expand...
Your punishment can be:
General impression to be considered

(4) In a prosecution for a contravention of this section, the general impression conveyed by a representation as well as its literal meaning shall be taken into account in determining whether or not the representation is false or misleading in a material respect.

Offence and punishment

(5) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine in the discretion of the court or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, or to both; or

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding $200,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both.
Click to expand...
 


you_gonna_get_raped.jpg
 
mkrongel said:
The offers being targeted in the recent FTC/AG actions were never in my network. We review offers and traffic sources to conform to our standards, our standards differ from others, so as a marketer yourself you owe it to yourself to do your due diligence in creating a campaign

I also subscribe to the rule that if an advertiser supplies creatives to us and on to our publishers, that advertiser is responsible for their content in the creative,

Its election time in IL, the AG needs a big case for re-election, what bigger case than one coupled with Oprah. She obviously converts right?

Your argument of shouldnt the network protect me, sounds like the consumers who bought Acai or other free trial products who fail to read the terms but wants someone else to watch out for them, as a marketer you have a responsibility to follow laws/regulations/rules/etc... and to protect yourself.

If your AM asked you to jump off a bridge to get a higher payout, would you do it?
Click to expand...


uhhhhh you guys had a lot of offers from Crush LLC i b/c i remember my AM trying to get me to run one and i said no way b/c i knew those guys were shady as balls...
 
I wonder if they're going to go after amazon.com, shopping.com, ebay.com and all the other big named sites that have a blanket kw bid for everything. I seriously doubt it, but they should if they are trying to prove their point and not be biased towards the bigger sites.
 
It just dawned on me, but why is Rachel Ray not part of this lawsuit? So many close connections to Oprah & Acai, so it only seems logical that she'd be part of the suit, or bring her own eventually.
 
coach said:
I wonder if they're going to go after amazon.com, shopping.com, ebay.com and all the other big named sites that have a blanket kw bid for everything. I seriously doubt it, but they should if they are trying to prove their point and not be biased towards the bigger sites.
Click to expand...

These ad copies are listed in the case.

hellonqe.jpg
 
Yeah they are listed in the suit, but only because they were taken during the screenshots. No mention of them in the suit at all.
 
Finally questions time!

Is it safe if one makes a share in hand corp in say "panama" and then get some offshore merchant account to bill the users and rebill like shit?

how bad is rebilling as a whole at this point as a business strategy? I am talking bout things outside pharma space.. say.. netflix... how bad will they be hit if they start a $1 tryle and then rebill there users $35 a month! after the offer period expires and mention the rebilling part in fine print only on that page and nowhere else on the page! they dont mention anything bout any celeb n shit...! no trademark infringements..!

they wont use the word "free" anywhere just... "special offer" and stuff like that..!

will that work or is it a bad idea....?

if u kill re-billing wtf are we guys gonna promote then? i dont want 10-12% on sales... that would suck bad...!

what do u think the future of rebills? and how dangerous will they be!

looking forward to replies from some en-lighted members.. coz m freaking confused right now!
 
berrycorp said:
Finally questions time!

Is it safe if one makes a share in hand corp in say "panama" and then get some offshore merchant account to bill the users and rebill like shit?

how bad is rebilling as a whole at this point as a business strategy? I am talking bout things outside pharma space.. say.. netflix... how bad will they be hit if they start a $1 tryle and then rebill there users $35 a month! after the offer period expires and mention the rebilling part in fine print only on that page and nowhere else on the page! they dont mention anything bout any celeb n shit...! no trademark infringements..!

they wont use the word "free" anywhere just... "special offer" and stuff like that..!

will that work or is it a bad idea....?

if u kill re-billing wtf are we guys gonna promote then? i dont want 10-12% on sales... that would suck bad...!

what do u think the future of rebills? and how dangerous will they be!

looking forward to replies from some en-lighted members.. coz m freaking confused right now!
Click to expand...

sounds like u have no clue of what u may be getting into.. best advice stick to promoting other ppls offers.
 
schockergd said:
Someone needs to improve their English skills.
Click to expand...

Go read a book you illiterate son of a bitch and step up your vocab
Don't be surprised if your hoe steps out wit' me
And you see us coming downon yo' slab
Livin' ghetto fabulous, so mad, you just can't take it
But nigga if you hate now, then you wait while
I get your bitch butt naked
Just break it
 
COOLEREXPRESS said:
Don't be surprised if your hoe steps out wit' me And you see us coming downon yo' slab
Livin' ghetto fabulous, so mad, you just can't take it
But nigga if you hate now, then you wait while
I get your bitch butt naked
Just break it
Click to expand...

Finally, a rapper worse than AdExhibitJason!!
 
It would have really been better if we had discussed the question rather than my English.

Anyways. Anybody has any idea about the question. I went through the appeal its more about copyright infringement and nothing else. Its also only a appeal not a judgment!

It does not say much about re-billing and stuff like that. I have been discussing this with my lawyer and he is looking into all this. It seems that re-billing is not much of a issue if you dont mis-advertise by using the words "free" etc.. its ok to rebill if you are not misleading users to think the stuff is free! We are still in discussions.

I only wanted your views on the matter thats why i posted. Let me know what you think!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom