Slashdot Mirror

I understand why Hormel wants to do this. Normally you don't want your product associated with such a negative thing.

Yeah, I've felt a little bad for Hormel with the association. But I've never associated or heard other people associate SPAM with a quality product. I've only eaten it once when camping when I was in 6th grade. Honestly, I don't remember it being bad. For me, the only caned meat products that I eat is tuna.

Also, if they are going to the US government for help in this matter, maybe they should reconsider http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspa m.htm. Because it does not appear as though the government recognizes or respects their brand name either.

You should have invoked Magnusom-moss on them the moment they told you that they cannot support your system with linux.

Although tie-in sales provisions generally are not allowed, you can include such a provision in your warranty if you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FTC that your product will not work properly without a specified item or service.

They will have a hard time demonstrating that you system will not work properly under linux. Even if this is a linux only-system they will have a hard time. Since you have XP installed it is clear that linux cannot be at fault.

It's working perfectly. It says that people can spam, right?

• False or forged headers are forbidden
• Deceptive subject lines are forbidden
• Must have a working opt-out mechanism
• Must identify itself as an advertisement
• Must have sender's postal (snail-mail) address

Yes, but that course of action doesnt negate the ability of the initiator (in this case the RIAA) from suing you. You can get the debt agency off your back by doing that, but you will probably just find yourself being served a court summons.

This is perfectly allowed under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Section 805 Part C which handles ceasing of communication allows for three exemptions :

(1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated;

(2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or

(3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy.

Under subsections 2 and 3 a specified remedy can be sueing you to recover the debt. In other words, that letter you link to is not a 'get out of jail free' card.

You can, and in fact companies do this all the time. I've had it done to me on several occasions. But the collection agencies are all bark and no bite (unless, of course, they've really got a solid claim against you, that's a different story.) All you have to do is just send the collection agency a nice certified letter back demanding all of their detailed records showing how they have a valid claim against you within 30 days so that you can begin your lawsuit against them, and they back right off. More info from the FTC

Banks make good money selling your financial information to "related buisnesses".

Sorry to burst your bubble. I work closely with dozens of banks and credit unions on this very topic. GLB inspires more neurotic fear in bankers than anything else I have seen in some time.

By the way, "related businness" means sharing information with other companies that must be there to support the bank, like disaster recovery companies, records archiving companies, etc.

Whether or not you believe it, "related businesses" simply cannot use your information for anything other than performing their service for the bank.

The closest a bank can get to profiting from your personal information is using it to offer services. A bank may notice that you have a high credit card balance and offer you a HELOC, it may notice that you have a high savings balance and offer its CDs, it may notice that your car loan is getting paid down and offer a pre-approved loan for a newer car, etc.

Other than that, your information is strictly off limits.

Somewhere between -5 and 5 months ago/from now.

The FTC is already requiring the credit agencies to give you a free report every year, with implementation rolling out since 1 Dec 2004 depending on where you live. Some states have required this for years.

Not true.

http://skepdic.com/shark.html
http://www.canoe.ca/Health0004/06_cancer.html

"It's true that some sharks get cancer. I said this in my book," said William Lane, author of the 1992 book Sharks Don't Get Cancer. "My publisher thought it would be bad to call it, Almost No Sharks Get Cancer."

"This is good science that shows us that sharks can get cancer," said biologist John Coffey of Johns Hopkins University. "I don't think there is any benefit to buying shark cartilage and eating it, any more than I think that eating a rabbit will make me run faster."

This is a claim made by people trying to peddle products to desperately sick people. It has no basis in fact, and the FTC took action in 2000 to prevent companies from making this claim.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/06/lanelabs.htm
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/nws/content/nws_1_1x _ftc_stops_claims_made_by_makers_of_shark_cartilag e_products.asp

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/atmcard .htm "ATM or Debit Card Loss or Fraudulent Transfers (EFTA). Your liability under federal law for unauthorized use of your ATM or debit card depends on how quickly you report the loss." "For example, if you report the loss within two business days after you realize your card is missing, you will not be responsible for more than $50 for unauthorized use."

Start here.

And note:

Under Federal law (15 U.S.C. 1681g, available at 609 (e), www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/031224fcra.pdf), victims of identity theft in other states can also legally gain access to records from a business that relate to fraud based on identity theft (applications for credit, sales receipts, copies of checks, and other records). A victim of identity theft must provide a copy of the FTC affidavit (or other affidavit acceptable to the business), government-issued identification, and a copy of a police report. The business must provide copies of these records to the victim within 30 days of the victim's request at no charge.

An important distinction to make is that debit cards don't offer the protections that credit cards do. If someone makes a fradulent purchase with your debit card (using it as a "Visa" card), you don't get the opportunity to dispute it.

Or try https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_C ODE=PU01

I thought you were only liable (under federal law) for $50 of fraudulant charges on your credit card. Thats a pretty small risk... Check this link out: this GSG

With regard to businesses, I can refute that. For example, Nationwide Mortgage and Sunbelt Lending Services were found, by the FTC, to not having implemented the required safeguards.

OTOH, this law would not apply to individuals.

I believe they are doing it in phases.

From ftc.gov...
Free reports will be phased in during a nine-month period, rolling from the West Coast to the East beginning December 1, 2004. Beginning September 1, 2005, free reports will be accessible to all Americans, regardless of where they live.

Consumers in the Western states -- Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming -- can order their free reports beginning December 1, 2004.

Consumers in the Midwestern states -- Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin -- can order their free reports beginning March 1, 2005.

Consumers in the Southern states -- Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas -- can order their free reports beginning June 1, 2005.

Consumers in the Eastern states -- Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia -- the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all U.S. territories can order their free reports beginning September 1, 2005

Ive had this little link in my bookmarks for a very long time Toysmart

I site this link alot when I deal with any online purchases and ask for some assurances, not just what is put in thier online agreements.

I do know that what the credit card companies do to send out those offers doesn't count as a 'credit check'. It's important that it doesn't: every time a lender checks your credit, it lowers your credit score slightly. This is intended to prevent people from taking out too many loans, credit cards, etc., and also to discourage you from shopping around too much for the best deal on credit. When they send out prescreened offers, the credit card companies just get a list of people with 'good' credit, they don't get an actual credit report.

If you don't like getting 20 credit card offers per week, you can call 1-888-5-OPTOUT (567-8688). By going through the automated system at that number, you tell the major credit agencies to stop giving out your info for prescreened credit card offers. It works well. I get very few of these now. More info on the FTC website

• over 3 million Americans had fraudulent ID theft (the worse kind), and 10 million total had some type of ID theft
• ID theft victims spent a total of 300 million hours "fixing" their problems.
• Fraudulent ID theft averaged $10,000 stolen. The total cost of all ID theft is $50 billion.
• the monetary cost to fix fraudulent ID theft averages $1,200 per ID victim.

• 300 million hours of victims' time = 300 million hours of research and investigative time = a 'donation' of at least a few billion dollars.
• The ID theft victim gets hit with real and lasting costs. Companies get to write off their losses, or use insurance and pass their costs on to consumers. A year after ID theft is discovered, the theft is just a blip in a spreadsheet to the companies where the stolen identity was used. The victim will still be writing letters, finding new ramifications, and losing time and sleep over the matter.
• Those 300 million hours also = stress, lost time from work, family, charities, plus also extra medical expenses.
• "15 percent of ID Theft victims reported that their personal information was misused in nonfinancial ways. The most common such use reported was to present the victim's name and identifying information when someone was stopped by law enforcement authorities or was charged with a crime." What's the cost of your kid seeing you arrested because someone else used your name? Not to mention...
• Now that the government gets data from Choicepoint and others, and because the government has no legal responsibility to find or fix bad data in its files, the rest of your life could be hobbled by bad data and you won't quite know why.

I think it's definitely true that shutting down a company like Choicepoint would cause a big ruckus. Then again, there are a lot of other companies in that industry that just aren't as well known as Choicepoint... To clear up a couple of things, Choicepoint, and every other company that provides that kind of information, is subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It details what information can be reported and how it can be used. This is in addition to each state's laws. Second, I work in this industry and there are all kinds of problems when it comes to doing background checks. Databases are awfully unreliable sources of information for a number of reasons I won't go into here, but in large part due to the inconsistency and lack of communication that takes place between the courts in our counties, states and federal districts. It's easy to believe that an employer might do a "background check" and find out all there is to know, but no company can always find everything there is to know about of person. It's not their fault - just how the system works.

There is no real scientific argument for or against patents - since history and economics are not really sciences, but an observer of the last 100 years cannot help but notice that nations with patent systems have had much more innovation than those without.

This is NOT an argument on my part for unlimited patents and extending patents to business practices or math. Too much of a good thing can be worse than lack of it.

Place a fraud alert and get a free credit report from all three credit bureaus... hmm.. sounds like a pretty good deal.. are there any drawbacks??

Lol, you read my mind. :) I wonder if you can do that an unlimited number of times. If not, then maybe the links I've pasted below will work for now. If you didn't know already, you are entitled to a free credit report annualy. See the government link, and the actual free credit report link below. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/freerep orts.htm
https://www.annualcreditreport.com/cra/index.jsp

-- Josh

I would look FTC for help. You obviously do not agree to the EULA because Blizzard will not honor your right to use the software.

FTC Complaint Form This may help you getting a legal investigation started.

I do not think that first sale doctrine applies because the software isn't purchased it is licensed. I do however think that you have a breach of contract claim. Reference the folliwing article Having said that first sale doesn't apply, I have not been able to find an example where this has been tried in a court.

IANAL. This is not legal advice. In face it isn't even supposed to look like legal advice or in any way seem like it might be seeming to be posing as legal advice. Heck for the price of a used video game you can purchase .053 minutes of a good lawyers time :-)

Unfortunately, Federal law mandates a limit on transfers and some banks have additional policies and charges for electronic transfers, so this is a bit impratical.

I had the pleasure of learning about this bullshit the hard way.

More information here and here. Call your bank for more info.

Not International. This outsourcing is just another way of getting around the rules.

Incorrect. I pointed this out in my post above (it has a stupid typo in the subject header). The post references this FAQ, which states that:

33. Are telemarketing calls from overseas covered?

Yes. Any telemarketers calling U.S. consumers are covered, regardless of where they are calling from. If a company within the U.S. solicits sales through an overseas professional telemarketer, that U.S. company may be liable for any violations by the telemarketer. The FTC can initiate enforcement actions against such companies.

From the National Do Not Call Registry FAQ

33. Are telemarketing calls from overseas covered?

Yes. Any telemarketers calling U.S. consumers are covered, regardless of where they are calling from. If a company within the U.S. solicits sales through an overseas professional telemarketer, that U.S. company may be liable for any violations by the telemarketer. The FTC can initiate enforcement actions against such companies.

I guess it would make sense that people doing business in the US are still accountable to US laws and regulations. Get their name and number -- file a complaint. It will do us all a favor.

Here are some problems with that scenario:
1) Rambus had already presented their technology to most of the memory manufacturers individually before Jedec, so they already knew about it (even though Rambus was not allowed to present it at Jedec.)
2) As I understand it, the actual standard for SDRAM developed at JEDEC does not require the use of technology on which Rambus has patents. However, all of the actual implementations (the ways that SDRAM was actually made) DID infringe on Rambus' patents. So, technically, you could make SDRAM without infringing, but no one did because it wouldn't work worth a darn. But the standard developed at Jedec while Rambus was there (sitting quietly in the audience without presenting anything) did not infringe. (Although it seems like Rambus themselves weren't entirely sure at the time if it was going to or not.)
3) Rambus left Jedec, and announced to Jedec officially that they thought there would be potential issues involving their patents. Long AFTER Rambus left Jedec, the DDR standard was developed, and even later DDR2. Yet all of the DDR and DDR2 that is made now infringe on Rambus patents. Are they still "submarining" patents? The truth is, there had not been, and still has not been, any viable alternative invented.

If you are interested in learning about this subject try here:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/040223initialde cision.pdf
Note - that link is to the FTC, and is a 300+ page pdf of the decision written by an FTC judge after he spend months hearing a trial about this situation. This is not Rambus propaganda. The FTC investigated Rambus at the behest of Micron. If you want an exhaustive, unbiased source of information, this is it. There is a summary section at the end that you can start on. If you read through enough of this, as I have, you can see that in fact it was the memory manufacturers who were purposely screwing both Rambus and the public, and a lot of what you have read in the trade press is propaganda spread by them.

Maybe a bit more info is required...

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

disclaimer: IANAL, nor do I know for certain that this act requires the warranty to stand regardless of reasonable upgrades. However in my jurisdiction we have legistlation that basically means that a manufacturer must warranty a product in light of 'reasonable' modifications... which ram, add on cards, and hdd upgrades would certainly be included under (where a mod chip would not).

l4h

Cellphone number portability, Do Not Call list, he's pushed hard to free up more spectrum for WiFi.

But he's republican so let's focus on the stuff we don't like.

Well his first name is Brian so he's not the defendant in that case. ALL the addresses lead back to him though, I would guess he used a sister or wife as the CEO of that company.

Hey the six degrees of Brian Haberstroh (I did in five what can you do it in).
Website has same address as the ftc document. [http://web.archive.org/web/19961219234234/http:// www.greenhorse.com/ ] way back machines shows same address for greenhorse.com (sorry not enough slash foo to link(remember to delete the space!)).
what do you know a spam from said website. (click on cached and goto the bottom of page) note the P.O. box address.
Note the name of the company.
Notice the name of one of his companies.

So you're saying it's run like the typical business?

Incorrect. Ponzi schemes generally require there to be no product being sold and pays no commission to investors who recruit new members - only money changing hands in the shape of a pyramid: from a large foundation of payers towards a small roof of recipients.

Indeed, Social Security sells no product; it is a redistributive fiscal policy. It pays no commission to its investors -- the younger working class which does not collect SS. Hence, SS is clearly a Ponzi scheme.

The grandparent is correct: the weakness of SS is that it is a Ponzi scheme. The parent is incorrect: most businesses (i.e. legit ones, seeing as Ponzi schemes are illegal) have a product or service to sell, making them *not* Ponzi schemes, unlike SS.

To clarify SS's status as a Ponzi scheme and demonstrate the problem here, SS is premised, like all Ponzi schemes, on the idea that there will be more young people to fund the program than existing elderly people to receive from it. Hence, SS's ability to succeed at all is fundamentally based on the fertility rate.

The fertility rate is a measure of how many people are born to a set of parents. In the 1930s, when SS was created, there were 3.5 children for every 2 parents -- considerably more than the replacement rate of 2.1 children. Throughout most of the 1980s, the fertility rate was around 1.8, meaning there were being born too-few children to replace their parents. Today, the rate is around 2.0-2.1, and has been for the last 5 years or so, having risen slightly from its 1980s levels.

This indicates a serious problem: if SS requires more payers (children) than recipients (parents), then where are the payers going to come from? Clearly, for the last 20 years at least, there has not been a large enough number of children being born to take care of their parents...

And yet, defenders of SS say there is no problem. How silly (not only on the grounds of fertility rates, but on the grounds of existing tax levels vs. when the SS trust fund will run out; if we are to keep the existing system, then we must raise taxes - hardly a desirable event, and that mere fact alone indicates that the system is ailing. So long as the system requires tweaking, all is *not* fine; problems exist which require tweaking, else, there would be no tweaking required)...

Isn't this the same guy who was operating a toner scam some time ago, doing some insider trading, and got his ass handed to him by the FTC?

The company behind Weatherbug is AWS.

A while ago, I authored an article on Spyware on our university website, and got a response from Weatherbug in the form of a "cease and desist" because I dared mention Weatherbug as a spyware offender.

This is the voice mail I received:
"On your page, you're calling our company spyware, which is 100% incorrect. I'd like to get a callback from ... somebody who is the webmaster of that webpage when that reference has been taken down. In addition, you can go to www.weatherbug.com/notspyware which is our Spyware FAQ page where you can download the very same anti-spyware programs you guys recommend on your page to download. So that would be rather masichistic of us to list the very same spyware programs that would potentially remove us. They do not remove us because we are not spyware. I'd like to get a callback as soon as possible at ... once that removal has taken place."

According to this website, Weatherbug has previously been legitimately labeled spyware, because it has bundled the Gator program (this program is probably the most well-known piece of spyware around) and a search bar. However, the more current versions of Weatherbug do not seem to incorporate the elements of spyware that previous versions did. So I wouldn't label the MOST current version of Weatherbug as spyware, but previous versions I would.

However, I'm concerned still with Weatherbug from a technical standpoint. Look through the pages and you'll find that Weatherbug is notoriously difficult to uninstall or disable once it's been installed. It increases Windows startup time and can cause other system issues. This echoes my personal experience with the program.

I also still think Weatherbug is slimy. Here is an excerpt from a publication from AWS (the company behind Weatherbug) presented to the FTC:
"AWS believes that there is nothing inherently objectionable about Adware provided that the software installation and operation is preceded by meaningful notice and consent."

(Meaningful notice and consent, in this case, refers to the bunch of legalese that comes up with every software install, which just about every user in the world clicks "I agree" on without reading.)

Guys, I know spammers are not nice people, but *please* make sure you do not sign his business address (11 Farmington Road, Rochester, New Hampshire 03867. (extracted from the FTC complaint)) for any sweepstakes, printed catalogs, gay literature or any other thing that might overload his postal address.

After all, spammers have already expressed their discontent with this practice, and Im certain none of us would like to upset these outstanding individuals any further.

Again, that is 11 Farmington Road, Rochester, New Hampshire 03867.

Here is the link to the complaint filed by FTC.

The best part is the description of the tactics and messages used by the Spam king! Its stupid, but effective way to fool most of the surfers!

One advertisement mimics the "Notepad" feature of the IE web browser and displays a message stating:
If your NOTEPAD launched and is displaying this message. . . Then 'Spyware' programmers can ontrol applications on YOUR computer and it is URGENT that you download SPY WIPER immediately. Do not allow spyware programs to damage your insecure computer!! (See other window).
[Exhibit 1, as of August 30, 2004]
A separate advertisement causes the computer's CD-ROM tray to open and states:
FINAL WARNING ! !
If your cd-rom drive(s) open . . .
You DESPERATELY NEED to rid your system of spyware pop-ups IMMEDIATELY!
Spyware programmers can control your computer hardware if you failed to protect your computer right at this moment!

My project TuxMobil: Linux with Laptops, Notebooks, PDAs, Mobile Phones and Portable Computers has been under the attack of content thieves some times. Therefore I have decided to sign all my pages with a steganographic watermark. Also I often watch out for stolen content using a special search engine, e.g. CopyScape. In case I detect a fraudulent site, I contact the FBI to Report Internet Fraud and the FTC's Consumer Complaints site (this applies only if the thief is located in the U.S.). And I complain to the thief's ISP.

Wow. Apparently that number (888/5-OPTOUT) is valid [FTC] (see also here).

Opting out of pre-approved credit offers is not much, but it can be useful (and save you a lot of annoyance).

Here's a couple of other useful spam-reporting addresses:

• FDA (for Viagra etc. spam -- if it's a drug or medication being offered under its US brand name, the Food and Drug Administration enforcers want to know)
• SEC (for stock-pumping scams, hot insider tips, etc., shop them to the Securities and Exchange Commission).

I know that not all spammers follow the rules, but you would be surprized at how many do. Many of the emails I get will bounce back to me when I bounce them. So far I have had none bounce back to me. The best part is my spam count is way down. What I believe is that this guy who did the server shutdown found out that if the spammers find a dead end they just take you off the list. They have too because it's pounding them with their own crap.
As for the spammers that don't follow the rules. Then all the email that would of gone to his server ended up bouncing to all the net.

As far as I know (and I'm certainly not an expert), negative items stay on your credit report for a MAXIMUM of seven years. See section 605(a)(4) and (5) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. (There are some exceptions to this rule in subsection (b) and another that extends the ten-year period for info regarding certain student loans.) Maybe you can ask to have that delinquency removed?

Also, I've heard that positive items stay for a minimum of 10 years, but I'm not sure about that.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/optalrt .htm

That's the link to the FTC site stating the number and it's purpose.

It is now federal law that the big three must supply you with an annual credit report for free. The old law only required them to supply a report for free under certain circumstances.

See the FTC Free Credit Report page for full details on how to get your free credit report.

Be sure to attend The FTC workshop on P2P networks If you read the adgenda, you would think FTC is trying to convince people that P2P is a threat to consumers. It would make sense to use a spurious issue that pushes congressional hot buttons if you wanted to slap restrictive laws on P2P since protecting copyrights doesn't get out the votes.
Oh, yeah the weather. I bike to work in new england: a very detailed forcast is critical to my saftey so this little victory is a serious win from my perspective. I already paid taxes for this data...be damned if I'll pay twice for it.

I just settled with Global Web Promotions, but cannot discuss the terms. But, part of what encouraged me to settle is that the FTC has gone after them (and I am helping with that) and had an injunction and order to freeze assets granted.

If you follow the top link in the search results, you'll find yourself in a document that references (on the second page) the very website to which we were all directed originally.

But thanks for the angst.

A consumer does not have an automatic right to return an item in all jurisdictions unless the store permits it, or unless there is a problem with the item (broken, not the right item, etc). A Google search supports this - for example:

• "In West Virginia, there is generally no right to cancel or rescind a purchase made by a consumer from a retailer absent some defect. "
• "If you buy something at a store and later change your mind, you may not be able to return the merchandise because the store's advertised return policy is generally binding. "

...etc. There are jurisditions where you do have a right to a refund (Broward County) for instance) but it's not necessarily true everywhere. You still have to read the fine print.

From the FTC:

You can dispute charges for unsatisfactory goods or services. To do so, you must:

have made the purchase in your home state or within 100 miles of your current billing address. The charge must be for more than $50. (These limitations don't apply if the seller also is the card issuer or if a special business relationship exists between the seller and the card issuer.) and,

first make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute with the seller. No special procedures are required to do so.

So the question is: does "I already have a similar item" count as 'unsatisfactory goods or services'? It would be interesting to see some case law or examples of exercising one's rights under this type of situation.

In my case, because the vendor provided services as advertised (even though I thought it would be free because I didn't read all of the fine print), I had no recourse.

Agreed

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is outlined here for the benefit of business owners.

The bottom line is that there is always an 'implied warranty' that a product will perform.
This implied warranty supersedes any limited (i.e. 90 days for the XBOX) warranties.

One could reasonably expect a computer or CDplayer or car radio to last 5 years. If it craps out in 6 months, one has recourse. This is true even if the limited warranty says 90 days. Push hard and the seller will come around. Sometimes all it takes is a copy of the referenced URL and sometimes it takes a lawsuit.

At the very least, he violated a couple of Truth-in Advertising Laws. He might have the right to rebrand it, but he didn't have the right to lie about the features it contained.

Maybe because Google doesn't actually have a monopoly in any of the product areas they compete in? Are you really going to argue that Google is the sole provider of email, online advertising, or desktop searching? The only area in which you may have a point is search engines (even though there are plenty of alternatives there, too). But guess what? It's not illegal to have a monopoly unless you use anti-competitive practices to acquire or maintain it. Since Google by all accounts has done nothing wrong, nobody is complaining.

According to the FTC's complaint, advertisements for the i-opener also claimed that it provided access to all of the Internet's entertainment and information and that it was equivalent to a personal computer with respect to its ability to access Internet content. For example, i-opener ads included statements such as "Complete access to the World Wide Web" and "Even the most expensive home computer system can't bring you i-opener's simplicity, compact size, and convenient features." The FTC complaint alleges that these advertising claims are deceptive. In fact, i-opener users are unable to access all of the content on the Internet. Some of the content that is unavailable to i-opener users includes files created using popular data formats or programming languages, such as popular Internet technologies for Web site audio, video, interactivity, and multimedia used for online entertainment and information communication. Furthermore, i-opener users cannot download, store, or run software available on the Internet. In certain cases, they also may not be able to display Web pages, open e-mail attachments, or play music files online. - link

And here's a little blurb about them on FTC.gov... which isn't the sort of place companies want linking to them, at least, not this way...