Slashdot Mirror

You want me to give a shit about the "other things" gamergate represents start a new fucking movement. I could give two fucks what that movement has to say at this point.

Hey, I recognize that shitty attitude. It's downright identical to Gawker's . . . right before the FTC got involved in December (in direct response to GG pressure), and Gawker was forced update their disclosure policy (and tons of articles that were then clearly in violation). And things have only gotten worse for them since. Read it and weep:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Kotaku...

The section of the FTC's website that deals with disclosures was updated late last month:

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advic...

Some of this new guidance directly reflects the language and particulars of the concerns GamerGate asked the FTC to address.

"Is “affiliate link” by itself an adequate disclosure? What about a “buy now” button?"

Consumers might not understand that “affiliate link” means that the person placing the link is getting paid for purchases through the link. Similarly, a “buy now” button would not be adequate

Does this guidance about affiliate links apply to links in my product reviews on someone else’s website, to my user comments, and to my tweets?

Yes, the same guidance applies anytime you endorse a product and get paid through affiliate links.

The revised webpage contains a great deal more language that needs to be analyzed but these two examples in particular reflect specific complaints GamerGate had about how Gawker Media handle their affiliate link disclosures. I know of no other group of people who were vocally complaining about this specific practice to the FTC. In addition, the FTC emails from my previous posts confirm that, yes, the FTC tailored part of their new guidance because of frequent complaints sent by GamerGate.

That's only scratching the surface of the FTC guideline updates directly attributable to Gamergate (follow that link for plenty more), but you get the idea.

Yes, you're free ignore the disclosures on Gawker articles if they bother you, or don't care . . . but they will be made available to you, by law . . . just as Gamergate wanted from the very beginning of the journalism scandal. Deal with it.

Note: I run a nonprofit organization and have a different perspective (+ bias!) about donations.

[1] Generally, I think it's best to begin as you already have by identifying those causes which are most important to you.

[2] Next, ask yourself if you're interested in pursuing a global / regional / local approach? The local org might focus on issues which matter to you - and it might be directly related to issues in your neighborhood. On the other hand "big" issues like constitutional rights might only be addressed at the national level.

Also, are you looking for a large well-established nonprofit or a small up-start where your money will have a more significant impact? For example a donation of $1,000 to the Red Cross will certainly be welcomed but likely not celebrated. If instead you made that $1,000 donation to a nonprofit running on a shoestring budget of $20,000 a year then you've just increased their budget by 5% - which is definitely cause for celebration!

[3] By now you should have at least a handful of charities which meet your criteria and can begin validating their effectiveness, transparency, and legal status.

A good place to start is GuideStar ( http://guidestar.org/ ). You will get information on IRS status, financials, mission statements as well as reviews. CharityNavigator ( http://charitynavigator.org/ ) is another great resource and they provide independent ratings of charities. One important distinction though is that CharityNavigator focuses on larger nonprofits (total revenue must be > $1million in the previous fiscal year).

My nonprofit has a listing with CharityNavigator but no rating because we are (much much much) too small. On the other hand at GuideStar we have a "Gold" rating based on the amount of information which we have shared with them. So either of these are great resources but my bias is showing when I lean toward GuideStar.

If for some reason you'd rather not use either of these sites I would suggest that at a minimum that you verify that the nonprofit has a 501(c)(3) status with the IRS and that it has not been revoked. You can search for orgs by name or EIN here: http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

For more on charity scams here's some helpful info from the FTC: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/a...

[4] Once you have narrowed your list down to 1 or 2 then you can decide if there's a specific funding mechanism which appeals most to you (e.g. PayPal, cash, check, bitcoin). Some donation methods can take 5% (or more!) of the donation off the top before the nonprofit gets the donation.

For example, PayPal charges nonprofits a reduced fee of 2.2% + $0.30 per transaction (details here: https://www.paypal.com/webapps...). Also, BitPay does not charge us anything for bitcoin donations through our site.

Hopefully by going through this you will wind up with at least one charity which meets all of your criteria and can then just confirm their status in the future without going through all of these steps every time. Thank you on behalf of nonprofit organizations everywhere for supporting their efforts!

Shameless Plug
Of course I have to say something about my nonprofit's work: Jennifer Ann's Group is a nonprofit charity preventing teen dating violence. Our most successful program is producing video games to help young people, parents, and educators learn more about this issue and how to seek help if needed. We have produced 20+ video games through an annual video g

However, the plot thickens:
From the Motion to Dismiss: https://www.ftc.gov/system/fil...
(in part)"In 2008, Lime Wire was found on a LabMD workstation at Internet Protocol address 64.190.82.42 in Atlanta, Georgia. Lime Wire was installed by a LabMD employee, without authorization and in violation of company policy."

"On May 13, 2008, Tiversa contacted Lab MD, advised that Tiversa had downloaded LabMD's file, but refused to provide any additional information unless LabMD paid Tiversa for "remediation." Over the next two months, Tiversa sent six more sales-pitch emails to LabM0. LabMD, however, declined Tiversa's shakedown."

Details here: https://www.ftc.gov/enforcemen...

That's some messed up stuff. Tiversa needs to be burned to the ground, and their board members in actual jail.

It cost me $5 to unlock my reports, nothing to lock them. In addition anyone that has had their information stolen due to a security breach get's locking and unlocking free.
In the US check your state laws!!
Credit Freeze Faqs

Reason number 48372534786 why it's better just to universally block advertisements on the internet.

Apple has been leading on this front with several initiatives to protect users from malicious ads. One of them was a setting in Safari to only accept cookies from the first-party site, so when you go to cnn.com the browser accepts a cookie from cnn.com but not from malvertiser.com, who has a banner ad on the site.

This upset google because it cut into their business model of selling effective ad space. So google inserted malicious code into webpages to hack the safari browser and override security settings so it could download unwanted and potentially malicious files onto users computers. Because of this, google received the biggest fine in FTC history and is being sued for privacy violations in the UK.

Think about this for a second, and what it means. A website overriding browser security settings to serve unwanted and possibly malicious files. This is outrageous and unethical, and if it were Microsoft then the entire internet community would be enraged. Also think about it in light of this article on malvertisements, which google was actively propagating.

Apple has since taken the cat and mouse game further, so the setting is "allow from current website only". I expect malvertisers to scramble to overcome this block, but I hope that legitimate respected top tier internet companies act a little more ethically.

You can look up the actual legal case.

http://www.ftc.gov/sites/defau...

wow, you have no clue how credit/debit card fraud really works do you ? The MERCHANT is liable for the fraud and has to repay any income acquired related to fraudulent use of said card. As someone that has worked full times at 2 banks and contracted for many more including some fortune 200's, most good banks (regardless of size) have monitoring systems in place and usually catch the fraudulent activity before the card holder does.

While we are behind compared to Europe, where chip and pin is pretty much the standard, we are working on rolling it out here, the problem (supposedly) has been figuring out whether merchants or card issuers should bear the cost of replacing all of the legacy equipment (remember, we still have people using dial up to charge cards). Although, there were multiple reasons for the delay, most of this falling on Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, failing to dictate and enforce new rules for liability determination. The banks can only issue what the card companies support after all.

Additionally, the FTC says you're only liable for up to $50 for reporting lost/stolen debit/credit cards within 2 days of loss, and that's only if it was used prior to being reported. If it was not used, you are liable for $0. Waiting more than 48 hours exposes you to significantly higher liability ($500), but, this only applies if the physical card has been lost or stolen; If you still have the card, you are liable for $0 as long as it's reported within 60days of the statement date containing the fraudulent transaction(s).

The laws governing this were enacted in 1974, yes, 41 years ago.

I suggest starting here at the FTC:
File a complaint...
Report the identity theft...
Read about proper information handling that should be happening...

I suggest starting here at the FTC:
File a complaint...
Report the identity theft...
Read about proper information handling that should be happening...

The FCC does give a damn and is currently seeking comments http://www.fcc.gov/document/cgb-seeks-comment-call-blocking-letter-attorneys-general on telcos blocking robo calls.

The telcos tried blaming it on their status as common carriers ... so the FTC jumped in http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/advocacy_documents/ftc-staff-comment-federal-communications-commission-public-notice-da-14-1700-regarding-issues/150127fcccomment.pdf with their legal opinion that common carriers are allowed to block robo calls.

This plague is 100% on the telcos wanting the money and 0% on government.

To which I would have said that it's up to you, the manufacturer or it's representative, to prove that the use of an "unauthorized" hard drive caused the NIC to fail. It's just like using non-OEM parts or fluids in a car for a repair, it doesn't void the warranty if the non-OEM part didn't contribute to the failure that otherwise would have been covered.

All this presumes that you're in the US jurisdiction and that it was an actual warranty and not just a service contract people thing are warranty. FTC information as it pertains to auto repair, but the same applies for other types of warranties.

Identity theft happens when someone steals your personal information and uses it without your permission.

Source: Federal Trade Commission

As the summary mentions, the company was engaged in "product hopping", or "evergreening".

This involves using the courts to delay the introduction of generic medicines. Meanwhile, they continue to sell their products at full price.

A couple of interesting links for you:

FTC report 2002
Pharmacy Times

Wow. There's a lot of links to product pages in Bennett Haselton's post. Considering that Haselton is probably paying to post here, I hope Slashdot is in compliance with FTC regulations concerning spondored content.

I'm not seeing any notices in the story unless "Bennet Haselton" is Slashdot's code for "Sponsored Content". Either way, we'd all prefer to see less of these geek-monetisation stories and more news for nerds.

If the people who apply for the rebate get the promised rebate, then how could you possibly claim that anyone is being defrauded?

Fraud is an intentional tort. If they never intend to give the rebate for all eligible people, then it is fraud if they then do not actually do it (even if you don't complain). If not enough money is allocated up front, and if they run out of money to pay all the eligible rebates they receive, then it seems to me to be fraud (although IANAL)...

There are cases that companies when it comes down to the bad publicity and/or the threat of fraud ruling, eventually pony up. But the FTC doesn't really look kindly on that in the US. Even if people eventually get their money, if they don't get it within 30 days, I believe it's considered fraud. Of course you never hear about the cases where there are only a few people defrauded and they don't complain loudly.

As an interesting aside, one famous rebate disaster happened in the UK with Hoover. The cost of complying with the rebate eventually cost the job of the CEO and the company was sold off... Which goes to show, you can defraud a few folks, but when there are too many, you eventually have to pay the piper...

Preface: I worked in telecom for years...

Anyone who thinks there has ever been "unlimited" is a fool. There hasn't been and never will be. Internally, dating back to 2004, most mobile providers would call "unlimited" 5 gigabytes. I mean it's a huge like. There is no unlimited plan, and won't be until consumers stop being chumps.

Oh yeah, there's also no such thing as 4G currently-- 4G as defined by the standards board that makes it, says it's "1 gigabit per second." Anything less is 3G.

The FTC disagrees with you....and the carriers.

Don't be foolish. The laws that govern this have no requirement that a "credit card" be involved. The law is called the Federal Credit Billing Act [FCBA] and it covers any use of interstate consumer credit. The only reason debit cards aren't covered is because credit is never extended, the transaction is a banking transaction that falls under separate banking laws which treat a debit transaction as an electronic check. To avoid the FCBA requirements Apple would be required to essentially act as a bank, which they aren't, and process the transaction as debit cards. This would mean preloading money into the account before you could spend it.

If Apple were stupid enough to attempt what you suggest they would get smacked down so hard they wouldn't stop spinning for a month. The FCBA is incredibly strict and provides guaranteed consumer rights and very harsh penalties for violations including the immediate suspension of business if caught violating it. I sincerely doubt Apple's lawyers are that dumb so this "rumor" your heard is the made up variety that is quite common with Apple.

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/ar...

The law applies to "open end" credit accounts, like credit cards, and revolving charge accounts, like department store accounts. It doesnâ(TM)t cover installment contracts â" loans or extensions of credit you repay on a fixed schedule. People often buy cars, furniture, and major appliances on an installment basis, and repay personal loans in installments, as well.

This should bloody well be common knowledge. The FCBA is the only reason credit cards ever became successful and was a major act of congress that superseded many state laws. It covers pretty much any act of credit except for a few very special exceptions.

from ars technica...

Puffery is a well-defined term by the FTC, but still ends up as a "know it when you see it" thing sometimes. Here's an FTC handout discussing it with consumers. The basic point is that if a company says that something is generically awesome, that's probably just puffery and not actionable. If they use measurable numbers, talk about specifics, or directly compare it to one or more competitors, that can require proof and be actionable. Note that comparatives "our product A is better than B" are more likely to be actionable than superlatives "our product A is the best."

The hardest part of getting a new SSN is gathering up originals/certified copies of the documents you need to support your application.
http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0248-do-you-need-new-social-security-number

Applying for a New Number or Replacement Card

The SSA may assign a new Social Security number to you if you are being harassed, abused, or are in grave danger when using the original number, or if you can prove that someone has stolen your number and is using it. You must provide evidence that the number is being misused, and that the misuse is causing you significant continuing harm.

Please don't spread misinformation.

That is only true if you dispute a fraudulent charge in writing within sixty days of the charge. If you don't notice an odd $20 recurring charge, you are screwed out of all but the last two charges. Also if your credit card is stolen, the $50 limit only applies to charges made in the first 48 hours after the theft.

You have confused the rules for debit cards with the rules for credit cards. Maximum liability in all cases for credit cards is $50.

Why do you use a debit card when the protections provided under law for a credit card are so much better?

According to that site:

If someone makes unauthorized transactions with your debit card number, but your card is not lost, you are not liable for those transactions if you report them within 60 days of your statement being sent to you.

Well I reported it within 2 days of the charge itself, but I'm still out $120. So it doesn't really work very well. Should I file a complaint with the FTC? Do you think I would actually get a response?

Why do you use a debit card when the protections provided under law for a credit card are so much better?

Because you need credit for those.

Why do you use a debit card when the protections provided under law for a credit card are so much better?

"Banking is protected by law, any lost money will be reimbursed."

The controlling federal laws are the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA)( (15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.). If you report an ATM or debit card missing before someone uses it, the EFTA says you are not responsible for any unauthorized transactions.

However, unlike credit cards, if someone makes unauthorized use of your debit or ATM card and if you do not learn of the transactions and report them after 2 business days but less than 60 calendar days after your statement is sent to you, you are liable for $500. After 60 days, “All the money taken from your ATM/debit card account, and possibly more; for example, money in accounts linked to your debit account.”

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/ar...

"Cars and houses have insurance."

Yes, but there are deductibles to pay, hundreds if not thousands of dollars before the insurance company begins to reimburse the insured.

Civilians do not understand what /. readers know: internet security is illusory. That's why we have encryption. It's not that they don't have "a bloody clue." They are not computer literate, don't know what an IP address is and couldn't tell you why a denial of service attack is bad.

Civilians have been told the internet is a safe place to buy things, send images by email and store payment data and the like. They believe it. Those people did what are in retrospect foolish things, merely because believed what they were told.

The only way to never see yourself naked on the internet is to never take nude photos. Period. After that, it's just a matter of percentage of chance. Not fair or right, but true.

This submission was made by snydeq who may or may not be Paul Venezia, but certainly appears to have a clear vested interest in frequently promoting Paul Venezia's column and other articles from Info World on a nearly weekly basis.

Considering the overwhelmingly poor quality of the vast majority of Info World's trade rag (slang trade magazine), where most of the better "articles" (i.e. aka "filler," the stuff between the ads) tend to be cribbed from vendor's white papers, don't seem to merit being frequently promoted at Slashdot unless there is a financial arrangement in place, in which case the ethics of journalism would indicate that such a financial arrangement should be disclosed to readers.

Not that I'm suggesting Slashdot considers itself involved in journalism, regardless of the usage of the terms such as: articles, submissions, and editors in the Slashdot vernacular. I will mention that the US FTC publishes March 2013 disclosure guidelines for sponsorship, marketing, and promotions.

Well if it's a debit card, if i'm not mistaken, the onus is on YOU to produce proof that the charges weren't fraudulent.

You would be mistaken.

Notice that the timer on reporting doesn't really start until you either 1) learn of the fraud or 2) have an opportunity to review a bank statement.

And if your credit doesn't suck (read: are a responsible adult), most card issuers won't charge you even that $50 limit because they'd rather have customers that don't badmouth them on the internet than people who are disillusioned with the system and hate them. Perhaps that last part is where you have trouble.

While this is a legitimate concern it's not a problem with Net neutrality, but with advertising standards and defective performance.

I disagree. If we don't have Net Neutrality, then the current advertising is deceptive and fraudulent. If we do have Net Neutrality and a real best effort to address network congestion rather than use network congestion as a payola scheme then there would be no need for the Federal Trade Commission to step in and put a stop to fraudulent advertising.

It does not have to harm your credit rating. You are right make them prove it. Look up "debt validation letter" and send them one (hurry up, you have 30 days from when they first sent you a letter) . Send it registered. Once you you have conformation they got it pull your credit report (annualcreditreport.com). If they are reporting it contest it with the credit reporting agencies.

If they validate the debt on your credit report without sending you validation of the debt you can sue them.

http://www.ftc.gov/enforcement...

Call the FTC.

Not that they can actually do anything about it.

...but there is this thing called Truth in Advertising.

http://www.ftc.gov/news-events...

Don't you get it? The robocallers have been classified as terrorist organizations by the NSA so anyone that they contact can now be classified as "persons of interest" and can now legally have their data snooped, er I mean "collected".

Seriously though, this isn't the movies; tracing a call is instantaneous. The telco can relatively easily follow it back to whoever is paying for the trunk. The problem being that someone is actually paying, which means that someone has a vested interest in keeping a paying customer happy. What makes it even worse is it's hard to justify that type of volume from a robocaller and still claim ignorance under the assisting violators clause of the telemarketer sales rule. Yet somehow they still get away with it.

The FTC needs to focus less on outside efforts like homemade honeypots and instead go directly after the telcos that sell service to these bastards. Under their own regulations, a telco is just as responsible and would have to pony up to 16k a pop per each robocall. If they want to zap Rachel, well they know where she lives and works.

[...] Level3 and Cogent aren't last-mile providers; they're Tier 1 backbone providers. Tier 1 providers have things like peering agreements -- last mile providers do not. [...]

Except that Verizon Enterprise (formerly Verizon Business) is also a Tier 1 backbone provider. Different part of the company, but the behavior does appear to be a conflict of interest, of exploiting the Verizon's ISP (last-mile) business actions (failing to resolve congestion to L3) to make a competitor (L3) to Verizon Enterprise (formerly UUnet, AS 701 / 702 / 703) less desirable to Level 3 customers, namely Netflix.

Arguably, Verizon is abusing its ISP customers as pawns in making a competitor to one its Enterprise IP business less desirable, in a very anti-competitive fashion.

Here is the complaint in PDF
http://www.ftc.gov/system/file...

It says section 5(a) but I'm having trouble locating section 5.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...

Anyone got any ideas where I'm doing it wrong?

The article by the FTC did not have the statement twice. So the error of a repeated sentence (which may be a sentence that was wroth repeating!) was not Edith Ramirez's, but did show up on Slashdot.

I am smoking US Law.

"Q. Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered?
A. No. If you receive merchandise that you didn’t order, you have a legal right to keep it as a free gift."

Source: Federal Trade Commission Re: Unordered Merchandise
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/a...

Why would you pay anybody? It's already free.

I would not be surprised if Target's credit card purchasing process mandates that all disputes must be arbitrated.

SCOTUS has consistently ruled that these mandates are legal and binding.

With who? The customer?

The customer (you or I who shop at Target) have a $50 maximum liability. Meaning, we don't owe anything after $50 in cases of lost or stolen cards.

In this case, it is 100% Target's fault and your bank will back you up on this - those Russian crooks max out your cards, you owe nothing.

Here's a link the to US treatment:

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/ar...

Yes, it looks like the limit can be $50 in some cases (but that requires that the thief personally present the card before you're told the card vendor that it is missing). If only the number if stolen, the card holder has no liability.

And rules are very different for debit cards.

That whole FTC ruling was directed primary at bloggers (people who use affiliate programs were hooked in there too). Remember, the initial ruling came back in 2009 when searching for some sort of product review usually brought up a bunch of blogs. If you look at http://www.business.ftc.gov/do... , over half of the document references bloggers.

That particular problem doesn't really exist anymore for a number of products/services, because Google's Penguin/Panda updates have shoved most independent "blog" type reviews down a few pages in favour of Amazon (for products), ResellerRatings/RipOffReport (for retailers), and similar sites. Those are way easier to astroturf, so companies just hire "marketing agencies" to take care of those now instead of wasting time chasing after individual unpredictable bloggers who might have their sense of morality kick in at any time.

Aside: Microsoft's a little behind the times, as usual. The "new" way to do things would be to hire a company to make a few YouTube "reviews" and then use their multiple accounts to like them all, while searching for negative ones and disliking them. It's cheaper and easier.

Anyway, technically they could get a warning/fine from the FTC (or those who make the videos could) for what's being done here, but it's pretty unlikely. The video rules to qualify for the CPM bump are a little convoluted, and if the FTC actually pushed for fines, in court MS could make the case that paying out a higher CPM for Xbox videos has a similar outcome to bidding more for specific search terms on AdWords with "-sucks -awful -terrible" as negative keywords and then publicly stating that they bit more for ad clicks from non-negative reviews.

By the way, who *doesn't* assume that there could be some bias in videos from Machinima/partners and similar outlets? Surely I'm not the only one who sees them in the same light as gaming publications where if they say something too negative they suddenly stop getting free/early access to future products or have advertising revenue cut back. It's one thing when you see "Gus's XBOX 1 review" where he's taken video with a handheld camcorder from 2005 and you kind of assume he spent his own money and just wanted to talk about it and you maybe even take what he says at face value. The clean-cut commercialized stuff, you always take with a grain of salt.

Ignoring all that, even if Microsoft were to somehow eat a fine, I doubt they'd care. They sold the original Xbox at a loss for years, and FTC fines at most are a slap on the wrist for the big players. If you're a large corporation, you can usually find a way to make breaking the law profitable even when you're caught.

Is The FTC a credible enough source for you?

Q. Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered?

A. No. If you receive merchandise that you didn’t order, you have a legal right to keep it as a free gift.

Blame government for your limited bandwidth choice, but don't go saying generically that corporations are not accountable.

Also it is VERY likely you have at least one wireless provider you could use, that offers at least the speeds you mentioned. And I'm not even talking cellular, which already meets those speeds in most major cities - and some people ARE switching to cellular because they are fed up with Comcast, further re-enforcing my point.

Just googled...there is one wireless provider in my area that *claims* to provide up to 5GB/s download (but only 512 u/l). So I suppose, technically, I have three options in the area, one of them wireless. Still, that's like saying "If you don't like taking the bus, just ride your bike and quit complaining." Yes, it'll get you there...eventually, and with much more effort on your part, and if everyone else who objected to the bus did the same, pretty soon the roads would be unusable in any case. As for using cellular data instead, well...it's clear you must not live in Canada.

And I didn't say corporations aren't accountable, what I am saying is that if the competition pool is sufficiently restricted, corporations will sometimes collude (directly or indirectly), usually to the detriment of their customers. Are you opposed to legislation that prevents price fixing? Sure, you can refuse to buy your milk at Target because they bumped it up to $100/gal, or they make you sign an EULA that says you can't drink it directly, you can only use it for baking or cooking, and then only with Robin Hood brand flour. But hey, you still need milk. If all the other stores in the area are doing the same thing, or decide to follow the leader, what are your options? Other than relocating, which is outside most people's capability, especially over something as small as milk...or broadband restrictions. I suppose you could try to raise your own cows...in the same vein, I suppose you could try becoming your own ISP, running your own cables, etc.

Now, net neutrality won't prevent price collusions, but at least it would provide some assurance that you can use the bandwidth you're paying for as you see fit. As it stands now, there's nothing requiring the providers to even tell you if they throttle any particular type of traffic or not. At least if it were explicitly listed in a T&C document, the consumer could make an informed choice before signing up and finding out that they can't access Netflix at anything but dialup speeds...but the Disney Channel comes through loud and clear.

Defamation laws, as far as I see, only cover the negatives, not the positives.

Defamation covers the negatives. Fraud and false advertising covers the positives. If testimonials or endorsements are made then they are regulated. You can't legally advertise a false testimonial.

But you can sure advertise a heavily edited version of the testimonial spoken by an actor! Oh how I love and hate advertising.

Defamation laws, as far as I see, only cover the negatives, not the positives.

Defamation covers the negatives. Fraud and false advertising covers the positives. If testimonials or endorsements are made then they are regulated. You can't legally advertise a false testimonial.

You are confusing what Apple sells its devices to resellers for, and what the resellers then sell the devices for.

Apple has every right to determine the first, but has no right to determine the second.

In the US, Apple has the right to determine both as long as they negotiate separate deals with each reseller.

So said SCOTUS http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-supply-chain/manufacturer-imposed

What should also be noted is that the US has basically the same legal framework. For all the parroting of the USPS advice on unsolicited gifts it's very noticeable that no one has mentioned the FTC's advice (write and offer to return it): http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0181-unordered-merchandise nor come up with an example of someone who got sued for refusing to return something that was clearly a shipping error.

Read the FTC's FAQ more carefully. Top of the list:

Q. Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered?

A. No. If you receive merchandise that you didn't order, you have a legal right to keep it as a free gift.

So - unordered? It's a simple Yes/No question - proven with the existence of an invoice. If it's unordered, it's legally a gift.

Writing to offer and return it is good advice, but you'll note that there are no legal penalties listed for not doing so - you'd be doing it out of the goodness of your heart. (And perhaps to preserve the business relationship)

Well we do have laws that require the item is returned in the UK and guess what? I don't go home every day to find dozens of unrequested parcels and demands to pay for them. As much as it might stretch the imaginations of some people on here it is not, in fact, impossible to define items sent in error rather than intentionally as having different legal status.

Sometimes a small obligation can come with buying something. If I buy milk from a local supermarket and there is a recall then I will need to visit a store, get a refund and buy some more. I don't get to demand that they come to my door at an exact time of my choosing to collect the faulty product and delivery a replacement. If a company is shoddy and keeps making errors that inconvenience customers they'll lose customers. If a company is intentionally doing it then they will be breaking the law, won't be able to recover the goods and will go out of business.

What should also be noted is that the US has basically the same legal framework. For all the parroting of the USPS advice on unsolicited gifts it's very noticeable that no one has mentioned the FTC's advice (write and offer to return it): http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0181-unordered-merchandise nor come up with an example of someone who got sued for refusing to return something that was clearly a shipping error.

No, YOU stop. Intentionally being obtuse isn't a defense under any law I've ever seen. Now, I'm going to quote someone else, since they made the point already, and you won't have to do the oh so difficult work of typing a few words into Google:
 
 

They solicited merchandise and the wrong stuff was shipped. That's not the legal definition of unsolicited merchandise. These laws are designed to prevent fraud, not punish people for mistakes. Here's what the FTC says

Q. What should I do if the unordered merchandise I received was the result of an honest shipping error?

A. Write the seller and offer to return the merchandise, provided the seller pays for postage and handling. Give the seller a specific and reasonable amount of time (say 30 days) to pick up the merchandise or arrange to have it returned at no expense to you. Tell the seller that you reserve the right to keep the merchandise or dispose of it after the specified time has passed.

Keeping something you know belongs to someone else is theft.

Q. What should I do if the unordered merchandise I received was the result of an honest shipping error?

A. Write the seller and offer to return the merchandise, provided the seller pays for postage and handling. Give the seller a specific and reasonable amount of time (say 30 days) to pick up the merchandise or arrange to have it returned at no expense to you. Tell the seller that you reserve the right to keep the merchandise or dispose of it after the specified time has passed.

Keeping something you know belongs to someone else is theft.

Don't get me wrong; I despise bulk mail, and it inevitably goes right in the recycling bin for me.

Why don't you simply *stop* the junk mail in the first place?

The free iOS app PaperKarma lets you take snapshots of your junk mail to unsubscribe that way.

There's more info about stopping junk mail at:
http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0262-stopping-unsolicited-mail-phone-calls-and-email
and
https://www.catalogchoice.org/