Slashdot Mirror

yeah its not like FTC know anything about trade! (did you even read their argument.)

Do you have any idea how long it takes to get drugs approved for use by the public? drugs (like software) can't simply be copied and resold, if you develop a new drug you have a good 3/4 years of no competition while a competitor gets reverse engineers it and gets approval for his version, after that you have the fact that your drugs are tried and tested and you've been producing it for 3/4 years. Patents are useful in many sectors, but medicine is even less one of them than software (especially when you consider the human cost).

IF the drug approval process was faster AND it was easy to reverse engineer drugs THEN patents are needed in medicine (probably 5 years), but until then the drug company's can shove the any proposal up their respective asses!

I don't think so, and here's why:

CAN-SPAM defines spam as "any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service". Technically, while the purpose of this marketing campaign was to promote Toyota's cars to Ms. Duick's friend, the purpose of these e-mail messages was to scare the crap out of Ms. Duick.

In my view, the primary purpose of the messages Toyota sent to the victim was not the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service. Therefore, CAN-SPAM does not apply.

And neither does the license they tricked her into agreeing to. I hope she wins the suit.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm
This falls under federal jurisdiction because of the intertubes were used as a delivery method.

You might want to update your sig. "--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov" is a bit outdated. By "a bit" I mean 5 years. I think you're looking for "SPAM[at]UCE.GOV"

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/07/newspamemail.shtm

Here's part of the summary of the new guidelines:

The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that "material connections" (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers - connections that consumers would not expect - must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other "word-of-mouth" marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement - like any other advertisement - is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.

http://www2.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

There's a link to the full text on that page.

please read and obey the new guidelines, Slashdot, Inc!: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

The actual FTC guidelines (Section V) don't use the word 'blog' in the guideline itself. Instead, they talk about 'endorsements' and define them like this:

(b) For purposes of this part, an endorsement means any advertising message (including
verbal statements...

snip...

Brought to you by Carl Jr.

How are they defining a blog or blogger?

They aren't, they're defining "endorser". The medium doesn't matter. You can read the text here:

http://www2.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

The actual FTC guidelines (Section V) don't use the word 'blog' in the guideline itself. Instead, they talk about 'endorsements' and define them like this:

(b) For purposes of this part, an endorsement means any advertising message (including
verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other
identifying personal characteristics of an individual or the name or seal of an organization) that
consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party
other than the sponsoring advertiser, even if the views expressed by that party are identical to
those of the sponsoring advertiser. The party whose opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience
the message appears to reflect will be called the endorser and may be an individual, group, or
institution.

They give a bunch of specific examples (which do mention blogs), including one of astroturfing which implies this applies to appstore, amazon reviews (which would be nice). It does seem as if they mean things like twitter should be covered. There's also a bunch of circumstances they describe where you don't have to mention your affiliation, eg if you're a sports star with a clothing contract and always wear that brand off the field as well as on, or if you appear in a clearly-labelled advertisment giving a testimonial and are only paid for the ad - its a different if you have a financial interest in the product.

The new FTC rules aren't exclusive to bloggers. They cover celebrities, too. You can read the proposed rule changes on the FTC's site here: http://www2.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm and in detail here: http://www2.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005endorsementguidesfnnotice.pdf . Saying "results not typical" won't make it legal any more. Also, ads will need to disclose sponsored "independent research," e.g. "we paid this doctor $10k to help us sell this garbage." Finally, maybe Slashdot stories could include links to the primary source?

The new FTC rules aren't exclusive to bloggers. They cover celebrities, too. You can read the proposed rule changes on the FTC's site here: http://www2.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm and in detail here: http://www2.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005endorsementguidesfnnotice.pdf . Saying "results not typical" won't make it legal any more. Also, ads will need to disclose sponsored "independent research," e.g. "we paid this doctor $10k to help us sell this garbage." Finally, maybe Slashdot stories could include links to the primary source?

Fox didn't get a ruling that it's news can be lies. They got a ruling stating that their stations can control the content of the news being reported and refuse to allow something to be reported regardless of the truthfulness of it. One of their attorneys (or was it a company representative) suggested that they could even control it if it is a lie in order to limit liability. The ruling never said a word about reporting lies, just controlling the content of the reporting and it was over a local affiliate news program in Florida so it's not clear if the principle would work outside of Florida.

Also, you do not need a ruling. User responses are considered consumer endorsements which makes misrepresentations of the products illegal under federal law if the endorsements are reasonably considered as part of the purchasing consideration process. A site that displays the comments under the item in consideration would have to follow the false advertising rules and either place a disclaimer that's obvious to the consumer that they edited the negative responses or that results/performance isn't typical for all users.

On another note, most state laws have consumer protections against false or misleading advertisements in the same light. For instance, in my state, representing that the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not have; or whether the supplier knew at the time the consumer transaction was entered into of the inability of the consumer to receive a substantial benefit from the subject of the consumer transaction; could apply. This is because by removing negative reviews, the supplier knows of limitations and dissatisfaction with the product and presents it with an otherwise misleading approvals from select consumers. In the case of the op, if a negative reviews were present, he probably would have purchased a different product. His intent of posting a negetive review was specifically to inform future consumers of his experiences with the problem so they wouldn't be taken like he did. Federal and state laws regulate the extent to which a product can be represented.

Here's a choice quote: "If the court sides with Vernor, the fundamental economics of Autodesk's business will be upset, [Autodesk's lawyer] said."

Autodesk can cry me a river. The fundamental economics of their business are not the jurisdiction of the court, the law is. The premise is that their fundamental model is so weak that someone, otherwise legally, selling to another party a product the purchaser legally owns can be so disruptive as to injure their business - which again, is not something the courts are supposed to be involved with unless there is clear theft or fraud.

I don't license my car, or my fridge, or even things containing supposedly licensed software like my DVD player or my TiVo. I bought it legally, I can resell it if I want to. Before you say something about "software isn't hardware" - I recall a story from not too long ago about a hair products company going after someone for re-selling their products.

Prior to cases like Kelo v New London, I would have thought this would have passed the "obviously dumb" test and Autodesk would have been told to knock it off. Anymore, I'm not sure.

This guy has a history, he is no first-time offender. I have no sympathy for a guy who ripped off people for $11 million in 1996, plea bargained for some $3 million. Had more money overseas (out of US gov't reach) than he reported, and then basically violated an injunction against him and did it all over again...

And his reason for not turning over title is listed in the Memorandum

It is clear that since the inception of the present lawsuit regarding defendantâ(TM)s contempt of the 1997 Stipulated Final Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction, the defendant has engaged in suspect activities regarding this property, including but not limited to, an attempt to sell the property in April 2007 (after the original Civil Contempt Order was entered invoking an asset freeze). He now contends that the property is held in trust (the SRN Trust), he has resigned as a trustee under the trust, and that his wife Shannon is the only one as Trustor that can convey (or must also convey) title to the Verlaine Property. The manner is which the defendant âoeresignedâ his trusteeship under the SRN Trust is highly suspect, and by all accounts, ineffectual. According to the express terms of the SRN Trust, trustees have the power to act individually or unilaterally to sell and/or exchange all trust

Neiswonger executed a brief written statement resigning as trustee of the SRN Trust. However, contrary to Nevada law, this statement of resignation was not notarized nor recorded at the time it was executed. Instead, it wasnâ(TM)t until April 2008 (after the Civil Contempt Order was entered...

Furthermore, the only affirmation as to when this statement of resignation was purportedly signed by defendant is his wife Shannonâ(TM)s notarized affidavit

Assuming arguendo that defendant Neiswonger did in fact resign as a trustee under the SRN trust, he never resigned as a Trustor under the SRN Trust. As a Trustor under the SRN Trust, the defendant can remove the Verlaine Property from the Trust on his own by signing a document to that effect.

Once the defendant or the defendant and his wife revoke the SRN Trust (as Trustor or Trustors), the Verlaine Property becomes community property. As community property in 4 Nevada, it can be transferred to the Receiver, even though Shannon Neiswonger is not a party to this lawsuit. âoeNevada is a community property state, and under the law of Nevada, `community property is subject to a spouseâ(TM)s debt irrespective of whether both spouses were a party to the action.â(TM)â FTC v. Neiswonger, et. al., - F.3d. ...

The FTC has an archive of case materials. Looks like a complaint was brought in 1996, and he settled in 1997, which included agreeing to a permanent injunction. The FTC brought another complaint in 2006, got a temporary restraining order, and a finding of contempt of court in 2007. The 2007 filing is the one that instituted a $3.2 million fine and ordered Neiswonger to turn over title to a specific residence in Las Vegas as part of paying it.

It's not clear to me if that's his primary residence or a secondary one. Usually primary residences are shielded from civil judgments. If it's a secondary one, this case isn't unusual at all, since ordering a 2nd home to be sold to pay a judgment is common. If it's a primary one, I'm not sure if the rules are different because it's a contempt proceeding. (In theory it seems the rules might also be different for even primary residences purchased with ill-gotten money, but none of the complaints seem to allege that specifically.)

The FTC also has a slightly more detailed version of this news, fwiw.

The FTC has an archive of case materials. Looks like a complaint was brought in 1996, and he settled in 1997, which included agreeing to a permanent injunction. The FTC brought another complaint in 2006, got a temporary restraining order, and a finding of contempt of court in 2007. The 2007 filing is the one that instituted a $3.2 million fine and ordered Neiswonger to turn over title to a specific residence in Las Vegas as part of paying it.

It's not clear to me if that's his primary residence or a secondary one. Usually primary residences are shielded from civil judgments. If it's a secondary one, this case isn't unusual at all, since ordering a 2nd home to be sold to pay a judgment is common. If it's a primary one, I'm not sure if the rules are different because it's a contempt proceeding. (In theory it seems the rules might also be different for even primary residences purchased with ill-gotten money, but none of the complaints seem to allege that specifically.)

The FTC also has a slightly more detailed version of this news, fwiw.

The FTC has an archive of case materials. Looks like a complaint was brought in 1996, and he settled in 1997, which included agreeing to a permanent injunction. The FTC brought another complaint in 2006, got a temporary restraining order, and a finding of contempt of court in 2007. The 2007 filing is the one that instituted a $3.2 million fine and ordered Neiswonger to turn over title to a specific residence in Las Vegas as part of paying it.

It's not clear to me if that's his primary residence or a secondary one. Usually primary residences are shielded from civil judgments. If it's a secondary one, this case isn't unusual at all, since ordering a 2nd home to be sold to pay a judgment is common. If it's a primary one, I'm not sure if the rules are different because it's a contempt proceeding. (In theory it seems the rules might also be different for even primary residences purchased with ill-gotten money, but none of the complaints seem to allege that specifically.)

The FTC also has a slightly more detailed version of this news, fwiw.

I haven't gotten a single call on my mail line since the day I put it on the Do Not Call List.

Then you are amazingly lucky or keep your phone turned off most of the time. There was at least one outfit that was literally war dialing every single possible valid NANP number. They called police dispatchers, the White House, military bases, Congressional offices, etc, etc. I got at least three or four calls from them per month until the FTC shut them down.

They were a bunch of cocksuckers too. You'd challenge them on ANYTHING and they'd just hang up you. I gave up on trying to get removed from their "list" and tried to pretend to want to do business with them. They wanted a credit card and when I told them I didn't have one and wanted to mail them a check they gave me an "address" of "4321 Main St. Some Random City and Zipcode" and hung up on me.

Eventually I gave up on trying to figure out who they are and just started being incredibly nasty to them. I'd bust out the 'C' word if I wound up with a female caller and various racial epithets for the male callers. Most of them would hang up but a few of them got into shouting matches with me over how horrible it was to use such words. I'm not actually a racist or sexist but I figured it was the best way to piss someone off over the phone with a single word before they could hang up. Since they consumed my cell phone minutes and interrupted multiple dinners I figured it was only fair.

Then you send them a cease and desist order as provided for by the FDCPA (fair debt collection practices act). If they are stupid enough to continue collection efforts after receiving it then you file suit against them in Federal court and collect $1,000 for each violation. They'll soon stop calling you when they realize that each phone call is going to cost them a thousand bucks.

That really can be effective. My household kept receiving calls from one collection agency that had our phone number (nothing to do with SSNs, identity theft, etc., but still annoying, especially since it was usually an automated call). For whatever reason, they kept calling even after we told them that the person they were looking for no longer used our number. So, I mailed off a FDCPA Sec. 805(c) demand that they cease communication with us.

The next time they called (with a real person fortunately for them), I pointed out that I had sent a written demand that they stop calling and that their call was in violation of the FDCPA. I didn't have to be mean...the calls stopped cold.

In 1998, Congress made identity theft a federal crime when it enacted the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (Identity Theft Act).5 The act made it a criminal offense for a person to "knowingly transfer, possess, or use without lawful authority," another person's means of identification "with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable state or local law." Under the act, a name or SSN is considered a "means of identification," and a number of cases have been prosecuted under this law.

Now, with that, I would seek a lawyer who would take this case (maybe even some high profile lawyer or a member of the EFF) and clearly outline the above in a written letter with your signature informing them that they are in violation of the "Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (Identity Theft Act)" and if they do not remove your Social Security Numbers, you will take legal action. If your case is solid enough, you might be able to really stick it to DirectTV for storing personal private data "without lawful authority" as they do not have the written consent of every customer.

I'd consider myself a pretty fiscally responsible guy who tries far more than the average person to keep on top of these things. I try to check my report every year or so.

I still can't see one of the 3 bloody bureaus. To access my information, they want to know financial information details on a bank account that I closed in college. And the hoops to jump through to get in without that are a lot more effort than I have been able to put out for this.

Most people don't spend all of their time wondering if their library in their hometown accidentally reported them as having lost a book 4 years ago. How can people with kids and jobs manage to stay on top of it all?

Even the government mandated free credit reports are kind of bizarre, I had to forcibly tell these scum to cancel an account at one of the "bureaus" three times over the phone for an apparently ongoing reporting service that I didn't have a way to op out of and I still didn't get all the charges back.

It sounds like you were had by the marketing trap set up by the credit reporting companies. If you want a free copy of your credit report see the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's FAQs: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre34.shtm

Also you can, depending on what state you live in, "freeze" your report from each credit reporting company. See FAQ on Credit Report Freezes from the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance (NJ DOBI): http://www.state.nj.us/dobi/division_consumers/finance/creditfreeze.htm

Assuming you're talking about the U.S. (as the comment you replied to clearly was), you comment is false -- there is no 'do not call' list for cell phones, because it is illegal in the U.S. for telemarkets to call cell phones using automated dialers.

If Coke puts a commerical out saying 'Pepsi is horrible, drink Coke' Pepsi doesn't/can't sue Coke for using its trademark... It's that simple, how do these guys think they have a case

This is a bit more as though Pepsi redesigned its packaging to look a bit like Coke's, then started a series of commercials showing that packaging and claiming it's Coke, to trick Coca-Cola fans into buying it. But even that analogy isn't quite on the spot: It's more as though Pepsi registered Coka-Cola.com, and Google suggested and sold ads linking to it when folks search for "Coke" or "Coca-Cola", with a line like "Enjoy delicious Coke here!"

If Google restricted trademarks in their ads to clear comparatives, like the FTC mandates in all advertising media, there would be no problem. From here, it looks like they are indeed encouraging flagrant trademark violations, in clear violation of FTC rules. Similar suits in other media have been successful, and some of the penalties are statutory. I'm no lawyer, but I'd guess these guys and the seven other similar pending suits have viable cases.

Honestly, when was the last time you went to ftc.gov?

I send people here all the time to point out credit card misconceptions.

When a credit card number is compromised the holder has no liability for any fraudulent charges incurred. Just check your statements monthly, like when you pay it, and you have absolutely nothing to worry about. This gives incentive for the CC companies to have good security measures in place.

The price is right but the money ends up being used to sue helpless people to oblivion. I stopped spending money on any music years ago because of that.

As for the credit card thing: if your credit card number was compromised you just report it (they'll probably catch it before you do anyway) within 60 days, they mail you a new card, and that's it. My experience with doing this has been painless and taken only a couple minutes. You aren't responsible, and can't be, for any fraudulent charges. No liability, no worries.

Honestly, when was the last time you went to ftc.gov? Nobody goes to those sites...

Funny you mention ftc.gov. If you're running a legal telemarketing business, you probably hit their site on a regular basis to make sure you're in compliance with the do not call list. For this reason, I happen to like that site a lot.

Honestly, when was the last time you went to ftc.gov? Nobody goes to those sites...

Now if google, wiki, or itunes goes down, then PANIC!

Microsoft seems to be violating their own Zune EULA:

Microsoft may from time to time make available for download from the Services certain images, artwork, photographs, videos, and other content (the "Downloadable Content"). Microsoft hereby grants you a limited, non-transferable, nonexclusive license to download such content solely for your personal, noncommercial use in accordance with these Terms of Use. Such license shall be limited to the specific purpose for which such Downloadable Content was made available (e.g. for use as wallpaper or poster prints, as specified in connection with the download), and you may not modify, distribute, perform, transmit , create derivative works of or otherwise use such Downloadable Content or make any commercial or public use thereof. Downloadable Content shall only include content which Microsoft specifically identifies as being available for download, and you agree not to remove of obscure any copyright notice that appears in the Downloadable Content.

Note the words "Microsoft hereby grants you a limited, non-transferable, nonexclusive license to download such content solely for your personal, noncommercial use in accordance with these Terms of Use." Microsoft granted you a license. They didn't provide a provision which allows them to revoke that license. They don't have the option, once having sold you a license, to take it back. The FTC was out to lunch during the Bush Administration, but they're back in business.

So if you have a Zune, and it won't play something you paid for, go to the Federal Trade Commission online complaint page and start filling out the form.

The FTC was out to lunch during the Bush Administration years, but that's over. They're back in business.

Microsoft seems to be violating their own Zune EULA:

Microsoft may from time to time make available for download from the Services certain images, artwork, photographs, videos, and other content (the "Downloadable Content"). Microsoft hereby grants you a limited, non-transferable, nonexclusive license to download such content solely for your personal, noncommercial use in accordance with these Terms of Use. Such license shall be limited to the specific purpose for which such Downloadable Content was made available (e.g. for use as wallpaper or poster prints, as specified in connection with the download), and you may not modify, distribute, perform, transmit , create derivative works of or otherwise use such Downloadable Content or make any commercial or public use thereof. Downloadable Content shall only include content which Microsoft specifically identifies as being available for download, and you agree not to remove of obscure any copyright notice that appears in the Downloadable Content.

Note the words "Microsoft hereby grants you a limited, non-transferable, nonexclusive license to download such content solely for your personal, noncommercial use in accordance with these Terms of Use." Microsoft granted you a license. They didn't provide a provision which allows them to revoke that license. They don't have the option, once having sold you a license, to take it back. The FTC was out to lunch during the Bush Administration, but they're back in business.

So if you have a Zune, and it won't play something you paid for, go to the Federal Trade Commission online complaint page and start filling out the form.

The FTC was out to lunch during the Bush Administration years, but that's over. They're back in business.

Don't get freaked out then, this is not legal. The specific text (from here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/12/tsrfinalrule.pdf) is "(iii) Initiating any outbound telephone call to a person when [clauses follow including the DNC list rule]". Any outbound call would include a human dialed outbound call. What you likely heard are a bunch of other clauses in the telemarketing sales rule (superset of the DNC rules) which refers to how you answer the phone. Any caller must answer with a live voice within 2 seconds of the hello, so we don't have to live with the call progress analysis algorithm taking its time listening to you say "hello... hello... f***ing telemarketers! ". Sleep well

I think Microsoft is over the line with this campaign from a legal standpoint and will get the smackdown from the FTC.
Fromt the STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-compare.htm.

"The Commission has supported the use of brand comparisons where the bases of comparison are clearly identified. Comparative advertising, when truthful and non-deceptive, is a source of important information to consumers and assists them in making rational purchase decisions."

If the page "Clearly Identifies" the basis of the comparison, I don't see it.

And

"Some industry codes which prohibit practices such as "disparagement," "disparagement of competitors," "improper disparagement," "unfairly attacking," "discrediting," may operate as a restriction on comparative advertising. The Commission has previously held that disparaging advertising is permissible so long as it is truthful and not deceptive."

As many others have pointed out, several of the claims are, to put it generously, a stretch.

They called my lab repeatedly while I was a grad student, after several calls I kept a log with time, date, and apparent Caller ID number (which was always bogus) and any info I could get out of the operators. But hey, I was a grad student, so I had time to kill, I just kept them on the phone for as long as possible.

scammer: Your car warranty is expired, would you like to renew your auto warranty?
me: expired?
scammer: yes, wou---
me: are you sure my warranty expired?
scammer: yes, would you like to renew your auto warranty?
me: well, which car are we talking about?
scammer: The newer one
me: the new one? i bought them at the same time.....
....
and when I got bored (rare) or sensed that they were about to hang up (usual)
me: I'd like you to know that I report every one of these calls to the FTC (and I really did: http://www.ftc.gov/phonefraud )

I think my number finally got blacklisted by their phone operators or something, after awhile they just hung up on me every time. Once the operator just tried to heckle my school's sports team. (its tough to rattle a geek by making fun of a football team) I *always* pressed '1' when I got those calls, must have logged at least 30 calls on the FTC website.

What does the Federal Trade Commission have to do with acting on illegal material such as the crazy stuff suggested by the article? Where are the criminal charges here?

Or is this a bit like the Environmental Protection Agency investigating a murder because... they feel like it....

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTCâ(TM)s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTCâ(TM)s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. FTC Shuts Down Notorious Rogue Internet Service Provider, 3FN Service Specializes in Hosting Spam-Spewing Botnets, Phishing Web sites, Child Pornography, and Other Illegal, Malicious Web Content

Actually fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices is pretty much what these scumbags use as a business plan; the FBI can still get involved prosecuting specific frauds and deceptions; RICO charges are defiantly possible here.

The story quotes a former Justice Dept. expert saying the FTC action may be a smoke screen for a larger criminal investigation by the federal government in 3FN's activities.

Really? A smokescreen -- as in "An action or statement used to conceal actual plans or intentions" -- for a larger criminal investigation? No, clearly not. If it was supposed to conceal the actual plan or intention of a larger criminal investigation, the FTC probably wouldn't have announced the existence of such an investigation in a court filing on the case, specifically requested the timing of the order to go along with the the service of a search warrant in the criminal investigation, and then published the document detailing that on its website, on a page linked from the page with the press release about the injunction.

The FTC press release is here. The link on the case under "related items" takes you here. From that page, you click on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities and you get this document that was filed with the court, in which the FTC says (footnote, page 1):

It is the Commission's understanding that a parallel criminal investigation of the Defendant is underway. Although the Commission is not privy to the details of that investigation, the Commission is informed that a search warrant will be executed at the Defendant's data center on or about Wednesday, June 3, 2009. The Commission respectfully requests that this Court rule on the Commission's Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order prior to June 3, 2009, so that - ifthe Commission's Motion is granted - service ofthe TRO can be effected at the same time the search warrant is executed.

The "larger criminal investigation" is hardly a secret for which the restraining order serves as any kind of "smokescreen".

The story quotes a former Justice Dept. expert saying the FTC action may be a smoke screen for a larger criminal investigation by the federal government in 3FN's activities.

Really? A smokescreen -- as in "An action or statement used to conceal actual plans or intentions" -- for a larger criminal investigation? No, clearly not. If it was supposed to conceal the actual plan or intention of a larger criminal investigation, the FTC probably wouldn't have announced the existence of such an investigation in a court filing on the case, specifically requested the timing of the order to go along with the the service of a search warrant in the criminal investigation, and then published the document detailing that on its website, on a page linked from the page with the press release about the injunction.

The FTC press release is here. The link on the case under "related items" takes you here. From that page, you click on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities and you get this document that was filed with the court, in which the FTC says (footnote, page 1):

It is the Commission's understanding that a parallel criminal investigation of the Defendant is underway. Although the Commission is not privy to the details of that investigation, the Commission is informed that a search warrant will be executed at the Defendant's data center on or about Wednesday, June 3, 2009. The Commission respectfully requests that this Court rule on the Commission's Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order prior to June 3, 2009, so that - ifthe Commission's Motion is granted - service ofthe TRO can be effected at the same time the search warrant is executed.

The "larger criminal investigation" is hardly a secret for which the restraining order serves as any kind of "smokescreen".

The story quotes a former Justice Dept. expert saying the FTC action may be a smoke screen for a larger criminal investigation by the federal government in 3FN's activities.

Really? A smokescreen -- as in "An action or statement used to conceal actual plans or intentions" -- for a larger criminal investigation? No, clearly not. If it was supposed to conceal the actual plan or intention of a larger criminal investigation, the FTC probably wouldn't have announced the existence of such an investigation in a court filing on the case, specifically requested the timing of the order to go along with the the service of a search warrant in the criminal investigation, and then published the document detailing that on its website, on a page linked from the page with the press release about the injunction.

The FTC press release is here. The link on the case under "related items" takes you here. From that page, you click on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities and you get this document that was filed with the court, in which the FTC says (footnote, page 1):

It is the Commission's understanding that a parallel criminal investigation of the Defendant is underway. Although the Commission is not privy to the details of that investigation, the Commission is informed that a search warrant will be executed at the Defendant's data center on or about Wednesday, June 3, 2009. The Commission respectfully requests that this Court rule on the Commission's Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order prior to June 3, 2009, so that - ifthe Commission's Motion is granted - service ofthe TRO can be effected at the same time the search warrant is executed.

The "larger criminal investigation" is hardly a secret for which the restraining order serves as any kind of "smokescreen".

What does the Federal Trade Commission have to do with acting on illegal material such as the crazy stuff suggested by the article?

Well, the answer to that is found in the FTC's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in this case (available, here, along with other related documents):

Plaintiff, FTC, is an independent agency of the United States government created by the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 41-58 (2006). The FTC is charged with, among other things, enforcement of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, by its own attorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act, and to secure such equitable relief as may be appropriate in each case, including restitution and disgorgement. 15 U.S.C. 53(b) (2006).

What does the Federal Trade Commission have to do with acting on illegal material such as the crazy stuff suggested by the article?

If the conduct charged wasn't against the law (which is all that "illegal" means), neither the FTC nor any other government agency could bring a case to stop it. You may be mistakenly using "illegal" to mean "criminal" (which some of the conduct alleged would also be), in which case I will note that an act can be simultaneously a violation of civil and criminal provisions of the law, and move on to...

Where are the criminal charges here?

Again, from the FTC's Memorandum of Points and Authorities:

It is the Commission's understanding that a parallel criminal investigation of the Defendant is underway. Although the Commission is not privy to the details of that investigation, the Commission is informed that a search warrant will be executed at the Defendant's data center on or about Wednesday, June 3, 2009. The Commission respectfully requests that this Court rule on the Commission's Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order prior to June 3, 2009, so that - if the Commission's Motion is granted - service of the TRO can be effected at the same time the search warrant is executed.

Oh, that's a shame, maybe next time we should hand this matter over to the USAF or at least the FBI. You know, someone capable of exterminating or prosecuting the 'rats'?

Federal Trade Commission [Home]

A Brief Overiview of the Federal Trade Commission's
Investigative and Law Enforcement Authority (1) [1995]

Statutes Enforced or Administered by the Commission [Home]

"AN ACT To enhance Federal Trade Commission enforcement against illegal spam, spyware, and cross-border fraud and deception, and for other purposes."
U.S. SAFE WEB Act of 2006 [Final - Full Text]

Oh, that's a shame, maybe next time we should hand this matter over to the USAF or at least the FBI. You know, someone capable of exterminating or prosecuting the 'rats'?

Federal Trade Commission [Home]

A Brief Overiview of the Federal Trade Commission's
Investigative and Law Enforcement Authority (1) [1995]

Statutes Enforced or Administered by the Commission [Home]

"AN ACT To enhance Federal Trade Commission enforcement against illegal spam, spyware, and cross-border fraud and deception, and for other purposes."
U.S. SAFE WEB Act of 2006 [Final - Full Text]

Oh, that's a shame, maybe next time we should hand this matter over to the USAF or at least the FBI. You know, someone capable of exterminating or prosecuting the 'rats'?

Federal Trade Commission [Home]

A Brief Overiview of the Federal Trade Commission's
Investigative and Law Enforcement Authority (1) [1995]

Statutes Enforced or Administered by the Commission [Home]

"AN ACT To enhance Federal Trade Commission enforcement against illegal spam, spyware, and cross-border fraud and deception, and for other purposes."
U.S. SAFE WEB Act of 2006 [Final - Full Text]

Traditionally retailers have gotten in trouble for doing anything based on the retail sales price. First, there can only be a suggested retail price, to prevent price fixing,

Yeah, that's not true. Talk to your local Apple or guitar retailer, they've been dealing with minimum retail prices for ages.

If a manufacturer, on its own, adopts a policy regarding a desired level of prices, the law allows the manufacturer to deal only with retailers who agree to that policy. A manufacturer also may stop dealing with a retailer that does not follow its resale price policy. That is, a manufacturer can implement a dealer policy on a "take it or leave it" basis.

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/manufacturer_requirements.shtm

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf Once informed they may not contact you at your employer.

...but a collection agency can sure annoy you in other ways, not least by incessant phone calls...They don't just call you at home, either. They call you at work and annoy your employer.

A collection agency absolutely cannot harass you. They may not call you at work if you have instructed them to not. They may only call you at home (or your cell if that is your "main" number) at reasonable times. In fact, if you tell them (in writing) that they must cease attempts to contact you and that you refuse to pay the debt, they must not contact you again regarding that debt. Violating these laws can cost them in huge fines, but only if you stand up to them.

Now, if Sprint is handling their own collections internally, these particular rules don't apply. In any case, though, if the debt is reported on your credit, you can dispute it, and the entity who reported it must prove it is a legitimate debt, or the credit reporting agency must remove it from your report.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/031224fcra.pdf

Again, this system only works for you if you make it.

...but a collection agency can sure annoy you in other ways, not least by incessant phone calls...They don't just call you at home, either. They call you at work and annoy your employer.

A collection agency absolutely cannot harass you. They may not call you at work if you have instructed them to not. They may only call you at home (or your cell if that is your "main" number) at reasonable times. In fact, if you tell them (in writing) that they must cease attempts to contact you and that you refuse to pay the debt, they must not contact you again regarding that debt. Violating these laws can cost them in huge fines, but only if you stand up to them.

Now, if Sprint is handling their own collections internally, these particular rules don't apply. In any case, though, if the debt is reported on your credit, you can dispute it, and the entity who reported it must prove it is a legitimate debt, or the credit reporting agency must remove it from your report.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/031224fcra.pdf

Again, this system only works for you if you make it.

Looks like the FTC has finally got the ball rolling when it filed a suit on the 13th of May; http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0823263/090514voicetouchcmpt.pdf .. Interestingly tho this scam looks to have been going on for over a year now. Pretty slack for such a large and blatant operation.

Under FCC regulations, the phone company cannot disconnect your regular local or long-distance service if you don't pay a 900 number charge. Though it did become law in only 1993.

Under FCC regulations, the phone company cannot disconnect your regular local or long-distance service if you don't pay a 900 number charge. Though it did become law in only 1993.

To advertise a "skill contest" and not pay off on the scheduled date is usually a violation of the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act. Not good, Google.