Slashdot Mirror
FTC Gets Angry Over "Free" PC Offers
Wister285 writes: "The Federal Trade Commission is going after buy.com, Value America, and Office Depot for running 'misleading' free PC offers. The FTC is claiming that the advertisements don't disclose the true restrictions and costs of the PCs, which can be up to $1000. When will people learn that Big Brother is always watching? Catch the story over at ZDNet." This goes way beyond "monitor not included," too.
It isn't too difficult to buffer my statement, either. I can point to a couple immediate things, such as the number of times people drop $17 to buy a formulae pop CD from N'Sync or Brittney Spears or the number of idiots who really thought that if they flew to the Publisher's Clearing House headquarters, they were going to become multi-millionaires, because Ed McMahon had said they might have already won on the envelope they receieved in the mail. Then there are the thousands of idiots who fall prey to telephone scams. They willingly hand out $10,000, $20,000 -- even $100,000 with the promise of securing a million-dollar lottery that you've already won!.
What's funnier is that, in the last scenerio, these people usually end up falling for the same scam a second or even a third time! We hear them on 20/20 and 60 Minutes blabbering their sob stories to half of the televised world, expecting us to sympathize with their gullability.
So, while I think this is stupid that the FTC should have to step in considering how rediculous it is to actually expect that the PC's were without attached strings (who cares what the advertisements failed to mention, you don't need more than a handful of IQ points to figure this stuff out), it is nonetheless their duty to look for obvious exploitation of consumers. And, in this case, I think it's safe to assume that stepping in to defend the lowest common denomonator may have been appropriate.
---
seumas.com
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
It took them this long to go after them?
C'mon. These companies are selling a service, not hardware. If the buyer didn't figure this out when they signed on the dotted line, then it sucks to be them.
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
Is that free PC as in free beer or free... oh nevermind, I never understood all this beer talk anyway. and I'm thirsty :-(
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
Details about restrictions were either missing from the ads or printed in miniscule type.
Lack of Details? Miniscule Type? Anyone who has ever watched any TV commercial is used to these sins. ...credit cards, automobiles, cigarettes, alcohol, weight loss programs, just about every product or service that can be sold... vast amounts of advertising lies hide behind indecipherably-sized "qualifications" of the adverted claims, qualifications which often amount to "What we just said was true iff you ignore all of these ugly details" or "The results we just claimed occur only in exceedingly rare cases." We are merely seeing examples of such qualification in the other objectionable parts of the "Free PC" ads cited by the FTC.
I'm not saying that the FTC's accusations are wrong. What is wrong is that when the FTC picks on only certain companies or ad campaigns. The FTC should either address the greater problem of almost universal deception in advertising, or abandon the issue altogether.
If you're not wasted, the day is.
Let's see... 36 months of MSN at $22/month comes out to just about $800, a return of -200%!!
And to think, I was going to trust this guy to manage my portfolio! I should have turned around and ran the other way when he informed me that 70% of the 600 million (!!) people living in the U.S. do not currently own a computer...
What, do they give degrees out at candy stores now?
heidi
This kind of thing is exactly why I don't understand the positions of Libertarians...
As a Libertarian, I will attempt to explain my position.
(apologies to Eric Raymond, of course). There are obviously people and--more often--corporations who purposefully deceive consumers to the fullest extent possible for the sake of making a big fat profit. That's why we have things like fraud laws and agencies like the FTC to enforce them.
The protection of the people against initiation of force and fraud are about the only things Libertarians DO believe is the role of government. Libertarians absolutely oppose the use of fraud.
It isn't easy for average Americans (bless their dim li'l hearts) to see through these kinds of offers, and it's great to see people who know what they're doing trying to protect them. Kudos to the FTC.
Here is where we actually depart ways. I do not believe the average American is an idiot. I believe people should be free. With that freedom, comes responsibility. A society that protects its citizens from responsibility is not a free society. Would you really want to live in an "idiot proof" society? Are you willing to give up your rights as an adult in order to have the government raise you children for you? Are you willing to give up a free market in order to avoid having to read the fine print?
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
I think the FTC could easily solve this problem once and for all with one single step. On each box, the manufacturers should be required to print, in big letters:
"There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch".
Good grief! Is it not simple enough to make a law that says, "The price you advertise next to a product must match the product advertised?"
--
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
Most people don't read the contract. First of all, they don't understand all the words in the contract, they're usually full of lawyer double-talk that makes it necessary for the typical person to have it explained. Much legal-speak has completely different meanings from the ones in common use. Think of "in camera"; most of us don't speak latin anymore, and consider a camera a device for taking pictures. How bloody hard would it be to say "in the room"?
Secondly, they put so much boilerplate garbage in there that it is extremely tedious reading. Paid at the wages I'd draw for reviewing such documents, the effort of reading would often be more costly than the real price of the service.
That sheer length also makes you tend to skim, if you do read it. Instead of looking at every word and thinking "what does that really mean?" (as you should do when dealing with anything written by a lawyer) you are tempted to take things at their first appearance.
People really should start saying "No, I'm not signing that, this (lease/license/service/purchase) is a simple thing and the contract should be under a page of normal-sized type." But it's become such common practice that you simply wouldn't be able to get many services without signing a contract that the average person just can't fully understand.
It would take an organized effort to end small-print trickery. Maybe such a group already exists... I'm going searching, I want to join!
People in stone houses shouldn't throw glass.
No wait, stoned people in glasses shouldn't throw houseparties.
No, that's not it, housepeople should use stonewear not glasses.
Forget it. I may not make sense, but at least I grammar right.
$0 for a CPU
$250 for a monitor
$225 for CompUSA service contract
$21/mo for 3 years = $756
Total for a cheap piece of garbage: $1231
Not exactly rocket science!
JHK
Pop never sounded this good before!
--
--
Wage Slave Journal