'No Thanks' Not Good Enough For AOL Promos

boio writes: "AOL users are suing AOL over its advertising practices, claiming that they were charged for products that they never requested. Apparently these users say they clicked the 'no thanks' button, but still received the advertised products. Of course, we must wonder if these people truly clicked no thanks ...they are using AOL after all, and maybe they had a secret yearning for that Torreador Bed-in-a-Bag ;)."

Comments

Check this out too

[boio]

There's an article on msnbc (I only found it through Google), about this too...
We learn that they're suing to, among other things, keep the products that were sent to them at AOL's expense.

Re:Check this out too

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

It was like this in the past. However, in the world we have today, there are too many scary possibilities.

#1 AOL bills them for the products, and when they refuse to pay, sics a collection agency on them. Ruins their credit rating, something which might as well be impossible to fix.

#2 AOL already requires a credit card number for service. It wouldn't suprise me, if they just charged it to the card. Maybe a bit easier to fix, but then they lose their internet service. Assume that the credit card company is willing to reverse the charge for an unsolicited product, what do you think AOL's reaction will be?

For instance, back in '95, I lived in a small hick town. The local ISP canceled my service, simply because I had requested a price on a static IP (oh no, he must be a hacker!). In the two months that it took for me to resolve this dispute, I was without internet service. The withdrawal was so bad, I did the previously unimaginable... I signed up for the only other isp with a local number, AOL. It was horrible... if you minimize the stupid AOL screen, it would disconnect you everyy 45 minutes. And if you left it up, it completely covered the desktop. Needless to say, I hurried up, and did the ass-kissing it took, to get my other isp account back.

Well, even though I distinctly remember canceling AOL (it didn't appear on any of my subsequent credit card statements), two years later I have moved, and since canceled the credit card. Well, I get a call from AOL's collection service, demanding that I pay 2 years worth of AOL service. Not alot I can do to prove it to them, because if their own records don't show that I haven't signed on in over 22 months, what will? Worse, I ask them if I'm still signed up for service.

"Yes". "Please cancel it immediately!". "Can we have the credit card number that you signed up with?". "No, I've since canceled it, and have nothing with the number". "We're sorry, but we can't cancel the service without the cc number...".

Well, one month later, they cancel it anyway (thank god), but only because they've farmed it out to a collection agency. When the collection agency asks me if I want to dispute it, I tell them this story. They call me back a week later, telling me that they have rescinded the charges, and that I may have to privately pursue getting this taken off my credit history. Seems even the sharks at the collection agency had never heard of anything so f*cked up... they simply dropped it as unpursuable.

So, I have no trouble believing that AOL would do anything at all, nothing is too low.

Re:Check this out too

[ssheth]

As per the FTC:

What do you do when you receive merchandise that you didn't order? According to the Federal Trade Commission, you don't have to pay for it. Federal laws prohibit mailing unordered merchandise to consumers and then demanding payment.

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.

Re:Check this out too

[AgTiger]

Yes, but beware this path. I had a problem with a club I belonged to (no, not Columbia House). They were marketing a series of videos on various home repair/remodelling ideas, and the series was pretty good.

I noticed that the series was starting to repeat itself, so I started using the postage pre-paid return labels. It became pretty quickly evident that I was going to be getting "essentially duplicates" and that they had run out of new ideas, so I cancelled the subscription.

Everything was fine until about 4 months later when a special 3 tape box set arrived introducing me to their "new" run of videos. If I didn't like it, I could just send the tapes back... ON MY DIME. No more postage pre-paid label? No problem. I wrote a letter off to the comany thanking them for their gift, but informing them that I did not wish to subscribe to the new series. I also informed them that they could send a postage-paid return label and I'd be happy to return their tapes. If not, I'd consider the tapes unsolicited merchandise and dispose of them as I saw fit.

I never watched the tapes. I kept them in their original packaging - I was really curious what the company would do. I was sorry I decided to find out. They sent reminder notices - I sent back copies of the original letter. They sent threats, I sent back documentation from the FTC. They sent a collection notice, I sent registered mail. This went on for four months.

FINALLY... I got a postage paid return label, returned their tapes, and haven't gotten very much in the way of promotional crap from them again. Something tells me I cost them a lot more money than they cost me.

Moral of the story is be careful about using the FTC regulations to claim that something sent to you is yours and that the vendor can go forth and multiply with extreme prejudice. Some can, and do bother you more than it's worth.

AOL's business practices are getting odd...

[drik00]

My brother uses my parents AOL account in another city until he gets broadband there, and a popup came up when he signed on the other day telling him he was allowed only two hours of "roaming" before a $3.95 "roaming" charge kicked in, to be added to the (i guess not-so-)unlimited $19.95 plan.

I still think AOL is the best choice for newbie users (my parents have only recently gotten DSL and quit using AOL all together), but if they start screwing with people that like they are my brother, screw 'em.

So?

[TheQuantumShift]

Credit card companies have been doing this for years, and nobody seems to be suing the pants off them. Or at the least, torching their offices. I worked Customer Service for a big name card once. I would say on average 80% of calls were concerning "This fucking sixty dollar charge I didn't authorize!!!". It's good to see some action on this, but it's going to be hard to convince the courts that they really didn't just click on the wrong button. Hell, I'm not convinced.

Re:So?

[elflord]

I'm not convinced either. However, AOL are getting what's coming to them, IMO. When you push customers like that, you'll get the odd customer who's tired or drunk at the time, and when they sober/wake up, they'll be unhappy about it. Push-marketting is inevitably going to create a lot of unhappy "customers" who will go after the vendor.

Promotions

[SevenTowers]

Anybody else use those promotion CDs that you get in the mail to put under coffee cups? I usually get 1 AOL CD a month.

My area is very well connected in terms of DSL and cable, and I don't know anybody who uses AOL. I think it's a big waste of material to send tens of thousands of CDs every month. They don't just screw you by advertising for other people, they piss you off by sending you useless junk.

Re:Promotions

[ssheth]

My uncle does that: he got a DSL line but still kept his AOL acct active although at the reduced price of something like $12 / month.

The main reason he is not quitting AOL is he is used to it and everyone has his @aol.com email address and he doesn't want to change and AOL cannot be setup to forward the email to another acct either so he has to face the daily barrage of "buy this" advertising just to read his email.

If AOL allowed people to forward email from their @aol.com accts to their new accts, they would probably lose 25-30% of customers immediately.

Re:AOL sucks?

[malfunct]

The reason you don't see AOL as evil is that you are looking in the wrong sector. AOL could give a flying **** about software, they have one single goal and that is to own 100% of your entertainment time. Already its hard not to watch a movie, watch a TV show, read a book or play a game that AOL doesn't have some piece of license over and they are still growing.

Another poster is right, give me the MS monopoly any day, they are focused on 1 thing and I can avoid it. It will soon be impossible to avoid sending revenue to AOL.

Re:AOL sucks?

[hendridm]

> adopting a lot of open source practices

I'm sure their motives aren't so noble. Is it a coincidence Mozilla and Winamp compete heavily with Microsoft?

> In the boxing match that is MS vs AOL... I'm cheering for AOL.

How about cheering for the little guy? I don't have a problem with the fact that AOL is the biggest. I have a problem with them using their power to determine which standards are acceptable (or more importantly, unacceptable) on the Internet. As a tech support person at a semi-large Help Desk I've seen countless Java and other applications fail under AOL that work fine under the other browsers.

I do love Mozilla, but Netscape is a huge, moldy piece of shit (no, they are not the same). I cringe when I design a brand new web site that looks superb under Mozilla and Internet Explorer only to find out how much work I really have ahead of me when I see that it looks like garbage under Netscape. Live in the now people.

In other news...

[ari{Dal}]

Reports that there is indeed snow in the Arctic, and that the sun still rises in the east were met with shock and disbelief.

"What next? Will huge market monopolies and conglomerates start abusing their strengths and taking advantage of the naivete of the average citizen?" said one surprised onlooker who refused to be identified.

I really can't believe people are surprised by this.. companies have been nailing users with 'hidden costs' and bills for services they never signed up with for years.

But lets face it.. AOL users have never been noted for their abundant intellects and computer-savvy, which is exactly why these are the perfect people to try silly marketing techniques on. How much of this is AOL's fault, and how much of it is the fault of the user himself? These users DO have the option of turning off these ads. And if they can't figure it out for themselves, then you have access to AOL's ever-so-helpful tech support (or the neighborhood computer geek).

As much as I dislike AOL and think this type of marketing scheme is completely ridiculous, the blame needs to be shared equally here. If the user can't be bothered to figure out how to turn off those invasive ads, who's to say they didn't click through a time or two?

AOL's Practices

[Renraku]

AOL is the kind of company to send their users over to other peoples' tech support. For instance, I used to work for Bellsouth's DSL tech support. For the FastAccess service. Not a day would go by that I didn't get at least one or two calls from people who had been cold transferred from AOL's tech support because AOL doesn't appear to support their own software if you're not dialing into them. Also, I've had AOL technicians try to dump their customers off on me, saying things like, "Well he has Bellsouth icon in his DUN folder, we don't support that". Not only that, but AOL likes to slam people from other DSL services. I've had many sweet old ladies who have said no and no again to AOL, calling in for a no sync problem. Guess what it ends up being? AOL slammed them because they said no. With companies adopting this 'sell them products they didn't request until people get pissed off' approach, its a surprise more people aren't getting sued.

Re:AOL's Practices

[mrbuckles]

The AOL SOB's are even worse than that. My girlfriend's parents are AOL subscribers who had trouble with a version of AOL they installed. They dutifully called tech support and were told that the problem was "noise on the phone line." I was very suspect of that answer and offered to put in a call on their behalf before they dragged someone from the phone company over.

When I called, I played dumb. I wanted to see what they would offer in the way of support if I didn't know anything. The standing rule must be to try and blame as much as possible on the user/phone comapany/other software manufacturer. The tech support person started by having my restart the computer. Then, we played around with some settings on the computer. I can't remember exactly what we changed, but I do remember noting that none of the changes we made could possibly meaningfully impact the problem.

After getting nowhere, I began to drop the ruse and started making suggestions and questioning whether the changes they suggested would do anything useful at all. When nothing could be done, the person told me I'd need to reinstall the software. I asked what could have happened to cause this. Below is, as well as I can remember, the conversation we had:

Me: So, how could this have happened?
AOL: Maybe you clicked on a bad web link.
Me: What do you mean?
AOL: You know, maybe a page had a broken link
Me: You mean like the URL doesn't point to an actual page?
AOL: Yes.
Me: You're telling me that an URL that doesn't point to an actual page could irreparably damage your software!?!?
AOL: Um....
Me: Yeah, thanks for the help.

Re:AOL sucks? OT and stuff

[ackthpt]

AOL may endorse the DMCA and SSSCA, but M$ is just as complicit willing to be the RIAA's and MPAA's agent in putting this enforcement into every desktop. No good guys in that battle, best you can hope for is they'll club each other senseless.

As to the question of ordering, reminds me of silly programs we wrote when we were secretly mocking users on our records system years ago.

Enter Yes if you would like to continue OR

Enter No if you do not wish to exit the program.

I'd give the users the benefit of the doubt, if YES/NO choice doesn't work in a way they anticipate then it's most likely the provider's failing, though as I recall, there have been many of examples of people being duped into paying for things they had no knowledge of.