Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nationwide Class Action Filed Against DoubleClick

Posted by timothy on from the well-and-truly dept.

Stanley Ference writes "A nationwide class action lawsuit has been commenced in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, against DoubleClick Inc. DoubleClick is a leading provider of products and services used by direct marketers, web publishers and advertisers to plan, execute and analyze marketing programs. In 2002, Doubleclick served more than 630 billion ads on the Internet for thousands of customers." If you've ever been tricked by one of those ads telling you that your "connection is not optimized" or that you have "1 new message waiting," you could be part of the class. Read on for details.

Stanley Ference continues: "The class action complaint alleges that DoubleClick deceptively and fraudulently commandeered millions of Internet users to the commercial websites of DoubleClick's customers through dissemination of tens-of-millions of fraudulent Internet advertising banners that impersonated computer system messages. The Complaint states that through use of such Fake User Interface ("FUI") dialogs that fraudulently represented themselves as computer system error messages, DoubleClick tricked millions of Internet users into interrupting the work they were performing to respond to the fraudulent system message, only to unexpectedly find both computer and computer user thus hijacked to commercial websites of DoubleClick's customers.

Additional information about this lawsuit, including an illustration of the advertising banners that are the subject of this lawsuit, may be found at ferencelaw.com/doubleclick."

Here's a link to the press release (PDF) announcing the filing of this lawsuit.

17 of 525 comments (clear)

  1. Damn - fooled again by draziw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And when I see signs when I'm on the freeway saying there are once in a lifetime deals at a car dealer I get off the road right away... The advertising practices suck - but I think it should be the FTC dealing with it not class action lawsuits. Doubleclick can't afford to loose - it just isn't going to happen IMHO.

    --
    draziw - +3 karma for low user id

    1. Re:Damn - fooled again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      but I think it should be the FTC dealing with it not class action lawsuits

      Hold on! The FTC is a federal agency, and the actions of this agency can be controlled by the executive, and even members of Congress who weigh in on particular matters. Consider, for example, how the DOJ let Microsoft off the hook, even though it had won critical fact-findings at the district court.

      Regardless of your personal political view, do you really want politicized agencies having exclusive enforcements?

      There's a class of lawsuits known as "private attorney general" actions, where ordinary citizens can sue to enforce laws and rules (if these laws allow such actions). This is explicit recognition by the legislature that their agencies charged with enforcing the laws often don't get their priorities right, and that sometimes, justice can come from common citizens.

      A similar legislative goal is behind class action suits, but there are other goals, such as efficiency and conservation of scarce judicial resources.

      Could you follow up with more specific reasons why you think only a federal agency should have the power to police advertising? Please provide information about how "zealous" the FTC has been under various administrations about pursuing all law-breakers, and not just those without the common sense to make hefty political donations and retain Washington lobbyists (like Microsoft).

    2. Re:Damn - fooled again by PaulK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have had many people call me in panic, because windows performed an "Illegal Operation". They were worried that they were in trouble.

      I think that the parallel stands legitimately; this is a function of perception, not fact.

      We are talking about users, after all.

    3. Re:Damn - fooled again by onepoint · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>it is not illegal to have those helpful little food-fuel-lodging signs

      You seemed to be mis-informed, those little info signs are state regulated ( atleast in NY NJ and CT ) and are paid for by the business on that sign.

      also the same rules apply to the adopt a highway, you ( the adopter )pay for a sign that is placed on the road after you have clean up the road.

      Adopt a highway is a great program.

      onepoint

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    4. Re:Damn - fooled again by Xouba · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I'm sure most computer users aren't savvy enough to tell that it was a fake ad, since it was designed to look just like a message box in windows.

      That's so true. I teach Windows & general computer related stuff to two persons, and the two of them fell for the "windows-alike-ad" trick. And not that they are dumb or anything; it's just that they know very little about computers and the Internet.

      The funny thing is that these ads are always in english, but the Windows version used in the classes is all in spanish (I'm in Spain). And anyway, they click the ad. I'm sure it's some kind of animal response to flashing things :-)

      --
      My weblog in spanish
    5. Re:Damn - fooled again by arkanes · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I think we SHOULD go after beer advertizers when babes don't flock to me. Untruthful advertising is especially bad - this is advertising that is intentionally attempting to decieve people by placing an add that mimics a legitimate warning. It'd be like advertising medicine by sending you mail that look like it was from a health clinic claiming you had a disease.

      In what way would it harm our nation and economy if products had to advertise based soley on legitimate, provable objective benefits of thier products? No paid actors giving "testimonials", no hints that using it will get you laid - just bare, provable facts. We'd all be better off.

      Full disclosure time - do you work for an advertising company?

    6. Re:Damn - fooled again by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I think deceptive advertisers should be punished. Frivilous lawsuits have nothing to do with this.

      If you deliberately deceive, you should suffer the consequences. As it is, the system is set up to reward the vast majority of those who lie and mislead, harrass and annoy in the name of commercialism. Screw 'em.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:Damn - fooled again by UberLord · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would you feel the same way if the messages popped up via the Messenger windows service instead?

      Then, it's NOT on the internet, it's YOUR computer telling you that it's unoptimised. Some people may see the add, but when they're own computer says it ........

    8. Re:Damn - fooled again by ziekke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I fully agree. Users can't be expected to understand everything that goes on when it comes to computers and can easily be confused/misinformed.

      I think another point that has been missed is, through internet advertising the vehicle the ads are being transferred to you isn't merely just some random static billboard on the side of the highway. Those ads are costing you money as they use your internet connection and computer resources as a vehicle to display the ad. It would almost be like you not only see the billboard in the middle of the road stating that "Your wheels are loose, come here to get them fixed", but you also get a bill in the mail because the billboard has a little camera that snaps your plates and you have to pay some minor fee per billboard viewing that was forced upon you.

      I fully agree with this lawsuit, popup ads are sneaky to begin with, but ones that imitate system messages to fool users into clicking the ads are just plain stupid.

      --
      // Ziekke
    9. Re:Damn - fooled again by morcheeba · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You got that it's an analogy, but then didn't follow through... The state DOT and the Federal gov design all the features of the highway system, from which roads are placed where, to how cars interact with it (i.e. weight limits, expected traction in curves, etc.), and what licenses are required. An OS does much the same thing: it determines what files are stored where, which API's are used to access different things, and the permissions required to run different programs. The OS and the Gov don't need to be related, just analogous.

      The second example was more for humor, drawn from my own personal experience ...

      --
      HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
  2. advertisements & falsity by ramzak2k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Doesnt it always go that advertisements carry some degree of falsity and the viewer must exercise his/her own good judgement ? If there is a similar ad on a television stating that if you sweat profusely after a small walk you could be suffering from high blood pressure, would it warrant a class action suit ?

    --

    Siggy Say, Siggy Do
  3. Who should really be upset by rnd() · · Score: 2, Interesting

    DoubleClick's clients should really be upset. If you were paying DoubleClick to drive traffic to your site, wouldn't you want traffic that at least voluntarily sought information about what you provide rather than fools who clicked the "your system is not secure" pseudo dialog box?

    --

    Amazing magic tricks

  4. IAMALBIPOSD.... by LaminatorX · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There are sone real gems in the complaint...

    From the Statement of Facts:

    19. In a diabolical scheme to deceive computer users into misdirecting their computers to Internet sites of defendant's clients...
    (emphasis mine)

    Ya gotta love a lawyer with the balls to characerize something as "diabolical;" not merely "greedy," "unethical," or even simply "fraudulent." They called this behavior worthy of the devil himself.

    From Claims:

    47. Defendants knowingly and intentionally made false statements of existing material facts.
    48. Defendants intended for class members to rely on their material misrepresentations as fact.

    Hopefully this is a slam-dunk. The fact that they disguised their "puffery" such that people didn't realize they were ads gained them more clicks, but hopefully also a level of "reliance" beyond the low level that usually shields advertizing hyperbole from fraud claims.

    Hopefully it won't stop here. The $505 per plaintif ($500 punative damages and an amusing $5 compensatory damages) has some teeth, but the most wronged parties aren't the ignorant clickers, but the ISPs who are paying to shuffle this crap back and forth. I keep wondering when the ISPs are going to sue spammers and junk ad pushers for some sort of trespass/DOS. Now they'd have a case for compensatory damages...

  5. False advertising, but what $$$ harm? by bagofbeans · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought plaintiff has to prove a harm with money value. What is that for clicking a diversion site? Different if the diversion instantly installs nasty-ware without further confirmation, but I don't think that's the case.

  6. Going to take some flack but... by Faith_Healer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This lawsuit seems rather frightening to me, if these guys win and this is declared to be fraudulent practice, then this could have huge implications for programing. I would hate to have to have to reference a chart and make sure that any GUIs I built did not resemble any of the system boxes from every operateing system out there. Notice that, the add that they display as an example looks like a windows box. Did the original programers intend to market to a mac audience and not even bother to make sure that their banners did not look like a windows system message? Prehaps they were marketing to a linux useing audience. And when you click the add you do get a message. I would say that any advertisement would be clasified as a message. Also I am sure that some system did help in the creation of that message, so how on earth would that window be missrepresenting themselves any one. I guess that people can be fooled by any thing. Oh and on a last not any one who wants to buy the full quit claim deed to our nations capatiol can call me, its a wonderfull piece of property. Lets grow up and not blame everyone for the ignorance of a few.

    --
    Faith_Healer -- The antethsis to almost everything, and the worlds worst speller.
  7. not informative, mod parent down by frovingslosh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, no. I've had doubleclick and many varants of them in my host files for years. I've still seen these false error messages. And lately I've seen my computer installing "something" when I reboot, even though I know I haven't installed anything! The truth is that scum like doubleclick know about host files and are constantly adding new domains and changing ip addresses to keep them from being blocked on your system. You can only play catch-up, but you can't keep them out this way. It's far from an ultimate answer, or effective.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  8. Re:in other words by hashwolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "You can be part of the the Class action if you are willing to admit that you are stupid"

    If admitting that I'm stupid gets me some money and screws some spammers, why not?!

    --
    - "They misunderestimated me."