Slashdot Mirror
Nationwide Class Action Filed Against DoubleClick
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.
So I don't have one new message waiting for me?
No, that would be a run-of-the-mill advertisement. A FUI would be an offical looking "All Trucks Must Exit Here" sign leading to a truck-repair center.
Or, maybe more realistically, a sign that says "Warning: next stop for blinker fluid in 200 miles"
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
" 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
You can be part of the the Class action if you are willing to admit that you are stupid.
Click now to discover whether YOU are eligible for a part of the MULTIMILLION payoff against DoubleClick!!!
Yes, you too can be part of the twenty-first century "I'M SO STUPID I DESERVE MONEY" movement.
Click now and receive $$$'s!!! (*)
* Subject to reality.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
For me to get into this class action lawsuit I have to admit that I am a dumb ass and was tricked by a "FUI" ...
man
No manual entry for
Despite freeway billboards being annoying they do not attempt to immitate actual road signs, which is illegal.
Even on private streaches of road it is illigal for you to post signes that closely mimic the ugly white on green government signage. Why should critical looking computer message that trick users be all that different... Mike
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.
This is a bit different. If you saw a sign that said 'Traffic advisery, use this route instead.' you may very well follow it, and would be quite pissed that it was a ploy to get you to look at new cars. 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.
I don't see why you think the FTC should handle it; they'd likely do nothing at all. A class action suit is more likely to get something done, and i for one wouldn't mind if it shut down double click forever.
My mother was sitting there clicking one of those ads for about 15 minutes and closing out the new window every time it opened. The reason? It said "Click OK to close this window." I was commandeered into showing her that you have to click the little X button to close out the window. Maybe I'm biased, but I'm glad they're finally getting sued for taking advantage of the people that are, shall we say, less-than-knowledgeable internet users.
It's more like this scenario: A police car flashes you. Do you pull over? Of course. An officer gets out and walks to your car and only when he gets to your car window and begins to try to sell you Chanel copies do you realize that his badge reads "great scents", that the logo on the side of his car reads "To Scent and Perfect" and that the thing on his belt is a credit card reader, not a baton.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
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).
It's all well and good asking for people who have been fooled by these, but to be fair, how many people who ever have thought those things were genuine are likely to ever find out about this action?
All of this, of course, was on his KDE desktop... (no, I've no idea why he had pop-ups enabled.)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Well this is why advertising is legal. I've said it before and I'll say it again - all advertising is fraudulent. There is no such thing as an unfraudulent ad. "Puff talk" or "puffery" is the legal term of art for 'de minimus fraud' and the only reason it's okay is because to prove up fraud, you need to show reliance. Few people, if any, are going to admit they relied on Katherine Zeta Jones saying X product is the best deal around. Thus, the fraud continues.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
..Only because I want them to change their advertising practices to get away from the egregious misleading practices that most of the vendors they push ads for concoct.. ..I don't care if you want to pop an ad up about performance parts for my car if I happen to be on a tuner website looking at mods for my car. What I don't agree with is all those 'your connection is not optimized' crapola that they flash at me when I'm say, reading tomshardware. That stuff IS blatantly misleading and would be equivalent in the real world to setting up a billboard on the side of the BQE and stating something to the effect of 'If you're driving a chevy, your brakes are wearing down at an alarming rate! Pull over and call Bob's car parts NOW, or you will DIE, mouthbreather!!'...
..I hope they smack those bastards, I really really do..
That kind of advertising is a classic ploy praying on people who are ignorant of the real working of the technology being pushed and used.
Are your brakes less than optimal? Well sure, if you've taken the car out of the driveway in the last six months, hell even if its been driven off the truck that brought them to the dealership.. That does NOT mean that my brakes are going to fail that very moment and that by not following the ad to the product I'm in some sort of imminent doom..
I dont understand why they have to fake the AD's. Just give me something I'd click.
Barely clothed Hot chicks. They could have them hold Linux distros with headlines like "Real men use this distro" or "How hard is your Hardware".
Hey, how many of you checkout a vendor just because of a cute Booth Babe? Exactly...
Glad I'm not the only one that's happened to. I swear on the beltway that between the unmarked police cars and the policecar salesmen it's a miracle anyone can tell who is who. Though I will say, the Chanel knock offs are great at removing engine deposits and removing gum from the bottom of shoes.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
From the law firm's website:
WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE PROPOSED CLASS?
The class action Complaint was brought on behalf of all persons residing in the United States who have, while operating a computer, encountered an advertising banner like the one illustrated on this website.
If you saw the ads, you're a member of the class. You don't have to have clicked on any of them.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
On the other hand, if it takes an ambulance chasing laywer to stop these practices, that's not entirely bad. Except that they don't have the consumer's best interest in mind, they have their own best interest in mind.
Legislation through Litigation is the wrong answer. If they really did soemthing illegal or wrong, there are appropriate gov't agencies to deal with it.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
On the other hand... Does anyone remember those Orkin commercials where it looks like a cockroach is crawling across your screen? Clever advertising, even if it is misleading. There was a lawsuit a while back by some idiot woman who threw her shoe at the TV when she saw the ad. If I remember correctly, she lost the lawsuit, as she should have.
True, it's a slightly different scenario for this DoubleClick lawsuit. The key difference is that in the cockroach commercial, it's /obviously/ a commercial. Not so for those damn DoubleClick ads, to the moderately-literate computer user.
IMHO, the best eventual outcome of this DoubleClick lawsuit would be some laws requiring Internet advertisers (operating in the U.S. of course, sigh) mark their ads as such, with a big red "ADVERTISEMENT" in the upper left corner. Sort of like newspaper ads.
I don't want to start a flame war, but I've been using Mozilla for a year (since 1.0), and with its popup blocking feature, I haven't seen one of those god-awful windows EVER.
Double-click wasted a lot of my time back when I was using IE. We all thought they would go bankrupt back in 2001, but they just kept surviving. Maybe this will break the bank and smother the dark side forever.
More than enough BS
Well, if you've never had anyone you know get worried because of those ads then you must not know *that* many people who aren't terribly computer literate.
I've had family members and I've had consulting clients who I've had to explain the situation to. With the family members it's fairly easy because they aren't (usually) going to question whether you know what you're talking about, but it's a d*mn pain in the ass when it's a non-knowledgable consulting client. You've told them one thing, but a message that popped up on their computer told them something different. Do they believe you or "Windows"?
In the "real world" deceptive advertising practices are illegal. This ought to apply to double-click just as much as anyone else.
That said, advertisers have never been allowed to make patently false claims. Just because these adds were on the internet, and not on TV, or radio, or in a magazine has no bearing on anything. Given the amount of latitude they have to stretch, bend, and massage the truth, it should be enough. Suing for outright lies seems pretty reasonable, and the couple cents per person they get in damages will make a nice symbolic warning.
Or, maybe more realistically, a sign that says "Warning: next stop for blinker fluid in 200 miles"
This really gets people the older they get. Not only do they need blinker fluid more often because they often forget to turn off their blinkers but they're also more likely to be taken in by the hoax. This is why I never use my blinkers.
> Also I have yet to levetitate from
> eating their enchilada bowls.
Really? It happens to me all the time. Starts a couple hours after the enchilada bowl. Or, bean burritos for that matter. I just have to stay away from open flames or the levitation thing gets WAY out of hand. Damn near got a concussion hitting my head on the ceiling first time somebody lit up a cig during a particularly bad episode of levitation.
What I find to be a cleverer advertising method is to have your ads built into little games that pop up. I've been distracted by one in particular from IBM where you have to put different shapes into their respective slots before the timer runs out. Exactly like this kid's game that a childhood friend of mine (don't remember the name of it though). If some ad threw out a tetris game, it'd be all over for me.
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman
Just have to check - you know there's no such thing as blinker fluid, right?
This space intentionally left blank.
DoubleClick's entire business model is based on gross invasion of what little privacy we have left, intensive data mining, consumer profiling, spamming, etc., ad nauseum. Far as I'm concerned, they deserve this!
Some examples: In 1998, the spammed Princeton U, trolling for job candidates. In June of 2003, DoubleClick announced their own so-called anti-spam initiatives that, according to the article, will "focus on finding out how consumers identify spam, to give marketers a better idea of how they can avoid being unfairly singled out as spammers." (For the record, spam is any E-mail received that tries to sell you something or, in the case of political spam, get your vote, and that you did not ask for).
Want more? No problem. In 2001, DoubleClick two unnamed E-mail marketing companies to, according to a quote in the article from CBS's Market Watch, "increase its junk e-mail capabilities."
Still not convinced? How about this thread over at the Firewall-Wizards site from 1999?
In summary, it looks like DoubleClick has long attempted to redefine spam as "That Which We Do Not Do." It also appears that their ethics are questionable at best, especially in light of those FUI banners on web pages.
DoubleClick, if you're reading this... You brought it on yourselves, and you have nothing but your own shady practices to blame. May you go down in a nice, pretty set of multicolored flames, and may the ashes be used as space filler for the next five Great Deconstructed Architectural Makeovers in FunFun Town. Nick Danger could probably use a new office...
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
After browsing 50+ of these posts I must ask:
what the hell is wrong with 90% of the posters here? Are you really so f***ing arrogant or are you just 14-year-olds who have no other ability besides beeing able to use a computer? Wait.. this is slashdot... forget I asked.
Do you honestly think that a person who clicks on these adds is stupid? How the hell do you excpect someone with no computer skills to spot the difference between the add and a genuine warning?
Do you honestly think it requires intelligence to use a computer? The only thing you need is memory silly people! Experience is what lets you be aware of these things, nothing else.
I assume all the geniuses here are instantly able to spot the difference between an true arabic fullblood (a great horse) and the nordic coldblood (another, very different, horse) the horsedealer over there is trying to sell you...?
Oh wait, you need to have seen them before you say? Good golly, I thought you could spot the difference through your amazing intelligence?
and no, I have never clicked on these adds, not because I'm intelligent, but because I have experience with computers.
You got it, Captain Obvious.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
No matter what they do, DoubleClick will always, repeatedly, be able to claim a mistrial for conflict of interest. After all, where in the US are you going to find a Judge that doesn't hate banner ads? (Then again, maybe that's why they filed it in PA...)
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.
/. ? Get yourself back to AOL and stop getting big ideas.
If you've ever been tricked by one of _those_ ads then what are you doing reading
Precedent may have already lost them their case:
? tid=123&tid=99
:).
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/05/28/173228.shtml
Will they, as opposed to the purple monkey people, have to pay damages though? One could argue that knowing the outcome of the above case meant they KNEW that what they were doing was illegal.
Either way I dont care, doubleclick is dev/nulled out in my hosts file
The programmers at DoubleClick are coding wizards...they must have spent months getting Windows APIs to work on my Mac. I don't even need to have Virtual PC running to access these important system messages...
WHy do they sue doubleclick? When benneton had an 'inappropriate' billboard at some time benneton had to fix it, not the ad agency nor the billboard owner... crazy stuff..
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
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
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?
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.
...would that have possibly been a Hong Kong FUI?
*rimshot*
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?