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.
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
No, actually, you don't... There's a bug that causes your software to think you have a new message waiting for you, which points to the fact that your connection isn't optimized.
void*x=(*((void*(*)())&(x=(void*)0xfdeb58)))();
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.
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).
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.
Problem is, computer expertise is not a matter of intelligence, but rather a matter of practice. My mom can barely navigate through sending an email through yahoo mail, is it because she's an idiot? No, it's because she never uses a computer. Those ads are targeted towards people like her, who don't know better. Of course you and I know better.
But hey, who cares about making sense, you made your funny little post and you'll get your +1 Funny mods, that's all that matters!
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
Hey. I got one too and it's fake as we...
oh shit! gotta go. my computer is broadcasting an ip address
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... 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.
Plus it's done without government involvement, which is always nice.
sig? No thanks, I don't smoke.
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.
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.
On /. we take the piss out of normal people that get duped by fake UI's, but when the guy at McDonalds wipes the Big Mac beef patty on his ass and serves it to us, we get pissed off. Why? We see a Big Mac and we assume it's edible, the marketing and packaging dictate that it is, and we BUY it for the marketing and packaging. That makes marketing and packaging directly liable. A professional conoisseur can easily spot/smell whether a beef patty has been wiped on someone's ass, but does that mean he can take the piss out of us C++ hAxOrS because we can't smell/taste it?
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?