Slashdot Mirror
FTC Settles With Texas Based Spammer
fermion writes "The FTC has settled with the Austin, Texas-based company, ClickForMail.Com, Inc, on a charge of deceptive trade practices. The FTC charges that ClickForMail promised a preapproved credit card through AllPreApproved.com but failed to deliver the product. We all have heard that such spam and schemes can be very profitable, but do we ever believe a large number of people will fall for it? In this case, thousands took the bait. The victims allowed AllPreApproved.com to deduct $49.95 from their bank accounts. In return the victims received not a credit card, but a list of hyperlinks which could be used to get credit cards." (Read on for more.)
"As is usual, the settlement does not assign blame. The FTC made ClickForMail pay $815,000 and promise not to lie about its services in the future. Apparently ClickForMail is not prohibited from sending out future UCE. This investigation is part of an FTC task force which is filing actions against 45 companies. One of the scams is an update of the eternal scholarship con.
If anyone gets spam from Texas, or if you live in Texas, make sure to use the new Texas Spam Law. Individuals can sue for $10 per UCE, up to $25,000 a day."
did this case stem from the 11th Circuit? I predicted yesterday a /.-approved decision would come from the 11th circuit, and while this wasn't a court decision, it's good to see the FTC take action on something like this. I'm curious to see if the FTC originaly filed the case in 11th Circuit courts.
They can't lie again? It wasn't legal before. Why is that even in the settlement? Did they return the money to those they defrauded? What's the FTC trying to accomplish here? Is this too many questions in a row?
So as they've been essentially let off the hook, what's to stop them doing it again under a different name? And does the fine cover the revenue they fraudulently took from people?
I know that spamming is wrong, and fraud is wrong, and spamming + fraud is therefore doubly wrong, but in cases like this, as with the Nigerian money-laundering scams, I find it very difficult to sympathise with the victims of such a blatant scam. I know I should, but there's a cruel part of me that sees this as stupid people being taught a painful but valuable lesson.
evil math within Nature's Cubic Creation!
I work down the hall from these guys, would it be wrong to post this article on their front door? Or how about a flaming bag of poo in front of it?
This is IF the jury finds him guilty as accused. I imagine the defense lawyer will want a jury who has never touched a computer, so that he doesnt wind up with 12 spam angered jurors, who throw the book at his client.
How about as a suggestion for posting guidelines. Most of the initial replies I have seen so far on this article indicated that they didn't read the article. Can you make a link counter, or cookie system that automatically mods down the posters score by 1 point if they haven't read at least one of the links? I know there could be problems with this, but it'll help reduce the chaff, and improve the S/N ratio. Just a thought
..........FULL STOP.
Hmmm... he lied to customers, gleefully took their money, and wasted communication resources. I know many states like Texas have fines in place. Even here in California on Jan 1st 2004 fines will be $1000 per UCE, but no matter how much the fines are as long as there is no jail time the fines will just become part of their business plan.
Get revenge: Unsolicited Commando
They slap him with a fine and don't tell him to not send spam. I'm worried this is going to set a precedent.
This sig no verb.