Slashdot Mirror
NZ Business Fined For Out-of-Date Website
Peter writes "A story reports that a restaurant in New Zealand has been fined NZ$3000 for failing to keep its website up to date. By having out-of-date menus and prices on its website, it has breached the Fair Trading Act, according to the New Zealand Commerce Commission."
The fact that it's on the Internet is moot; it's false advertising. Simply that.
That's a scary thought... hopefully no other countries will do this, I don't want to get in trouble for not keeping all of my numerous sites up to date.
isn't based in New Zealand. Hell they'd have locked up half the crew by now....
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
This happened to my dad's small engineering company. He had the phrase "engineers" on the site, when in fact there was a single engineer (PE) and an EIT (engineer in training) who was weeks away from becoming a full-fledged engineer.
I think the state board of licensure fined him something around $50,000? Absolutely rediculous. Granted, the head of the board was the engineer for a competing company I believe, so there might've been other motivations... stupid small states.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
They'd go out of business with all the old news and dupes.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
The internet is a mature medium. The restaurant was warned about it, and they failed to do anything. It's an open and shut case of false advertising. Would you tolerate your brokerage firm listing out of date brokerage fees? Or your bank listing out of date interest rates?
E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
Exactly why is a web site a special case from other forms of promotion and advertising?
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
To some extent, they have a point in that it is bad for companies to advertise things and not actually have all of what they do advertise. But that hardly calls for a 3000 dollar fine. Especially for something as non-critical as food. It's not like someone paid a 1000 bucks to live in some hotel that didn't have A/C but said it did. That would be a better case. Not people whining about some food item thats not available at the store that was published online. And seriously .. "the website price varied between 17 and 36 per cent cheaper than the in-house menu." -- ?? 15 - 30 cents? Pocket change anyone?
In other news, the Staten Island Ferry was fined $30,000 after a customer got in line clutching a rate card from 1958.
Turning to Europe, a German recycling firm was shuttered over the weekend when it was discovered that, in a locked, donated trunk of old books and papers, they had been in posession of WWII-era Nazi propaganda.
And PETA's founder was forced to resign today after it was learned his father once ate a steak. Rare.
Cutriss, you are hereby found guilty of duping my comment! 30 days!
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
This would be a litigation lightning rod for the plaintiff's bar in the US. Now where's that law school application?
...around five cents US, right? ;)
(Sarcasm note: I'm only kidding! Props to fellow geeks in Kiwiland.)
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
This is why I always recommend to my customers to include in the fine print: "Prices are subject to change without notice."
At that point, I would hope the company is no longer liable for a customer's stupidity.
Well I looked around the article but couldn't locate any information whether the site was hosted inside of New Zealand or outside, but I would imagine if it was hosted outside of New Zealand that they would have no right to go after the company for what their website contained, since it would not be on their soil.
So can you be fined for out of date meat too? If so that web site had better watch out!
Who cares? So his website had prices that didn't reflect what his actual business was doing? Why didn't the customer that knew about the lower prices listed on the Internet demand to pay only those prices? So, the customer drives out to the restaurant expecting to pay $10 a plate, but upon arrival finds that it is $15 a plate? What is he complaining about, that he had to waste his gas to find out that the prices online weren't correct, or were different? What a waste of $3,000 that could otherwise have been spent on improving the food. Now, the quality of the food at that establishment is likely to suffer until the owner can recover the lost $3,000 in stupid fees. False advertising, phewy! It is not the restaurant owners problem if you don't like the pricing, go elsewhere to eat. If the restaurant goes out of business then the market will have already dealt it's blow. If this were me, I would simply print out the online prices and indicate that is what I want to pay, if the restaurant disagrees then I take my money elsewhere, unless I really do want to eat there.
This isn't offtopic, stupids. Learn to read between the lines, or 'recognise' 'implications'.
Heck, it's been THREE WHOLE HOURS since Slashdot last posted an article. Too bad I'll never see a dime of that fine. :(
Slashdot had better watch out too then. It's putrid colour scheme and invalid html code are even more outdated.
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
This goes back to the days of "Bait and Switch" advertising in newspapers back in the 70's. Certainly, if the restaurant posted prices, then they do have a legitimate responsibility to keep that sort of "Time Sensitive" information up to date.
"The complaining customer had notified both the restaurant and the Restaurant Association of New Zealand that the website menu was out of date and misleading, but the operator, despite knowing about the issue, had done nothing to correct the website."
This sends a good message to commercial web site operators and e-commerce sites that they have to maintain current and correct information and can't just say "We didn't have time to update things.....so not our problem"
I don't think I need to worry about my blog I set up one weekend a couple months ago and haven't touched since......do I ???"We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. " Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
BFD?
Actually they would.
The business was on NZ soil. This was "current" advertising. It doesn't matter where a NZ based business does its advertising it needs to be correct.
In this case they were even give a warning and did nothing...
As the first poster said, this is just false advertising. That the medium is the www is irrelevant.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I agree he should have kept his site up to date but is there really any need for big brother to get involved.
If the site is run by a kiwi or for the benefit of a kiwi company, with the intention of selling services to people inside kiwiland, then they won't get away with the "the server is in China" approach.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I think you missed the point.
We are protected here in NZ, from false advertising which may draw us into a store, restaurant etc. expecting low priced goods or special bargains.
The restaurant can host its website wherever it wants, it was still telling New Zealanders that it had specific items on its menu, which it no longer actually serves.
p.s. last time I dined there the staff were rude and incompetent, and they deserve to be straightened out in any way possible.
If you advertise, Then it must be correct!
Slashdot fined for out-of-date news!
Think twice before posting dupes, taco!
Next up we'll have people filing suit for personal information on blogs not being up to date. I can see it now: If I had the right screenname I would never have become an opium addicticed stripper for you! Or some other implausible lawsuit... hey maybe I can sue shashdot for something... they have money right?
In other news, hordes of dissapointed Slashdotters find that they can't /. the servers because there is no direct link.
"Is your website out of date? You could be fined $3000! Instead, pay us to update your site!"
Makes me wish this would happen in the US.
One of two things will happen. Either a lot of firms in the US will be sued to oblivion, making lots of money, or HTML programmers will be in phenominal demand, resulting in more payments being made and less being taken out.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
In New Zealand...... fill in the blank or is it: fill in the blank.... New Zealand.
Why would you think that? It doesn't matter where the advertisement is physically stored, its still fake.
There are about a half dozen issues we all know about...P2P, DRM, public computer filtering, DMCA, a few others that are uncommon like blocking VoIP traffic. They're problems no doubt, but at least a new one doesn't crop up every day. Just variations on the old ones....so much so that we run out of angles to discuss!
in other news, Slashdot is fined for having too many dupes.
Judging by a few recent stories (patents in EU, traffic monitoring in Canada, and now this article), seems like NZ is the only sane place to live.
This sounds like it has the potential to be a great money spinner for Slashdot users with a litigious streak and zero sympathy for the non-computer/Internet literate.
There are thousands of "mom and pop" businesses out there who paid a webmaster to make them a site as a one-off after being bombarded with the message that their business will go under if they don't join the 21st century and get an Internet presence. Once their contract with the webmaster expires, these sites often sit dormant for years. The owners of these businesses are typically working their asses off on the fundamentals to stay afloat, and it's probable that many barely recall the fact that they have a (rather pointless) Internet presence, let alone know how to update the site, or have the spare cash to hire a webmaster just to update a few details.
So here's what we do. We seek these sites out, send an e-mail to their long since unmonitered account complaining that we were misled because the site's details are not up-to-date, and sue the pants off them when there is no response. And we don't have to feel the least bit bad about our nuisance lawsuits tying up the overburdened court system, because after all, these greedy small businesses maliciously attempted to deceive people, and we're just doing our bit to eliminate this evil from the world.
Bear in mind that 1 pound roughly equals 2 US dollars these days, hence that Pentium-III 500mhz comes out at around $2500. Sweet.
Also bear in mind that this store is still active and trading, just that their site is soooooooooo out of date.
The entire point of looking it up on the interent is so that he wouldn't have to call ahead.
Exactly. Let's go back on topic. Suppose someone had called, and was told the same price that is on the website. Now what? Does that move them into the wrong? At what point does it become false advertising and become punishable?
Website advertisements are just as valid as any other type, and should be held to the same standards. Period.
Being a New Zealander and an Economist I'm glad to see the government cracking down on websites that give misleading prices. It's true this website has been made an example of to scare other people with out-dated websites, but I think this will have a good spin-off towards lazy webmasters.
Whose rights are we talking about here? The rights of the restaurant staff plus owner or the rights of the consumer using the restaurant's services? I am only hoping that the "yro" title refers to the rights of the consumer as this clearly is a case of false advertising and yes, the restaurant should be fined. The term "yro" on Slashdot seems to going down the toilet rather fast as everything is suddenly about the rights of people. If you think the government or some other institution is out there to get you and your rights, try living somewhere else. Or at least try living for a while.
"was fined $3,000 plus $260 in court costs" - what I see in this sentence is that the fine was $3000 but the court costs were a mere $260. It seems that New Zealand isnot a haven for money-hungry lawyers! Contrast this figure with USA where you can declare bankruptcy just by paying court costs.
(Say) I own a restaurant. I've been in restaurant business for 28 years, but just recently this young man approached me about a "web-site" thing. I don't know diddly-squat about computers and such, but it's cheap. I pay him $500 and sets up a web-site for me. All is wonderful...
Later, I get notice that my web-site thing is "wrong" but I can no longer reach the guy that made it? What do I do??????
[I in fact know people who have web sites set up for their business by short-lived companies. The web sites often live on, longer than their creators. The "owners" who paid to have them created may not know HOW to change them.]
PK: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
"Restaurant Association of New Zealand"...rancid? ;)
"The fact that it's on the Internet is moot; it's false advertising. Simply that." - I tend to agree but think it was due to stupidity rather than malice.
Stupid, lazy, greedy and "evil" people have the same legal rights and responsibilities as the rest of the population (I fall into the lazy category). If after "fair warning", somebody's own personality handicap continues to waste "significant" time and/or money for "Jo Public" then they deserve a mandated and public wallet kicking to discourage others from compounding the problem. The market fanatics who generally despise regulation would argue that the bussiness will loose out in an evolutionary manner because it will get a "bad name" so regulation is not required. The problem is evolution is slow can find many small niches in otherwise hostile environments, not to mention the bard's famous rose. I belive it must be in everyones interest that the public give evolution a boost in the right direction with mandates. Advertising laws should be aimed to minimise futile public effort and "advertise" those who are knowingly causing it for no other reason than some personality or educational defect.
I'm not sure about NZ but in Australia they could have avoided any problems with just a smidgen of forethought or advertising advice. IE: "offer valid until (insert date)". This would have wallpapered thier arse and is a common practice in Australia for any advertising that mentions price. There has been some recent scrutiny of the laws concerning "implied availabilty" but I am not sure what you can and can't do.
As recently as 2001 I was coerced by pleading baby blue eyes into driving my daughter on a 1.5hr round trip. This was done to physically demonstrate the fact that nobody sells brand new $3000 guitar's for $100 each. We had both sat and carefully listened to the radio ad twice before climbing into the car. It did not mention any availability caveates (eg:"while stocks last", "first 5 customers"). On the up side I did get to educate my daughter and the ads dissapeared after a short time?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I went to a local Vancouver camera shop's web site, and looked into pricing for a Sigma SD10. Found that they had a great deal on for the camera body, 2 lenses (wide angle and zoom), case, and really nice flash.
I went down and tried to buy the camera, but was quoted a HUGELY different price for it. I asked the guy to go to their website and tell me what it says, after which the clerk said someone made a mistake on the data input... turns out the price was only for the base, not including the 2 lenses and the flash.
As a result, the clerk called the owner/boss, who asked them if the lower price was actually on the site, and had a detailed description of what was included in that price, and when it was validated, he said "well, give that stuff to him at that price... and CHANGE THE WEBSITE. " The site was changed while I was still in the store paying for my camera.
So, at the end of the day, I saved over $1,500 due to their screwup. I kind of felt bad about it, and ended up buying more stuff than I would have (huge amounts of ram, rechargeable batteries, tripod, etc), but it was nice to see the guy live up to his on-line marketing.
$0.02 (CDN)
In larger markets, WalMart has their in-store pricing match their online pricing because they're undercutting local stores online and b&m. However, in rural areas where there's no Best Buy, CC or whatever to compete with, they charge the regular price in-store. If you ask the customer service people, they refuse to price match their own website advertised prices. You can go online to order it, but you can't get it in the store.
Example: Recently, some new DVD came out that would normally run at least $19.99. Best Buy and others were selling it at $15.99 to bring in customers. Walmart was selling it for $14.88 online and in stores near Best Buy. In Walmarts in the middle of nowhere, the price was the full $19.99. No price matching. I skipped going to Best Buy to pick it up because walmart.com said I could get it at Walmart for $14.88. By the time I was near a Best Buy again, the sale was over.
It's not even a case of old or mistyped pricing. They're actively selling at the price, just not in certain areas where they can get away with jamming up the customer. Most other places that charge less online will at least give you the lower price in the store if you ask.
The interesting thing about this is that it seems Tony's Vineyard (aka. Tony's Restaurant and Bar - in Henderson), doesn't have their own website.
The article seems to refer to this site, which is a 3rd party hosting many restaurants.
Are they responsible for updating 3rd-party sites?
-jtd
A few facts that you seem to have neglected to mention:
-No one made "big bucks". The Commerce Commission fined the restauraunt $3000. The court took $260 to cover court costs.
-The restauraunt knew that their site had caused one or more customers to visit the restauraunt on false pretenses.
From the article:
"The complaining customer had notified both the restaurant and the Restaurant Association of New Zealand that the website menu was out of date and misleading, but the operator, despite knowing about the issue, had done nothing to correct the website."
Also,
"His Honour agreed with the Commission that the breaches [i.e. false advertisement] were not inadvertent."
If I were running a restauraunt, and a customer pointed out a mistake in my advertising, I would have made their meal gratis. Then I would have posted a sign in the lobby letting people know of the mistake (in case more people were coming because of it), and got to work on correcting the advertising. After one week I would take down the sign. I believe most businesses are supposed to follow a similar procedure - at least here in California.
Might as well go hit the Crab Shack and get some fresh seafood.
I'll be out that way next week for St. Pats. This'll be the first year I'm not actually staying out on Tybee for Patty's.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
When was this? I had the most awesome steak there the other month, and the staff were polite if not super friendly.. I would actually highly recommend the place.
Let's say I produce a bunch of flyers for my restaurant that advertise the menu and prices.
Two years later, if someone comes in with one of the old flyers, am I liable because the menu and prices are no longer correct?
Merely having out-of-date information on an old website shouldn't be actionable any more than having out-of-date information on an old flyer should be actionable.
Now, if you have incorrect information on the website, *AND* you represent that information as current, that should be actionable. It does not look like the website advertised the menu as a CURRENT menu however.
paintball
An attorney I know had an ex-client register a website in his name, basically to defame him
(same fellow also has another web site against another laywer, the local phone company, and a charity that's he's under investigation for. my laywer friend quit representing him after he vandalized the prosecutors office, forged documents from a witness who appeared in court saying the documents were false, possessed forgery specific equipment, and raped my laywer friends wife.)
I'm a tech guy, and he's a law guy, but neighter of us know the best way to ask the hosting provider to kill the site, and/or get control of the domain name (it's www.firstnamelastname.com)
no details for obvious reasons, any suggestions on handling this kind of thing?
if you add a date to your website (and indicate how long pricing remain valid), you should be safe... It's like advertising in a newspaper. Nobody is going to try to use an advertisement you placed ten years ago against you. The same holds if you clearly indicate the date on your site... People can simply see that the prices are old... Same thing if you indicate that prices can be changed without notification...
Next thing you know, they'll be charging fines for old news and dupes
Ignoring the obvious reading comprehension mistake (17 per cent \neq 17 cents), even small differences in prices are bad. Look at it from the point of wiew of somebody owning a competing restaurant in the same area. Your costs are roughly the same, and so are your prices. You may work hard to keep your prices 5 cents lower than your competition, and you honestly list correct prices on your website (paying somebody the whole time to keep it updated). Wouldn't you be pissed off?
AccountKiller
Nothing annoys me more than all the web sites out there that are out of date. However, if it's clearly out of date then is that really false advertising? Perhaps I just have a sense of what is out of date (well some of these web sites will have shocking 10 year old looking HTML so I'll disregard the information within seconds). Though if the web site owner were place a disclaimer saying "Prices current as of ", I don't see why they'd be liable 2 years later when they've forgotten to update prices. In any case, it probably makes sense for businesses to date any prices they publish, even in fine print. I'm guessing that the web site in question didn't do this.
What really annoys me more though is computer retailers who advertise online prices that are discounted to compensate for postage but when you walk into their store the prices are completely different. Perhaps I ought to tell 'em next time I notice that they're probably breaking fair trading laws and follow it up with the ACCC if they don't honour their prices.
Jeremy
Melbourne, Australia
Jabber Australia
Generally false advertising means misrepresenting a product all the way to the the point of sale, not just pulling a bait and switch between the advert and the store. This isn't a case of selling things on false pretenses, it's a case of attracting customers to the store on false pretenses. Not nice, perhaps, but not fraudulent either.
Also I'm interested that this ruling seems to assume that a website is up-to-date. Many webpages display a "last updated" date. If a store's webpage has one of those, does it only have to be accurate up to that date? Personally, I would never consider the menu or prices of a restaurant to be up-to-date. Restaurants just aren't the kinds of places to keep up with data like that online.
This reminds me of the stories about ridiculous lawsuits (i.e., people suing toaster manufacturers for millions, and winning, because their toaster didn't have a sticker warning them not to use it in the bath), many of which are said to be planted by lobby groups pushing for product-liability laws to be pulled back, making it harder for consumers to sue.
Similarly, I wonder whether the distortion in this story (turning false advertising into outrageous government interference in personal web publishing) has an agenda behind it. Perhaps someone wants to weaken New Zealand's truth-in-advertising laws?
Real engineers are professionals. They can be (and are) sued if they make a mistake. I would be most interested to hear of any IT 'engineer' who was prepared to sign up to that.
/does/ mean something.
Just in case you don't know, to qualify as a PE means completing a reasonably difficult degree, passing two further exams, and 4 additional years of supervised training.
So, code monkey, we protect the term engineer because it
Hmm interesting... *Rushes off to find on online shop with an ASP/MS Sequel Sewer website*
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I fail to see why it's excusable to advertise false (lower)prices, just because it's on the Internet.
Here's a novel idea: If they didn't plan to update the prices on the site, how about not writing any prices on the site to start with? Prices are _not_ static constant content by any stretch of imagination. If they run a shop, mom-and-pop or not, they already know this.
I don't think they'd print a huge batch of menus/posters/fliers/whatever and keep using them for years after the prices changed, either. So they already _knew_ that prices change.
So sorry to rain on your parrade, but I don't see it as an excuse. Anyone who got made a web site by a web master, and saw _prices_ on that page, should have at least asked "well, what if those prices change"? Again, anyone who owns a shop or ever _worked_ in one even as a temp, that's the _first_ thing they learned about prices.
So here's a novel idea: if they werent malicious, they're complete cretins. And I fail to see why idiocy should be an excuse.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
And, once again, this has *nothing* to do with my rights online. How's that Legal section coming along, Taco?
See Law-dot.
Just like any other advertising, you add the disclaimer, prices correct at time of going to press, and put a date on the webpage.
Then if you read/rely on an out of date advert, it's your own fault.
If it didn't have a date listed and some sort of "menu may change without notice" tag, then it's implicitly advertising it as the current menu. Use common sense here.
Put an prominent expiration date on all your web sites and you won't have this problem.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You must be new to slashdot!
(Yes, I saw they listed the ingredients as beef.)
Lionel Hutz: "Mr Simpson, this is the most blatant case of fraudulent advertising since my suit against the film, The Neverending Story"
I was living in Nashville, TN, USA when they closed OpryLand. (Think DisneyLand for rednecks.)
For the next few years I was regularly amused while out and about town by several different versions of the same conversation...
"Excuse me, miss? Do you live here?"
"Yes. Yes I do. Can I help you with something."
"Yes maam, my family and I have driven across country in this compact-sized car to visit OpryLand. However we seem to be having a little bit of difficulty finding it. Would you be able to steer us in the right direction please? We'd greatly appreciate it!"
"Uh, I hate to tell you this but OpryLand closed. They sold everything off but the mall."
"Ha ha, you have a wonderful sense of humor young lady! But seriously now, could you please give us directions?"
"No, I am being serious dude. OpryLand is closed. It is no more. Gone. I'm not making a 'National Lampoons Vacation' joke either. It's gone."
"..."
"....."
"........ ARE YOU FU**ING _KIDDING_ ME?!???!???!?"
>:D
A web site is like a flyer that gets printed up every time the customer accesses it. That's the difference here. Presumably, if you changed all your prices you would have to change all of your in-store material such as menus and signage anyway, the web site is part of that.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
javascript:about(document.lastModified)
Assuming that the page doesn't have a counter that's a pretty good measure of how recent the information is. Browsers need a button that will run that, it would save everyone a lot of time.
FGD 135
So if I find a newspaper from 3 weeks ago, and in it is an advert for a restaurant with a list of prices, (that have since changed), is that still considered false advertising?
Obviously not. But what if the website info was true when it was posted? Then just forgotten about or not updated.
People understand that newspaper information is time sensitive based on when it was published, shouldn't that also apply to information on the internet? A web page is never "real-time", it is merely information pertaining to the date it was published.
I'd say this issue isn't as cut and dry and one might think.
Aggies
it had human meat burgers ...
Well back in Dec 04, my wife and I had to wait an extremely long time before having drinks delivered and getting to order food, whilst watching new arrivals being seated and served in the mean time. I won't dribble on with details.
The place usedta have great staff and good reliable food, but we were starting to wonder if there had been a change of owners, as the service was poor in relation to previous visits.
I was wondering if a change in ownership may have been related to the lack of drive in maintaining the web site.
If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
I've tried to buy PCs on pricewatch, but when you call to order they tell you certain parts are "out of stock" and you'll have to wait XX weeks or buy a different, much more expensive part. If you decide to wait they keep emailing you offering to "upgrade" to the better components. If you decline they finally email you and say they can't fulfill the order and cancel your order.
I've had this happen more than once and next time I'm gonna report them.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
If someone advertises their prices in a newspaper, on a billboard, on radio, or sends out a flyer, those prices had better be good while the ad is visibly advertising to the public. If you got a flyer or catalog in the mail a month ago, you shouldn't be surprised if you get into the store and the price has changed. When advertising on a web site, every time someone visits your web page you are publishing it's content to them. They should have the right to expect that the prices are current.
I would expect them to get in trouble just like if they had posted a newspaper ad that day that used old menu prices. Customers had complained that the prices were different than on the web. The owners knew that and did nothing to change it. That would be like intentionally running an ad in the newspaper with the wrong prices because you didn't want to pay someone to edit it.
How is this a problem? Sure, it may seem severe, but imagine that they were offering all sorts of awsome bargins, but refusing to honor them as expired, yet never taking them down. I would definitely be in favor of slapping them on the hand.
Perfect information is indeed impossible. You don't know how to produce a pencil any more than the person who collects rubber-tree sap for the eraser or the person who digs graphite for the lead does, yet they are integral to the production of that pencil.
That is why the division of labor exists. Each individual knows his own effort best. Communication of this knowledge is by price. If I can produce something cheaper than someone else, I will sell more of it than they will. My price communicates the efficiency of my process.
By buying, the information that I am producing something people want is communicated. I don't have to know, for instance, that there has been a fall in the demand for pencils. The fact that my latex rubber isn't selling as well as it used to is enough for me to look to more efficient uses of my time.
It is only in a "free" market that such communication can exist. Price controls, tariffs, legal obstructions such as licensure and grants of limited liability, prevent the flow of this information. Inefficient processes are maintained, innovations are squashed, vested interests profit at the expense of the consumer.
There is no valid criticism of the "free" market. Every criticism I have ever read has been about the results of various interferences by governments. Urban sprawl? The result of zoning. Raw sewage in the government owned rivers? The result of government owned "sewage treatment" plants.
Enron is an excellent example, a business created out of nothing for the purpose of profiting on the trade in government pollution credits, government contracts, and government regulations. Enron corrupt? Don't act surprised. To blame the "free" market on such failures is irrational.
I recommend pretty much anything written by Ludwig von Mises, Murry Rothbard, or just read the daily articles on http://www.mises.org/ for a little while.
They even have a blog where you can educate them about the "valid" criticisms. You may even be right, and I assure you your posts will not be deleted just because you challenge their preconceptions.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics