Slashdot Mirror


Internet Astroturfer Fined $300,000

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced yesterday that Lifestyle Lift, a cosmetic surgery company who posted fake reviews of their services on various websites, will have to pay $300,000 to the state of New York. Cuomo's office says this is the first US case to specifically target astroturfing on the internet. "Internal emails discovered by Attorney General Cuomo's investigation show that Lifestyle Lift employees were given specific instructions to engage in this illegal activity. One e-mail to employees said: 'Friday is going to be a slow day — I need you to devote the day to doing more postings on the web as a satisfied client.' Another internal email directed a Lifestyle Lift employee to 'Put your wig and skirt on and tell them about the great experience you had.' In addition to posting on various Internet message board services, Lifestyle Lift also registered and created stand-alone Web sites, such as MyFaceliftStory.com, designed to appear as if they were created by independent and satisfied customers of Lifestyle Lift. The sites offered positive narratives about the Lifestyle Lift experience. Some of these sites purported to offer forums for users to add their own comments about Lifestyle Lift. In reality, however, Lifestyle Lift either provided all the 'user comments' themselves, or closely monitored and edited third-party comments to skew the discussion in favor of Lifestyle Lift."

18 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. So they couldn't shout across the office? by bossanovalithium · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We all know this shit goes on, all the time, but to email about it? they deserve more than 300k fine.. Will it stop this from happening? I doubt it.

    1. Re:So they couldn't shout across the office? by clam666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The overall problem is that the message still hasn't gotten out to people.

      Stop believing everything you read on the internet; most of what you read is, at best, an opinion. The rest of it is entertainment and outright lies.

      If you're watching a third rate cable channel a 3 a.m. and you see a "news style" interview with a doctor about a growing medical problem that can be solved with a supplement called "pomegranacai" extract or by using a "XTremeGazelle Exercycle" with testominials from other doctors in white coats and satisfied customers who lost 50 lbs, it is completely fake.

      If you know that, why would you believe anything on the internet with testimonials, blogs, google ad links, myspace links and the like? Are you the first person who's never been flooded with SPAM?

      --
      I'm a satanic clam.
  2. What I really want to know by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What I really want to know is this: does this "anti-astroturfing" law apply to "Team Windows"? If so, watch out Softies, Cuomo's got your number....

  3. So? by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Marketing department tells lies about their product. News at 11.

    1. Re:So? by glop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did you read the summary?
      They lied and got fined.
      That sounds like news to me.
      I had always known that people were planting fake reviews on forums and thought the only defense be cautious. So hearing that this is actually illegal is big news in my opinion.

    2. Re:So? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Marketing department tells lies about their product. News at 11.

      Indeed. I think that prosecuting this company for astro-turfing is pointless and inconsistent. As long as we have such a laissez-faire attitude towards all the lies and misdirection that marketing people have been doing for decades now, going after a handful of astro-turfers does nothing but give people a false-sense of trust in what they read on the net. Never mind the free speech implications that come into play when defining exactly where the line is between valid promotion and astro-turfing. (does giving away a free "review" produce with a promise of future "review" products qualify as illegal, what if the promise is never spelled out? what if its not a give-away, just an open-ended loan, or what if it is 1 year loan and it just so happens that the next review product shows up in exactly one year too?)

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:So? by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your recap leaves out the news and then claims it is not news. The news is not that they lied, but that they were caught and prosecuted. Good.

    4. Re:So? by plague3106 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, there's a pretty clear difference between astro-turfing and normal marketing. In normal marketing you know the message is coming from the company, and thus can easily take said message with a grain of salt. In astro-turfing, its made to sound like someone living down the street actually tried the product and liked it. So the assumption there is that the person making the statement isn't biased because they are on the companies payroll.

  4. In other words... by Idaho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a company, you should be absolutely fine, unless you are so incredibly stupid as to put instructions like these down in writing, and making them so explicit that they cannot be read or weaseled out of in any conceivable way.

    --
    Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
  5. Individual Responsibility by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is not the fine. The problem is that the individuals who did this can hide under the corporation and not be held responsible. Why is it that if I did this on my own, I would personally be liable, but if I did so working for a corporation, the corporation is liable? Can I just do anything I want, so long as I have a shell corporation with a boss who tells me to do it?

    If we held individuals responsible, then individuals would stand-up to the corporations and say no. But so long as they can clear their conscience by blaming their boss, and on up the chain, these things will happen. Oh, and punishing the CEOs doesn't fix it either, unless the CEO was really involved. Everybody seems to want to go to the person at the top. I want to beat the person at the bottom who actually did it.

    1. Re:Individual Responsibility by kevinNCSU · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If we held individuals responsible, then individuals would stand-up to the corporations and say no. But so long as they can clear their conscience by blaming their boss, and on up the chain, these things will happen.

      If you work at such a morally righteous company then good for you. However, many corporations would have a field day with the ability to ask employees to do illicit activities without any threat of it falling back on the company itself. If you "stood up" to the company as you suggest you'd likely find negative consequences to your employment/advancement.

      The individuals stood little to nothing to gain. It's the corporate entity that is involved in the illegal actions. Could you make a dummy corporation with a boss and do the same thing to "protect" yourself? Sure thing, but the $300,000 fine is going to come to your boss and dummy corporation (ie: you) so what would be the point?

      I think it's also important to make the distinction that their violating laws pertaining to the legal operation a corporation and therefore the corporation is fined. Had they been told to go murder someone, then clearly the individuals would be held responsible as well, not just the corporate entity.

  6. Re:why "to the State of New York" ? by trogdor8667 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    According to TFA...

    Lifestyle Lift is like a franchise. They have offices in a bunch of places, including 21 in New York, and they also advertised specifically in New York, hence harm was done in the state of New York. I'd think that the Michigan AG could now also perform the same type of fine, and probably other states that the company has offices in too.

  7. Re:legal by plague3106 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The difference is that you KNOW YOU'RE WATCHING AN AD, paid for by the company. There are also usually disclaimers on the ad, if you look saying "actor portryal, actors potraying real customers, real customers compensated, real customer not compensated."

  8. Re:legal by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, they aren't real and a majority of the public wouldn't mistake it for real either. Aside from that, things like "Male Enhancement" are ambiguous products with ambiguous claims. About the only thing solid you can pull away from the advertisement is "These characters claim to have a better sexual experience", but what does that mean? A better orgasm? What does THAT even mean? How do you even measure it? Even if the product did nothing on the physiological level, a placebo effect can certainly cause results on the psychological level.

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  9. Re:Microsoft shills by plague3106 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is that you assume anyone here that actually LIKES MS' product (like me) is automatically a shill. I'm not a shill, I'm a person that was exteremly disapointed when I jumped to Linux, and thus jumped back. My Linux experience actually turned around my opinion of MS software. It was very much a case of "the grass is greener on the other side," only to find that not only wasn't it any more green, there were quite a few brown patches.

  10. Memo's and illegal crap by furby076 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Haven't companies learned by now that if you are going to instruct your people to do shady/illegal stuff that you should NOT put it in a memo. Just go by word of mouth "hey bob, make some fake posts"....dumb asses

    BTW I find politicians a bit hypocritical. In politics the tech writers will write a nice constituant letter about their politician. They will then give it to a loyal constituant and ask them to sign it. So the constituant never wrote the words, never had the experience, but because they like the politician they will put their name to it...and this makes it 100% perfectly legal. So the next time you see grandma who says her politician is the second coming of christ just realize the words/experience may have come from some paid writer and grandma just signed her name to it.

    --

    I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
  11. Re:Microsoft shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    McDonalds sells hamburgers. Not the greatest hamburgers, but they are very convenient. People who have no real choice often end up at McDonalds. Although there is nothing really wrong with McDonalds, there isn't a whole lot right about it either. You might try Burger King and discover that you like McDonald's better. That much I can believe, but most people who want a better choice than McDonalds will go to a real restaurant.

    So I can understand why you might legitimately dislike Linux. But most of the people who jump ship from MS in search of a better experience end up with Apple. A few of them might even go back to MS, but I have yet to see that happen in real life.

    You may be a genuine McDonalds fan. There really ARE some people who have acquired a test for their food, even though the majority view it as a last resort. But in the computer industry, a lot of people get paid to express an opinion. Brand loyalty is a commodity to be bought and sold. So the pro-MS comments get a fair amount of skepticism, as would a glowing review of McDonald's cuisine.

  12. Re:The lesson they've failed to learn from history by MarkvW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow! You really miss the point. The lesson from Nixon is that the cover-up is what kills you.