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."

Comments

So they couldn't shout across the office?

[bossanovalithium]

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.

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[pizzach]

Where the hell is myslashdotstory.com!? So sad...so sad...

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Abreu]

In order to not be fined $300,000usd, instead of posting glowing reviews of my product, I will start posting negative reviews of my competitor's product and will ask my sales force to spread FUD about them... ...

What?

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[clam666]

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?

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[2obvious4u]

This case is Fraud.
Spreading FUD would be Slander/Defamation.

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[pizzach]

The most interesting thing about slashdot is when I think I may be moderated funny, I get moderated insightful. When I think I am insightful, I am funny. When I think I am a troll, I am insightful. Such a confusing community we have here.

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Abreu]

Wake me up when SCO gets fined $300,000

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Dragonslicer]

Apparently a lot of moderators give Insightful or Informative instead of Funny, because Funny doesn't improve your karma score. Why they bother doing this for people that are already at Excellent karma, I have no idea.

Sincerely,
A Very Satisfied Slashdot Customer

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Dragonslicer]

But lying about your product and/or your competitor's product is so much easier than actually improving your product. Don't they teach that in the first semester of business school?

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[david_thornley]

No, it'll be the Hurd Year of the Desktop.

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Fluffeh]

Well, you could do it the Australian way. Cash for Comments worked for a while...

What I really want to know

[morgan_greywolf]

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....

Re:What I really want to know

[Hyppy]

I'd rather have Microsoft shills than the horde of Cowards. Team Microsoft usually at least contributes something to the discussion, even if it's misinformed at times, as opposed to AC wharrgarbl.

Re:What I really want to know

[Sj0]

I was going to say something along those lines.

I mean, I'm pretty positive about Windows 7, but it doesn't mean I work for Microsoft.

Astroturfing is destroying discourse on the Internet. You can never know for certain if you're arguing with someone with convictions or just some paid marketing drone. Where once you'd have to come up with a good argument, people can now just point and say "You're just being paid to express that opinion, since nobody sane would ever have it!"

Re:What I really want to know

[morgan_greywolf]

Certainly. However, the law requires more evidence than "does not hate Microsoft, therefore is an astroturfer".

There are several accounts here on Slashdot, though, that not only vehemently defend Microsoft, but use Microsoft marketing clueless drivel to do so. Saying that Windows is better because adopting Linux on your server is more costly due to retraining costs is sure to get you labeled as an "astroturfer." Surely if that is your argument, you can come up with a better one than that load of BS.

Re:What I really want to know

[drsmithy]

There are several accounts here on Slashdot, though, that not only vehemently defend Microsoft, but use Microsoft marketing clueless drivel to do so.

And probably an order of magnitude more accounts do exactly the same thing about Linux and/or OSS (although by OSS they typically mean the GPL). Guess they must be astroturfing, huh ?

Not to mention all the "Apple or die" zealots.

Saying that Windows is better because adopting Linux on your server is more costly due to retraining costs is sure to get you labeled as an "astroturfer."

Thus proving my point.

The idea that anyone is astroturfing Slashdot is, in itself, both dumb and paranoid in equal amounts. Do you seriously think anyone with both decision-making power and a lack of technical knowledge a) actually reads Slashdot in the first place and b) is going to make up their mind based on a posting here (or even a thousand of them) ?

Re:What I really want to know

[drsmithy]

Astroturfing is destroying discourse on the Internet.

Rubbish. Paranoia about "astroturfing" is stressing certain individuals who in some way define themselves by their feelings about whatever-it-is that isn't being "astroturfed".

You can never know for certain if you're arguing with someone with convictions or just some paid marketing drone.

Why do you care ? What difference does it make ?

Where once you'd have to come up with a good argument, people can now just point and say "You're just being paid to express that opinion, since nobody sane would ever have it!"

Which they've done in the past, just with different words instead of "you're being paid". People who zealously and steadfastly hold true to a particularly opinion are not a new phenomenon, either on the internet or in real life. Whether they hold that opinion because of "convictions" or a paycheck, is, at most, a peripheral issue .

Re:What I really want to know

[morgan_greywolf]

The idea that anyone is astroturfing Slashdot is, in itself, both dumb and paranoid in equal amounts. Do you seriously think anyone with both decision-making power and a lack of technical knowledge a) actually reads Slashdot in the first place and b) is going to make up their mind based on a posting here (or even a thousand of them) ?
   

A) Yes and B) No. The reason I think A) is true is because I know Microsoft's culture. They are paranoid. And they are out to win at all costs. And winning for Microsoft means that everyone else has to lose. Including any credible competition, which, we know from the Halloween Memos that Microsoft has viewed Linux as a credible threat since at least 1998. That's more than 10 years.

Re:What I really want to know

[Sj0]

There's a distinct difference between a zealot and an astroturfer -- Most important among them is that one of them believes what they're saying, and the other is just pretending to believe what they're saying.

It's the fundamental difference in whether the conversation is honest or not that poisons internet discourse. Companies are shooting themselves in the foot by associating positive opinions of their product with dishonest under-the-radar paid advertisements.

Re:What I really want to know

[Sj0]

The poison is the erosion of authenticity from internet message boards.

If I'm talking with my buddy about my new car and he's saying his aunt had one and it ran great, it's completely different than if a car dealer is having the exact same discussion with me -- the conversation with my buddy has more authenticity, exactly because it's not a marketing message. The same facts may be presented, but it's a completely different message. When I can't know whether my buddy is just an advertiser paid to talk about the car or not, the lack of authenticity issue then poisons my conversation with them too.

When it becomes commonly known practice for car dealers to misrepresent themselves as regular people, as on-line it's becoming increasingly common for marketing to hire people to post fake posts, fake reviews, and create fake fan websites, suddenly the same authenticity that made people value forums, review sites, or fan websites is eroded, poisoning the whole internet.

Marketing executives always keep authenticity in mind because of the powerful effect it has on how a message is percieved.

But way to make an ass of yourself by making assumptions about how I conduct discussions.

Re:What I really want to know

[Sj0]

I completely and totally disagree. In fact, the fact that we're having this discussion is proof of that authenticity.

If I believed you weren't arguing for yourself, if I thought you were being paid by a media company to try to shift the public frame towards astroturfing being okay, then you'd lose the authenticity you have, and I'd stop arguing with you -- Arguing with someone whose job it is to present a certain point of view would be a waste of time.

It's because I believe you're a regular person expressing your opinion of your own free will that your opinion gains authenticity. When the fundamental premise of arguing of one's own conviction and opinion leaves, when someone is aruging as an obligation to their employer, the whole discussion -- regardless of what is said -- loses value.

Re:What I really want to know

[Sj0]

I don't think you know what authenticity is. It's not a fact, and it has little to do with the actual motivations of the speaker. Authenticity is the feeling from the listener that the speaker is being genuine, that the message is genuine.

Some of the most authentic-feeling brands in existence are totally fake: The Daily Show regularly blasts the news-entertainment media for inauthenticity(In fact, they got the show Crossfire taken off the air), despite being a fake news show themselves -- their authenticity comes from admitting they're inauthentic, another part of the news-entertainment media. Haagen-Dasz sounds vaguely scandinavian, but nobody realises that the brand is made up of a couple fake words, and the company actually started in the Bronx, New York.

For a very long time, crappy internet reviews or statements on forums were extremely authentic -- they may be stupid, they may be wrong, but you knew it was a regular person saying it. If someone made a recommendation, you knew it was a regular person making it. If someone had an opinion, you knew it was a regular person who had it.

Today, marketing companies are poisoning that authenticity by paying for fake websites, fake posts, and fake reviews. Suddenly, that shout-out in a forum post isn't necessarily genuine. Suddenly, that passionate Republican or Democrat isn't necessarily a real party supporter. Suddenly, that person sticking up for the nuclear power plant or knocking the Prius and talking up his Ford Focus isn't necessarily a real person expressing real opinions, but a mere actor in a cynical and inauthentic theatre.

So?

[cdrudge]

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

Re:So?

[glop]

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.

Re:So?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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?)

Re:So?

[timeOday]

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.

Re:So?

[plague3106]

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.

Re:So?

[oatworm]

My main beef is all the astroturfing the Obama presidential compaign participated in: Why hasn't anyone said anything about that?

It's because political astroturfing is considered free speech, while commercial speech is far more heavily restricted. Plus, it's far more difficult to enforce - people will actually volunteer to spread a campaign's message (or pretend they're spreading an opposing campaign's message if they think that doing so will get the opposing campaign in trouble). They usually won't volunteer to spread a corporation's message.

Re:Like phone sex with fat ugly chicks or even dud

[Buck2]

I had three Lifestyle Lifts and now have more confidence than ever. I look good, feel confident, and just landed a new high-paying job. I don't know why the government is giving them a hard time. Don't they have something else to do, like fight crime or win wars or something?

legal

[fulldecent]

>> 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.

How is this illegal?

Re:legal

[TheRealMindChild]

False Advertisement.

You and I can say anything about any product we want... that's our opinion. But if the company making a product makes claims that are untrue about said product it's False Advertisement. These people just try to hide it by pretending to not be affiliated with the company. That may even be in itself Fraud.

Re:legal

[2obvious4u]

• How is this illegal?

It is Fraud.

Re:legal

[copponex]

A market without transparency is not a market. Consumers need accurate information to make informed decisions. The goal of major corporations is to deceive people as much as is legally possible for the greatest short-term profit possible. If the company in question gained more profit than they had to pay with fines, it's a win-win for them.

So, in a healthy market, astroturfing is illegal. I doubt this will effect any company behavior, since the fine was so low. They will just come up with some legal loophole like hiring contractors to conduct interviews with clients and put those up on the web. In a truly healthy market, any flagrant violations of the law by the CEO or a significant portion of the organization would result in the revoking of their corporate charter and the seizure and auction of all company property.

Re:legal

[plague3106]

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."

Re:legal

[TheRealMindChild]

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.

Re:legal

[rpillala]

It sounds like wire fraud to me. Even though wikipedia is no place to get legal advice, the definition of wire fraud is included in the article. I followed their link to the appropriate US Code section:

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

The emphasis is mine, and I think that's where this activity on the part of Lifestyle Lifts employees is illegal.

Microsoft shills

[jkxx]

Now hopefully someone will look into the MS shills frequenting this and other technology sites.

Re:Microsoft shills

[ciderVisor]

Leave us alone !

Re:Microsoft shills

[plague3106]

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.

Re:Microsoft shills

[socrplayr813]

Yes, because no sane person could ever disagree with you.

While there are probably MS shills out there (just like every other major company), the fact that you specifically target them in a story not at all about Microsoft suggests that you're just anti-Microsoft, which really isn't much different from being a shill.

Re:Microsoft shills

[kalirion]

All right, fess up, how much did Linus pay you to post that comment?

Re:Microsoft shills

[mcgrew]

Not to mention Sony shills, who seem to always have mod points at slashdot. I was an XCP victim, but any time I say anything negative about Sony I'm modded down.

I wonder if that's illegal as well? Probably not.

At any rate, there are also lots of shills here from other companies besides Sony and Microsoft, although it seems the Sony and Microsoft shills seem to get lots of mod points (lots of employees, so it makes sense). In their defense (my God, I can't believe I'm defending MS and Sony) if someone blasted my employer I might mod them down, too, depending on what they said.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Microsoft shills

[kevinNCSU]

I totally agree and feel the same way about people who claim to not be terrorists. Why just the other day a 90 year old man grumbled about the TSA officials inspecting his walker saying "It's not like I'm a terrorist!" Well boy did that make me nervous. I mean, who is always claiming that their not terrorists? TERRORISTS! They should have hauled his ass off to Guantanamo right then and there, but no, they ignored this obvious admission of guilt of actually being a terrorist. I can only hope you one day work in law enforcement so we won't be caught off-guard by such deceptions.

Also yesterday my neighbor claimed she wasn't a witch. Now I just need to figure out how to lure her onto my duck scale to be sure.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Super_Z]

Whether people are astroturfing or simply have a bias or positive opinion is of course extremely hard to tell. What is striking is the sheer amount of people that has a positive bias towards Microsoft that has entered this forum these last years.

What is even more striking is the dearth of people extolling products competing with Microsoft.

Given the amount of "I use Linux, but Bing is really good" posts - where are the Yahoo fanboys posting their views? Likewise - where are the happy Flex/Flash users when lots of posts thinks Silverlight rocks? Where are the Java people when tons of posts extols .Net?. Where the Lotus Notes people when tons of people extols Exchange? The PS3 seems to be a noncontender when Xbox 360 is discussed.

Why are the posts pointing out competitors products either drowning or non-existant? There are no raving hordes of Apple fanboys around here. There sure seems to be loads of the Microsoft kind.

Heck - the grandparent has as of writing recieved 3 trolls and one flamebait. I'm sure this post will be treated likewise.

Re:Microsoft shills

[hobdes]

Sony shills: You missed one!

Not the first!

[Mathinker]

Sony got caught doing this a while back:

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4741259.stm

The link is to the BBC coverage of the California court decision.
I found out about it after reading a Slashdot post panning one of the movies which was pushed this way.

Re:Not the first!

[Anonymous Coward]

And to throw in another, Belkin were also caught paying people to do reviews on some tech websites fairly recently, the whole "pay for good review" thing.

So many links on it, it is just better to link the search.
Belkin Paying for good reviews

And funny thing about these is that so many companies do it, even small-time shops, anything to get customers.
And if you were to ask most of them if they knew the legality of it, they'd never think once that it was illegal.

In other words...

[Idaho]

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.

why "to the State of New York" ?

[panthroman]

The company gets a punitive fine, okay. But who gets the money?

A Michigan-based company lies on the internet, so giving the money to the State of New York doesn't make sense to me. I'm having a tough time specifying just which group was wronged by the company -- Michigan consumers, American consumers, all consumers who have access to the internet, suckers? Wouldn't the money be more appropriately given to the FTC?

Re:why "to the State of New York" ?

[trogdor8667]

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.

Individual Responsibility

[MobyDisk]

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.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[kevinNCSU]

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.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[cdrguru]

You have an odd opinion of labor laws. Maybe if everyone worked for a union it might somehow be a contract violation to fire anyone. However, if an employee is told to do something, legal or illegal, and they don't do it they can be fired for insubordination. Or for no reason at all, because there are no laws preventing people from being fired.

In Europe there are plenty of laws preventing people from being fired, for any reason at all. If you decide to employ someone you take on the responsibility for their future employment potentially forever. And paying into the state for them as well. It is practically impossible to fire someone after they have been working for six months in most places. The result of this is very high unemployment - no company can afford to hire someone without knowing in advance they can afford the position for the long term.

Contrast this with the US, where I can hire a sales person and if there is a downturn I can fire them anytime I want. There are no regulations, no laws preventing this. The result is more people get hired. Period. Would it be nice if everyone was assured by the government that they couldn't be fired? Maybe. But the result would be a lot fewer people getting hired. And that isn't good for anyone.

Billy Mays Here

[tinkertim]

Hi! Billy Mays here with a completely new and revolutionary product called Internet Astroturfing! Read what thousands of our satisfied clients have to say about IA on popular blogs and forums ....

Memo's and illegal crap

[furby076]

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.

NY Mom Lost 47 lbs Following 1 Rule!

[nbauman]

The funny thing is that when I read the Seattle PI story, I got an ad next to it saying, "NY Mom Lost 47 lbs Following 1 Rule!"

That's the same NY Mom who appears as a California Mom, Texas Mom, Florida Mom and %ipaddress% Mom.

It's like the 17th Century, when pickpockets used to work the crowds who came to watch pickpockets being hanged.

Re:NY Mom Lost 47 lbs Following 1 Rule!

[MaskedSlacker]

It's like the 17th Century, when pickpockets used to work the crowds who came to watch pickpockets being hanged.

You've got to admire the sheer ballsiness of such a move though.

Re:NY Mom Lost 47 lbs Following 1 Rule!

[nbauman]

You've got to admire the cleverness of the bacteria that cause urinary tract infections too.

Re:The lesson they've failed to learn from history

[MarkvW]

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

Re:The lesson they've failed to learn from history

[Hyppy]

The botched cover-up kills you. Do it right, and nobody will know.

Re:$300,000 that's all?

[Hyppy]

No, it's $300,000. Once. It's not even a fine, really, it's an out-of-court settlement to cover some investigative costs so that the AG's office doesn't have to spend more money gathering evidence.

The marketing is very effective. Is it honest?

[Futurepower(R)]

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

A more immediate problem is that this story on Slashdot is likely to bring Lifestyle Lift more customers. Look at the before and after photos.

"If you know that, why would you believe anything on the internet with testimonials, blogs, Google ad links, Myspace links and the like?"

In the particular case of Lifestyle Lift, it is difficult to detect what is actually happening. Are the before and after photos completely dishonest? I don't know.

Infomercials often take advantage of the weaknesses of people and there is an intense search for methods of intensifying the attack on those weaknesses.

Google is overwhelmed by Lifestyle Lift web sites.

[Futurepower(R)]

Do a Google search for Lifestyle Lift. In the first three pages of Google results, ALL EXCEPT THREE are from web sites operated by Lifestyle Lift, apparently.

This is the most intense attack on social, psychological, and technical weaknesses than I've ever seen. In my opinion, it is likely to be dishonest.

And the company was only fined $300,000, an amount that is likely to be less than a day's income, I'm guessing.