Slashdot Mirror
Toyota Claims Woman "Opted In" To Faux Email Stalking
An anonymous reader writes "ABC News is reporting that a California woman is suing Toyota for $10 million for sending her email that appeared to be from a criminal stalker. The woman claims the emails terrified her to the point that she suffered sleeplessness, poor work performance, etc. Toyota says the ruse was part of a marketing campaign for the Toyota Matrix. A Toyota spokesman says they are not liable for the woman's distress, because 'The person who made this claim specifically opted in, granting her permission to receive campaign emails and other communications from Toyota.'"
A Los Angeles woman is suing Toyota for *$10 MILLION* over a marketing campaign that she claims "punked" her into incorrectly believing she was being stalked.
She even made her longtime boyfriend sleep with a club and mace next to the bed for protection.
Yeah, you need $10 million to cover that. Only in USA.
This also makes me wonder; maybe she had something to hide because she got so scared?
Saatchi & Saatchi told the marketing magazine OMMA last year that it had developed the campaign to target men under 35 who hate advertising.
I'm over 35 and I really hate advertising now. If I did something like this, I'd be in jail awaiting trial, my name would be smeared all over the place, and my life as I know it would be over - even Saatchi & Saatchi wouldn't hire me.
Toyota? Nothing.
Saatchi & Saatchi? They'll probably get more business because the dipshit MBAs will think that "there's no such thing as bad publicity."
Assholes.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Yes! I'd like to receive death threats, disturbing messages, and other items of a stalking nature from Toyota Motor Corporation.
Ah, marketers. Scum of the earth.
Screw lawsuits, whoever approved that marketing campaign should be prosecuted.
First I read a story in the NYT that said the Saudis are demanding compensation from other countries that want to cut back on fossil fuels. Now I hear a major company is sending strange messages to people and using some bullshit legal fuckmenot babblecrap to justify it?
It's like we're in permanent April 1st mode. Did someone at the World Brain Organization forget to turn the dials?
Advertising gets weirder and weirder. I don't understand how this is supposed to get someone to buy a car. The only thing I could think of is she didn't had a car so maybe she's supposed to buy a Toyota so she can get the hell away? I think it's lost on me.
How does this in any way make anyone want to buy a Toyota?
I get that companies all want to 'push the envelope' these days so you see them over the competition, but this is just ridiculous.
I guess that's another benefit to marking every email I don't recognise as spam.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
This reminds of a psychology experiment a few decades ago, where the consent form was something like:
I agree to *insert a bunch of things here* including "I agree to be deceived."
Then you became the subject of an experiment that appeared to be one of the other things, but in reality, you were being deceived as part of the experiment.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Or am I swept up in an extremely elaborate episode of Punked?
Its really getting to the point that I can't tell anymore.
let's say she is due something - my bet is loss of work productivity is not worth $10M - surely this value has to be justified somehow?
Not to be pedantic, but it's all right there in the EULA. See below (emphasis mine):
Limitation on Scope of Content
The Toyota Web site, toyota.com, contains information regarding Toyota and its products and promotional programs. The Toyota vehicles described on this site contain uniquely American specifications and equipment and are offered for sale only in the continental U.S.A. The promotional programs described on this site are only available in the continental US and may be limited to particular states as described by the program. All pricing information referred to on this site is in U.S. dollars.
No Representation or Warranty
Toyota reserves the right to modify the information contained on this site at any time without notice. While Toyota makes all reasonable efforts to ensure that all material on this site is correct, accuracy cannot be guaranteed and Toyota does not assume any responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or authenticity of any information contained on this site. By viewing this site, you agree to release and indemnify Toyota from all legal responsibility arising from sending you emails, hiding in bushes outside your house, picking through your trash and dry-humping your dog, cat and/or hamster(s). This site and all information and materials contained herein, is provided to you as is without warranty of any kind.
Is this what we can expect from targeted marketing, now that They have more information on each of us than we do of ourselves?
By replying to this message, you hereby agree that you will never buy any kind of Toyota vehicle ever again. Forever.
So either she didn't see the opt-out links or address of the company, or the email didn't have these. Unless they got really creative with the opt-in, this sounds like a violation of the CAN SPAM act. A $10M lawsuit from one woman is the least of their worries.
Twelve fingers or one, its how you play. ~Gattaca (Vincent)
FTFA:
I work in research with human subjects, and there is no way this constitutes informed consent.
If Toyota wants to argue that the fine print spelled it out and it's her fault she didn't read it carefully enough, maybe they can win the case through legalistic hairsplitting. But if they buried it in fine print and incomprehensible language, they're jerks no matter what.
But they're making a much broader claim if they're calling it informed consent. Informed consent means that she comprehended what was going to happen to her as a result of agreeing. In other words, "informed consent" isn't just a statement about the objective content of the opt-in statement -- it's an assertion about the state of mind of the person who gave consent. If she had truly given informed consent, then not only would she have no legal claim, but she'd have no moral claim either (because she'd have known what she was getting into). But it's blindingly obvious that that isn't true here.
What the fuck?
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Creative marketing scores free publicity from a major news network (which will be copied by another, another I'm sure.) Most companies might pay 10 million for that. Applying the (Durden) formula -
A new marketing campaign built by my company punks people over the email. Someone gets offended, looses sleep even, and decides to sue for damages. But, the new marketing strategy also spreads word of mouth, people go check it out sign up, stories get posted on major new sites that ones that post stuff that matters.
Now:
should Toyota initiate a recall of their marketing campaign? Take the number of punked ads in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, Toyota doesn't do one. (ie. If the cost of potential mitigation over crazy lawsuits is still less then the revenue generated from increased public awareness of their product-ego-props to Toyota.)
"Engineering. Where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream." -Sheldon
Tell that to people who pull out a fake gun when robbing a bank, or when confronted by a cop.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
she suffered sleeplessness, poor work performance...
Unanswered question: how was her work performance before the emails? Was it really that much worse?
Currently hooked on AMP
This is wrong on so many levels. Next we will have companies sending us letters from Nigeria telling people they have millions of dollars and all they need to do to get it is to buy a new car. I for one am sick of companies using deceitful(all advertising is) tactics to trick/scare/lure people to their products and then when they get caught they use the "but its advertising so its OK!" line. If they would have made it clear that it was from a company and it was an advertising campaign(yes it would lose its intended effect) then I think it would be a bit different. But for them to make it appear as though a real person was traveling overseas who was in legal trouble was coming to visit a person is incredibly wrong.
I'm not quite sure how you'd word an "Op-In" agreement that would effectively cover this; "I consent to receive life threatening emails, harassed, etc."?
In other words anything that would, in plain English, explain what you were agreeing to, no one would sign.
And regarding $10M, though this may seem like a lot of money, the point to this type of suit is deterrent, and at $10M, I doubt that it is.
Reading things like this, I am often reminded of The Game, though the film describes an 'interaction' which is on a totally different level than these e-mails and faux web pages.
... er... "gone bad". What protection does the law provide for a person who signs an endless legalese document without reading it, thus opting in to something well over their heads?
... I always wondered what the legal consequences would have been of a Game
>> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
I read this before but haven't seen jack shit in terms of details. What was in the actual mail? Was it obviously fake/advertising or was it real-seaming? Why anyone would pay attention to random shit they get in email I'll never know, but does anyone have a link to the actual mails?
Here's their IM campaign: toyotamarketing: *heavy breathing* ambermate: who the hell is this? toyotamarketing: what are you wearing? ambermate: i'm calling the police toyotamarketing: is your husband home? ambermate: 9-1-1 toyotamarketing: they can't stop me, i'm driving a prius with the all new Pre-Collision System ambermate: you crazy f%^k, i have a shotgun toyotamarketing: i have Driver and front passenger Advanced Airbag System ambermate: FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!! toyotamarketing: lol--tell you what? i won't come over if you come down to the dealership tomorrow... i'll make you an offer you can't refuse ;-)
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Uh... they created a MySpace page with all her details! I'm not really surprised she freaked out.
Oh, incidentally, as she's a female I don't think she really needs to "grow a pair".
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
A young, british male wandering around the US, lamenting on his MySpace page that there's no good soccer?
Not sure where the plug for the car was supposed to be, but I am betting this was supposed to be targeted towards fanatical soccer fans (pardon my redundancy).
The quotes in the article make it sound like the guy is touring around the country and maybe looking for places to crash. Perhaps with sympathetic fellow soccer lovers.
Unless there are some quotes that weren't included in the article, I'd say the menace this woman felt when reading these emails was entirely of her own making.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's Therac-25 killed 3 people and maimed 3 others. Until AECL were forced by their customers to deal with their piss-poor attitude towards patient safety, they were all too happy to blame it on "operator error" (save for the first accident, for which a "faulty microswitch" got the blame with ZERO objective analysis).
The Durden formula would have to be modified and simplified to:
If the total cost of out-of-court settlements, is less than value of publicity that results in increased sales, Toyota doesn't do one.
Unfortunately for Toyota - people checking out this ad are likely all going "WTF was Toyota thinking - and how would this relate to selling a damn car? The ad execs must be cracked!"
IMNSHO, $10M (which I would feel is justified since that is the only way you make corporations hear you) >> the publicity that translated to new car sales.
1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
Different cultures... google this "japanese gameshow sniper".
Fun.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Oh, incidentally, as she's a female I don't think she really needs to "grow a pair".
See, that's what I'm talking about. (If you don't know what grow a pair means, then you can stop reading here).
Why should women be defenseless and helpless? Why is that OK/expected?
Just because you have given permission for people to send emails to you, it does not grant them permission to threaten you.
Similarly, if I give someone permission to enter my home, that does not mean I give permission for them to take my TV, grab the cord, and swing it around their head saying "LET ME WATCH FOX NEWS OR I LET GO!!!"
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
maybe, but Toyota overstepped a line, and it's her due right to try to make them accountable.
In the end, Toyota impersonated another person and royally overstepped the boundary of the agreement with her to send her marketing messages from Toyota.
Consider: If I grant access to my restricted private house to friend X, I can surely legally restrict that same person if he impersonates another person. According to the original agreement I must provide access to friend X, but I have no legal way to distinguish between friend X and what he impersonates, so I can clearly deny him access. The same holds for Toyota: they cannot impersonate the US President, the Police and waive this lawsuit away by saying that they had the right to send messages. While impersonating the Police is a felony (obviously), impersonating someone random immediately voids the e-mail agreement, since there is no way for the "victim" here to distinguish between them. (Toyota can send her messages, vs. Toyota impersonating a stalker).
IOW, this is in terrible bad taste. Toyota screwed up badly, and the law will likely be against them.
I think stringing them up on the town square would work better, their lawyers can warn them about the law but only their common sense can warn them about the people.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
You mean that she should form testicles. I'm sure that's exactly what she needs.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
The emails state who they are from. If it is a good company I expect all the links to be legit. If a company tried anything as simple as not making it is clear that it was a legit email I would be pissed. To go as far as not even inform the recipient that the email is even from the company? I hope the girl wins so we have some lawful control over advertisement emails.
They should written about the "Oh, What a Feeling" he'll have when the so-called stalker doesn't have to run from the law anymore.
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
Meh. "Any publicity is good publicity" is simply not true. It can be true if you're not widely known, as it gets name recognition out there. See e.g. reality TV "stars". But for a large multinational corporation that almost everyone already knows it's just that - bad publicity.
They really need to rewrite some of these old sayings people take for granted. Another one is that "the victor writes the histories". Yeah - not anymore. Teh Interwebs pretty much ruined that idea, and it's fairly easy to point to some incidents that happened 50-60 years ago where someone clearly tried to whitewash history but the facts are plain as could be for anyone willing to spend 20 minutes googling.
For all you people that work in marketing for a company that produces mundane products like cars or electronics just put a check box on all communications with your customers asking if it's ok for you to send marketing info to them in the future (like almost every company already does). Then, for all the ones that have agree, figure out if they have a cat or dog. Wait until the pet is let out of the house and then deliver a severed cat/dog head (simulated, if local laws prohibit this, but make sure it's the same breed/colors as their real pet) on their front stoop with your product's name carved in it. They authorized you to contact them didn't they? How can they, possibly, blame you for any mental trauma they might have? It is, after all, perfectly reasonable to contact them in any form you can think up right? After all, you're just being "inventive" and "edgy"...
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
"The person who made this claim specifically opted in, granting her permission to receive campaign emails and other communications from Toyota."
Ah, so he means:
"My boss told me, 'OH, SHIT! TELL THEM SOMETHING, ANYTHING! MAKE THIS GO AWAY!!'"
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
yeah, he's a step below the murders, rapists, drug users, wifebeaters and animal abusers that the nfl cherishes as favorite sons.
if you have any sense of morals and fairness you'd boycott the nfl. or are you going to be a little bitch and still buy their product?
Her friend entered the victims email. Toyota merely followed a bad advertising scheme. They were trying to pull a prank. The victims Friend is the one who gave out the email, so if anyone should get sued, its her friend.
If I have your email address and I sign you up for bestiality, are you going to sue zootube?
The most glaring issue I see is that the woman in question opted in to receive emails from Toyota. The fact that the emails and communication she received were not clearly from Toyota would seem to bolster her case.
On the other hand, whoever designed the personality test mentioned in TFA is a muthafukkin' GENIUS.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
This is way beyond "poor taste". People (are supposed to) go to jail for harassment like this.
And W T F does it have to do with cars?
What is with the 'victimization' culture these days?
You mean, among people who have genuine greviances? Yeah, I know! The "victims" of my pyramid scheme have SUCH a sense of entitlement!
Grow a pair and make some more money for me to steal.
I tried telling the judge that many of the people I ripped off weren't even trying to get new jobs at say, Mc Donalds to earn more money, so they obviously weren't hurt enough to change anything about their life. Jerks.
Sincerely,
Bernie Maddoff
Just to hide out from Johnny Law for a tick, luv.
Click here to unsubscribe from the Bowser the Homicidal Maniac's Road Tour
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
They'll never be able to sell her that matrix now...
[Hypothetical Situation:]
I jokingly said to the Toyota person 'oh sure, you can send me threatening email, but then I get to come to your store in the middle of the night and slash all the tires of your vehicles'. We both had a great laugh over it, shook hands, and we walked away.
2 death threats later, and Goodyear is having a wonderful fiscal year.
[/Hypothetical]
Somehow, I doubt Toyota would be as easily forgiving if the tables were reversed. So why should this women have to cave in?
Advertising is fine, but as soon as you cross that line from advertising into the land of criminal harassment then we've got a serious problem. While I'm up in Canada, I'd be much happier to see criminal harassment charges filed against the entire company. See unless you've actually dealt with people who've been victims of this stuff, seen how the system has failed people, and how the ball has been dropped you really don't have a clue as to what can go wrong.
I don't have any problems with her going after them for this. Not only did they cross the line, they crossed the line into a felony in my book. "Opting in" be damned, you're either dense, or simply heartless if you think that way.
Om, nomnomnom...
Grown adults with college degrees sat around in meetings and agreed to this. They thought it was a good idea. It must have been a somewhat long process- coming up with the concept, refining it, composing the threatening emails, foraging for opt-ins, getting the emails sent- and in all that time these university enhanced creatures thought it was all just tickety-boo.
I dunno. My head hurts.
I think that pretending will get you pretty far on the way to actually doing.
It was a hard sell.
Or maybe they are getting too cocky. Remember how the Sony guys were all like "Oh, we can charge anything for the PS3 and people will bend over and pay it" and all that hoo ha that blew up in their faces. Toyota might be thinking in "there's no such thing as *bad* PR" mode.
Given the weird minds of marketeers these days, I really wouldn't be surprised if that "victim sueing Toyota for email ad campaign" is in reality part of that campaign. Because otherwise that ad wouldn't have made it to the frontpage(s).
If imbeciles didn't hire lawyers, what would all the two-bit lawyers do for a living? Please, someone think of the 2b lawyers! They have children too!
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Last one standing get lifted out,
Piffle. This here is Thunderdome. They leave under their own power or not at all. :-P
...of stupidity.
On the other hand, I hope their "opt-in" defense works. Such a precedent might discourage the use of "opt-out" by those who still use it. And BTW, I consider it to be "opt-out" if you have to uncheck an "opt-in" box that's pre-checked when the web form loads.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Whaa whaa whaaa. Wait until you see the full paper trail before making claims. What? You haven't seen, then STFU!
I can't find anything on google news about this besides blogs. Is this a hoax?
This just in, "MySpace is a waste of time for everybody except teenage girls!" Oh wait, I thought it was still 2004...
What was the Safe Word, Toyota? If she really opted in, there was one. I bet you they'll say next that when she said "no", she really meant "yes", so it was consensual.
1) most of the time people suing corporations are lazy people that want to get rich
Here's a radical question: do you have any idea if this is true?
caritj.org
Probably a fake woman.
Exception Duck - may or may not contain chicken.
I highly recommend the Versa if you're looking for cheap and fuel efficient. The EPA estimate is 31mpg, I get around 39mpg with a 50 mile commute to and from work. I got the 2009 base model ($9990) which is manual, no AC and no radio. I live in Phoenix so yes, I considered the AC thing. Installing a radio yourself is cheaper than having the factory do it. With only three months of unbearable heat I just drove in the mornings and evenings with the window down. It's only during the day that it really sucks to drive. The rest of the year I can drive all day long and not miss AC.
I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure the significantly improved MPG is due to not having to power a compressor for the AC. It's certainly not because of my driving style.
Work Safe Porn
Your opt-in is written after the main text. So I hasn't seen and comprehended it until after I read your post. I'll see you in the machete pit for writing an incomprehensible (before the fact) opt-in.
Don't worry, you'll wake up with a dead hooker in a hotel room soon enough. All for the sake of advertisement of course.
(Big surprise that the CAD comic about this isn't in a 100 posts already)
but she realised it could pay to be stupid about it.
Doesn't this violate the Myspace Terms of Service? Like in the Lori Drew ruling? Is Toyota guilty of hacking?
Here's a radical question: do you have any idea if this is true?
You have a point, I should have left out the part "want to get rich". There are plenty of lazy rich people suing corporations, and probably even more than poor people, simply because the rich can afford the lawyers.
This is my sig.
me@slashdot> slashdot --gamemode
slashgame: YOUR ARE IN A ROOM
slashgame: LOOK NORTH
slashgame: YOU SEE AN ANONYMOUS COWARD
slashgame: HE HAS A KAFKA-GRENADE
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COWARD THROWS THE KAFKA-GRENADE AT YOU
slashgame: CATCH KAFKA-GRENADE
slashgame: YOU CATCH THE KAFKA-GRENADE
slashgame: PULL PIN FROM KAFKA-GRENADE
slashgame: THROW KAFKA-GRENADE AT ANONYMOUS COWARD
slashgame: KAFKA-GRENADE EXPLODES ON ANONYMOUS COWARD
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COWARD TURNS INTO ANONYMOUS COCKROACH
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COCKROACH SCREAMS IN FEAR ABOUT RAID IN COMPUTER
slashgame: MOTHER OF ANONYMOUS COCKROACH SCREAMS FROM OTHER SIDE OF BEDROOM DOOR "ARE YOU WATCHING GAY PORNO AGAIN?"
slashgame: MOM ENTERS BASEMENT BEDROOM
slashgame: MOM SEES ANONYMOUS COCKROACH
slashgame: MOM REMOVES SHOE WITH SOLE OF MATERNAL INSTINCT
slashgame: MOM INSTINCTIVELY CRUSHES ANONYMOUS COCKROACH WITH SOLE OF MATERNAL INSTINCT
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COCKROACH DOES FINAL SWIRLY AROUND THE RIM AS MOM GIVE HIS REMAINS "BURIAL AT SEA"
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COWARD -- 1784 KARMA, WILL RESPAWN A FLOATER IN TIDY-BOWL COMMERCIAL
slashgame: YOU HAVE EARNED 1 BONUS SCROLL OF GUMMY-BEAR
slashgame: EXIT
me@slashdot >
I thought the reason we have safety standards in many industries is due to insurance companies demanding these things?
Where were the health insurance companies trying to recoup their losses in these cases?
Maybe there would be no need for health insurance reform if the insurance companies pursued the interests of their clients more proactively.
"We have clients who are addicted to cigarettes, we know they'll have more health problems because of it, let's take the tobacco companies to court: collectively, with other insurance companies."
When your "viral marketing" campaign is indistinguishable from criminal harassment, perhaps it is not a very good marketing campaign!
Of course one must consider the possibility that this woman's complaint is itself a planned part of the campaign, in which case congratulations slashdot on giving Toyota free press.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The Myspace page claims seems to be someone from England who's obsessed with something called "soccer" - that's about as likely as a septic talking about "Major League Rounders". And a Myspace user with no "friends"? C'mon...
(In other news, Toyota bosses agree that there's no such thing as bad publicity, and the people from Saatchi and Saatchi start shopping for another dead shark).
Anyone else feel we're not getting the whole story here? Descriptions of emails and events -- but I saw nothing that sounded threatening. Then there's the fact that she "made" her boyfriend sleep with a can of mace... but never called the cops. Methinks there's more here than we're hearing.
why?
please explain.
You could say that Toyota doesn't always have the best... Handling...
You can sent them email at:
http://toyota.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/toyota.cfg/php/enduser/ask_intercept.php
You might want to tell them that you are opting out of any of their marketing campaigns.
What were they thinking?
RLH
> JUST BECAUSE YOU PUT IT IN A CONTRACT AND GET SOMEONE TO SIGN IT DOESN'T MAKE IT LEGALLY BINDING.
Yeah. You also need expensive lawyers and to be a huge corporation that can claim that allowing people to violate the contract would kill their business. (See also: Hollywood "accounting").
Joe Schmoe trying to do that would get his ass handed to him in court.
Test Harness:
function testRant($_EVIL_RANT) {
if($_EVIL_RANT) echo "Rant is Evil";
else echo "No evil Here";
}
>testRant("true");
Rant is Evil
>testRant("false");
Rant is Evil
Rats. There appears to be a bug. First to find it gets to sue someone.
Is this the ad she got fooled by?
http://joshmoles.com/2008/04/06/toyota-prank-results/
If so, she got an email and agreed to get more emails and is probably so stupid she doesn't remember it.... I'd pretend to be stupid for 10 MILLION DOLLARS!
" There was even a fictitious MySpace page reportedly created for Bowler. "
Her name is not Sebastian Bowler, it is Amber Duick. ( http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=8776841 )
1) most of the time people suing corporations are lazy people that want to get rich
In my case, I've just been too lazy to sue corporations. This puts me squarely at the bottom of your classification I take it. You must really despise me right now.
I feel there is a much larger, larger issue at hand that needs to be brought up. Toyota sucks.
Allow me to sum this up with a car analogy... Oh, wait a second...
Lately I'm beginning to think toyota is the new GM. They still offer that behometh sequoia thing and the tundra? The ES350 looks about as staid as an old buick and they screwed up something as simple as floormats sticking the accelerator down. Yeah, I wanna toyota.
From: marketing@toyota.com
Subject: I'ma get joo!
Dear subscriber,
We know where you live. We are coming with our ALL NEW TOYOTA MATRIX WITH SEATING FOR 5, FULLY LOADED, LEATHER INTERIOR to take your children away in our FIVE STAR SAFETY TESTED FAMILY SEDAN!
Don't try to run, we'll still find you with our GPS NAVIGATION SYSTEM!
Stalkingly yours,
Joe
Please click here to remove yourself from these Toyota promotional messages
I've had a quick scan through the comments and couldn't find any jokes about the Toyota Matrix using its passengers as human batteries for environmentally-friendly power... or about how the automatic traction control system gained sentience and has now started a war against mankind... or about how this lady should've taken the blue pill instead if she just wanted to live her normal boring content life...
What is Slashdot coming to... I thought it was news for nerds?
"Yeah, you need $10 million to cover that" - Tell me then, how do you punish a company except by a fiscal penalty?
What's this got to do with the IRS ?
One solution is to apply the very same punitive penalty, but award the punitive part of it to a fund/charity. In essence, whenever a major company causes somebody harm, that person is eligible to receive whatever amount is considered reasonable depending on the damages. In addition to that, the company is also fined an amount that is relative to its size and financial status, simply as a form of punishment. The latter amount never comes in contact with the victim.
The elegant thing about giving victims the penalty money is that it encourages them to take on litigation.
...
It's good to keep large companies walking on eggshells when it comes to causing harm, and the current tort system is the best way we know to do so that we can afford.
I once talked to an executive of a Finnish (but international) company called Lappset. It builds playground stuff (things children can climb on, etc.) and operates in many countries of Europe, Asia, South-America and also in Mexico and Canada. It doesn't operate in USA. Why?
In USA it's competitors are constantly sued because "A child went head first down this slide and broke a tooth. There was nothing in this product to prevent sliding head first, which might lead to damage in a small percentage of cases. As such, we sue you for $10 million for these damages." kind of attitude is so common.
The company doesn't go to USA because they would need more lawyers than marketing people and instead choose to stay in countries where the justice system is at least somewhat sane. I really don't think this is the preferred situation.
(And no, I can not give any extra references as I know this based on talking with the executive. You don't need to believe me if you don't want. :P)
Well, if I ever want to stalk someone for real I will send them some survey or something with a link to an obscure terms and conditions document where they "opt in". Nobody can complain then.
Sadly the 'death threat' I received via email wasn't some kind of advertisement and merely an attempt to scam me out of money:
Oddly enough that email cheered me up when I received it.
I've actually found out details of what the campaign involved.
It is designed as a prank to pull on someone else. What happens is you gave the email of someone you want to prank and it sent them a fake personality where they'd fill out their personal details and give consent to receive further emails.
You were then sent a schedule (or one was presented before you agreed to prank them) of exactly what they would receive.
This is not nearly as sinister as the money grabbing woman filing the lawsuit made out to be. Not only does it require someone you know to initially set up the prank, it describes the nature of the prank to whoever sets it up and, through the fake survey, it ensures that you have to actively take action for it to start and you are unlikely to be targetted by strangers.
If you sue anyone, sue the friend who not only started the prank, but didn't tell you about it when you were apparently being so traumatised.
Yeah, I bet you've read and understood *every word* of every EULA of every program you've ever used. And also consulted a lawyer each time to make sure your interpretation was legally correct.
Oh, and just because some contract says somewhere in 2-point font that the phone company can take your house and car away because your latest payment was 1c under doesn't make it legal or enforceable.
Tard.
LOL!!!!!!.....$10 mil...so typical american... ..Land of the lamers would be more appropriate.
Hmm I need money, dont wanna work to much. YES! Imma sue something or someone.
Land of the free?
This possibly the stupidest advertising campaign I have ever heard of. How does this build confidence in the Toyota brand? How does this treat the customer in a respectful manner? How does this make people buy Toyota Matrix cars? The very unprofessional and careless people responsible for this at Saatchi & Saatchi and the people at Toyota who signed the approval should be fired immediately. Yes, this woman was probably not really in real distress, but maybe she should have the money just to make sure this kind of advertising never happens again. Unless, of course, further evidence reveals that it was clearly stated, or plainly understood from the very beginning, that this campaign was a joke.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
Plug in the kitten to the power outlet, it might react ;)
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Whether she should or should not get money is up to the courts, of course.
Fictitious scenario:
- person A opts-in to "prank" campaign and provides e-mail address of person B
- person B receives an e-mail from person A telling them of a survey
- person B completes the survey based on a trust-relationship with person A (otherwise, they'd probably just delete the e-mail)
Questions:
If the survey page was overtly deceptive as to it's intent (e.g. a "personality" survey for a car advertisement campaign), is it at all reasonable to assume that person B will become a FOCUSED target of an advertisement campaign? Furthermore, has person B provided informed consent - that is, did this person have full knowledge of the intended use of her personal information (e-mail address and any other information that may have been provided)?
The final question is: who is responsible? In my mind it's person A, the "friend" in the original story, because this person provided full informed consent AND was the reason that person B became involved at all. Without their direct action, person B would not have been involved.
Then again, seeing Ford+Advertising Company on the hook for a stupid marketing campaign wouldn't be terrible either.
Just my 2 cents.
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
I can't imagine anything more terrifying than thinking that douchebag English "football hooligan" was coming to visit... even if I did know him.
video http://www.courthousenews.com
Uhm, so *cough you're not getting a Toyota, then? Just checking...
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
I for one am appalled that anyone even drinks that brown water that McDonalds claims is 'coffee'.
Reply to That ||
Absolutely not...even if I give you permission to contact me by email to send me your psam for what deals you have, that does not give you the right to send me a nasty email sounding like a stalker, where you can say pretty disturbing things, all in the name of fun...? NO WAY
I hope they get their asses handed to them in court, they need to be held accountable, yet a free speech activist writing about certain stories within the world events, will be told he has to take his story down because it does not shine positively in the name of scientology (or whatever that story was...). Someone was offended by a story telling the truth about this lame brain religion trying to goat people into believing they were visited by aliens, and they get told they are responsible for what they write, yet Toyota gets permission to send you an email, says they will rape your mother and kill your children unless you buy a car, and then at the end remind
you at the end that you subscribed to this....seriously???
What marketers don't seem to understand is that if you piss me off, I'm not likely to buy your product. Read the comments in this thread, it appears that stalking this woman cost Toyota a few slashdotters, but I don't see on that says this ad might get them to buy one.
Epic stupidity. With corporations all seemingly being run by complete and total idiots, is it any wonder the world's economy is in the shitter?
Free Martian Whores!
WTF ppl ?!? Why is that people aren't looking at the stupid c*nt bitch trying to gold dig her way into the millions. Give me a freakin break! Companies will ALWAYS advertise and send out shit... if the stupid ass chick didn't understand she was getting into an opt-in then maybe she should have ran the form by one of her money-grubbing lawyers or maybe just NEVER signed up. Its not like Toyota was knocking on her door looking for a signup form to be signed; she SIGNED UP on her own accord!
People like this disgust me to no end. They should be shot and hung for trying to take advantage of the system.... "sleeplessness" PFFT!..... "poor work performance". This tells me she doesn't like her job and is looking for a way out..
uggh... /rant off
Reminds me a bit of Majestic, except not a game but a line of advertisements.
Example (from Majestic):
"As an option to warn unsuspecting members in the same house you could enable a warning at the beginning of each phone call, and a small message on the top of all faxes."
They track what times you tend to answer the phone. This is of course correlated to when you are home, and more likely to answer the phone.
Many people answer during dinner hours (early evening), because that is a traditional time to call with *important* news (someone died, someone is late, make a date, etc.)
This information is bought and sold, just like all other personal information they collect about you. (Echelon could also improve the targeting, but I am not that paranoid just yet.)
I agree on not answering the phone when you are busy, but many people do not have that option (on-call, expecting an important call, etc.) Screening works, but why the fuck do I have to work so hard so that assholes I have no interest in leave me alone?
911) I'm sorry, unless there is a man in your presence who has made a credible threat against you or physically assaulted you, we can't do anything. Have a nice day.
--Jeremy
You should try calling the police sometime. They may have determined over the phone that she didn't need an immediate emergency response, but it's more than likely that she would have gotten to speak to someone who would have looked into it.
I've had dealings with five different police/sheriff's departments around here, and I've never seen anyone get the brush-off in the way that you mention. Police may be busy, but they don't just forget about it when they're told about someone being concerned for their safety either.
Putting moderation advice in your
Talk to some therapists and doctors about the mental and emotional abilities and reactions of a 4-year old. At some level what you did terrified your son.
It reminds me of the "mothers" that I see in stores tell their small children that they are going to leave them behind, or that they are going to give them away if they do not behave as instructed.
Get help before you do worse.
My younger sister had a stalker for a bit. Most of the stuff he said he was going to do was complete bs, but he managed to freak her out and land himself a short jail sentence just the same. To a company the size of Toyota, $10m is about the same as getting slapped in the face for being a dick, which seems about right to me.
It seems like you're good for makin jokes about your jimmy. But here's a jimmy joke about your mama that you might not like:
I heard she was the 'Frisco dyke.
Looks like I'm behind the times, I'm still wearing a flannel shirt, skinny jeans, and wayfarers.
...which way you try to slice it, this was in really bad taste.
Even if the agreement somehow allows them to legally wriggle out of this, what kind of schmuck dreams up a "marketing" campaign like this? You'd have to be really far over the cuckoo's nest when, in the brainstorming process for adverts about a new car model, simulating a stalker comes to mind. I forsee shoe companies promoting new lineups by sending out realistic-seeming notices from food companies, or the FDA, that something the person bought may have been contaminated with potentially lethal doses of botulinum...
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo
n my case, I've just been too lazy to sue corporations. This puts me squarely at the bottom of your classification I take it. You must really despise me right now.
Not sure I follow the logic.
This is my sig.