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.'"
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.
Did you read the article?
Toyota's marketing campaign was in POOR taste, although one wonders why she never reported it to the police.
I think giving her 10 million seems high, but I think that a class action suit with everyone who got this incredibly lame marketing campaign isn't such a bad idea.
Pretend stalking someone is a terrible idea.
How about this:
What if you kept getting phone calls.. that said:
I'm coming for you.. in a mysterious raspy voice, at all times of the day.
That would be a clear cut case of stalking and instilling fear.
When you sue, you ask for as much as you could ever possibly imagine to get. It doesn't mean you'll get that much; but you certainly won't get more than you ask for, so in the starting phases you just ask for the world. If she actually got $10 million, that'd be another matter.
"Yeah, you need $10 million to cover that" - Tell me then, how do you punish a company except by a fiscal penalty?
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?
Agreed, a normal person who'd never done anything wrong would obviously assume an anonymous stranger threatening them was playing a prank on behalf of a large company. The vast majority of stalking cases are like that, and innocent people are never targeted by crazy people for no reason.
Seriously though, WTF are you talking about?
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
What the fuck?
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
weird isn't worth $10 million...
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.
Maybe, but terrifying sure is. Victims of stalking find that they are incapable of doing day-to-day things. The lady had a legitimate fear, she told her friends, then she later was ridiculed for those fears. This is all the fault of Toyota.
I for one hope that she wins the whole $10 million. Maybe only that way will dumb-ass marketers start *thinking* about what they do!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.
No, but if you make $9 million in profit and lose $10 million in a lawsuit, then they'll not do the marketing campaign again. Even if they make $12 million from the campaign (doubtful), the return becomes so small that it's not worth them doing any more. Further to this, hopefully the arsehole marketer who came up with the idea loses a job or some advertising agency loses revenue as Toyota moves to another company.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
They sure did. Very creepy, and no doubt terrifying at the time... ummm...
Except if it was so terrifying, why did she do everything but call the police, who have the powers to actually investigate things like this and would have probably figured out in about 5 minutes who sent the emails? Why make her boyfriend sit by the bed with a club, when she's getting notices from someone who sounds like a hardened and probably ARMED criminal that they are coming for a visit? If this were a real event, she and her boyfriend would likely be dead by now.
Why sit cowering in your home for FIVE DAYS then claim you were unable to live your life for MONTHS, when a quick three-digit phone call ("911", in case anyone has forgotten the number) would have started an investigation that would have rapidly debunked it in a hurry? Toyota would have no doubt issued a deep apology to avoid a lawsuit, suffered some well-deserved bad press, and Ms. Duick could have gone about her life with nothing more than a probable (and understandable) lifetime hatred/contempt of Toyota Motor Company, and not a long-term debilitating fear.
I'm not saying Toyota was in the right here. No way. This was just plain effing stupid.
I think both parties are clearly in the wrong. Toyota's actions were reprehensible and deserving of punishment, but Ms. Duick's response (or utter lack thereof) certainly gave Toyota no indication of the harm they were causing to her. They thought they had agreement, she was unaware of the agreement, they acted stupidly, and she didn't do anything useful to help herself until after she found out it was a prank ad campaign.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Maybe, but terrifying sure is. Victims of stalking find that they are incapable of doing day-to-day things. The lady had a legitimate fear, she told her friends, then she later was ridiculed for those fears. This is all the fault of Toyota.
I for one hope that she wins the whole $10 million. Maybe only that way will dumb-ass marketers start *thinking* about what they do!
I suspect (but do not know) that once we see the actual emails there's no way on earth anyone with an IQ above retarded would believe it was real. Have you ever seen one of these campaigns? Even imbeciles know they're fake.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
On the one hand, $10 million isn't something to sneeze at, even for a company with $200 billion in yearly revenue. That $10 million represents a lot of lower level employee's worth of salary which might lead to lots of average Joes getting layed off (face it, it won't be the execs. that feel the hurt). On the other hand, it sounds, to me, like they, honestly, earned the punishment (though, perhaps somewhat less than what she's asking) on this one. It isn't reasonable to say that just because she checked a box somewhere agreeing to accept marketing communications from a company that she should expect those communications to take the form of a simulated stalking. What next, are they going to go door to door in white robes burning crosses on people's front lawns to drum up attention for next year's Carolla?
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
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. A lawsuit is expensive, risky, and time-consuming. Without motivating litigants and lawyers with potential rewards, the powerful would be much freer to abuse the weak. In your system, this lady would stand to win at most a few thousand in actual damages, but would risk losing tens of thousands in costs should Toyota prevail. Further, all the good lawyers would be on salary or retainer for large companies; few would be willing to work for a chance to get paid a reasonable hourly rate.
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'd prefer that but then again, I wasn't the one who was stalked, and a week of jail time won't do restitution to the harmed. Maybe combine it and let the VP of marketing be her bitch for a week?
One thing's for sure: when people are harmed, law as it applies to corporations should be a lot more personal and pierce the corporate veil. That would rectify a LOT of stupidity done in the search for profits.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
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
"I think it's less to do with creating a good image of Toyota and more to do with getting people thinking about Toyota. "
It's working! I'm thinking: 'Toyota, what a bunch of assholes!'
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
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...
And she did not get rich.
Yeah. And talk about bad PR. I don't know why people are so quick to defend corporations, but Ms. Liebeck really took it on the chin when all she wanted were her medical bills paid. Given the circumstances, the request was more than reasonable.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Not everyone wants the police in their home, rifling through their possessions, looting^w removing their computer, video game consoles, and HDTVs as "evidence," and otherwise violating their privacy.
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
You have probably an overly optimistic guess as to what the police would have done. (On top of that, the article does not specify one way or the other whether or not she called the police)
Here's my guess about what that 911 call would have sounded like:
911) What's your emergency?
Woman) A man is coming to my house.
911) Who is the man, and has he threatened you?
Woman) I don't know, and no, he hasn't threatened me. He's just coming to my house.
911) You don't know who the man is?
Woman) No, I only got an email. I've never met him.
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
Jesus was a liberal
Man, you've got your headquarters in your hindquarters. No offense. Even if we grant your premise, that some large proportion of people would spot the campaign as fake, you have to remember that (1) Telling lies from truth is different from IQ. Some very bright people are extremely gullible, some very dull people have an unerring radar for falsehoods. (2) It's neither morally nor legally permissible to purposely scare the hell out of someone merely because they're less intelligent. (3) Many tens of thousands of people - mostly women - are stalked each year in this great nation, and a portion of them murdered by their stalkers. So a campaign like this odds are will reach some of them, who already know that stalking threats are real, have already been stalked, and just like a veteran hearing a backfire and finding himself back in battle, can easily be returned to the real psychological state - even by an instance they intellectually know is fake.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I used to be in favor of the 'corporate death penalty', and I still am, but only in a certain way.
We shouldn't break the company. What we should do is fire all corporate executives (Everyone who legally empowered to agree to contracts.), and the board of directors, cancel all stock and leave it operated by the government for a while. (1) They will run it basically as before, and also do a housecleaning to find illegal behaviors that have become ingrained in the company.
It then, after about a month, publish balance sheets and stuff so that people can see how it's doing. Then the company should issue new stock, under a new stock symbol, on the stock exchange, so people can purchase it. And the new owners will, presumably, elect a new board of directors, etc, and the temporary executives put in by the government will resign.
I.e., we don't need to dissolve the company if they commit crimes. We need to fire the people who ran the company in a criminal manner, and we need to take it away from the owners who let the company get run in a criminal manner. Then we clean it up, and sell it to whoever's willing to pay for it.
'The company', as an abstract entity that presumably provides some actual services, and employs a bunch of people, can continue to exist. So 'death penalty' isn't really the right word. Let's call it corporate forfeiture. (Hey, if we call it that, does that mean we don't have to have a trial?)
1) The government running a company, incidentally, is not without precedent, especially during bankruptcy. The federal government does assume caretaker responsibility of some business, the most famous example being when it found itself running a brothel in Nevada for about a year.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
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
Maybe McDonalds wouldn't need warning signs if they didn't serve coffee at temperatures that can cause third-degree burns after 2-7 seconds of exposure.
Maybe McDonalds wouldn't need warning signs if they had simply helped the 79-year-old victim with her $11,000 in medical expenses, or accepted her later settlement offers of $90,000 and $300,000.
Maybe Mcdonalds wouldn't need warning signs if documents obtained from Mcdonalds didn't establish that more than 700 people were burned to various degrees by Mcdonalds coffee between 1982 - 1992.
Maybe you need to come up with a better example of a lack of "common sense" in US courts, and why such a concept should be a factor in determining the merits of a case.
I don't care why you're posting AC
I think the point is that it's impossible to avoid frightening imbeciles. What matters what a reasonable or average person would think of these e-mails. Not what a paranoid schizophrenic thinks of them.
And groups that work with burn victims have urged the restaurant industry to serve coffee at a lower temperature, especially to customers who are in vehicles are are unable to stand up and brush spilled coffee off of themselves. The reason the victim in the McDonalds case was burned so severely is the coffee soaked in to her clothes and pooled in her seat.
You're right, she was responsible for spilling the coffee, and shares the blame for her injuries. But the spill was not the main cause of her injuries; the temperature of the coffee was. That's why the jury found she was 20% responsible for the burns she suffered to her thighs, buttocks, and groin.
I've often been served food in restaurants on plates that were hot enough to cause severe burns, and never has the server failed to warn me. It's a courtesy, as well as a moral and legal obligation to warn a customer of an unexpected hazard with your product. And sitting at a table is very different than being belted in to a car seat and unable to remove the hot coffee after the spill.
The jury felt the warning on the McDonalds cup was neither large enough nor sufficient to warn of the potential danger, and that's why they found in her favour.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Brewing coffee at a high temperature is different that drinking it at that temperature. When I make coffee at home, I pour it into a ceramic coffee cup and the thermal mass of coffee cup, quickly absorbs just the right amount of heat. That is not true of a styrofoam cup which has very little thermal mass to initially absorb the excess heat. To make things worse the styrofoam is a very good insulator. Most people at home or in ordinary restaurants drink their coffee from ceramic coffee cups which quickly reduce the coffee to less than scalding hot. The combination of extra hot coffee and styrofoam cups, is what is so bad.
If someone drinks their coffee black like me, there is no cream or milk or other ingredients added to dilute the heat. Scalding hot coffee in a styrofoam cup, remains too hot to drink for many minutes afterwards.
I do not enjoy struggling to sip scalding hot coffee which burns my tongue. I also do not like having sore burned spots on my tongue and on the roof of my mouth, for the next couple of days. That sometimes happens, if I am not careful, even with coffee that is only slightly too hot.
Coffee does need to be hot to taste good, but I have never noticed any improved taste from it being scalding hot. My personal experience is not consistent, with what your source says. Good fresh brewed coffee only needs to be hot, not scalding hot.
Coffee only tastes good if is has been freshly brewed, not too long before serving it. The scalding hot coffee that I have had at fast food places, frequently is that terrible smelling and terrible tasting, overcooked old coffee. It sometimes smells like it has been cooked several hours earlier and kept very hot all that time. Instead of that wonderful, rich fresh fresh brewed natural coffee bean smell, it frequently has that sickeningly overpowering, disgusting strong burnt smell and taste.
Good water is also important for good coffee. Where I live, the water tastes good, but bad tasting water can make bad tasting coffee. People such as myself who drink their coffee black, probably notice the actual taste of the coffee much more than people who add milk and sugar.