madison

New York examines Web marketing scam

Greg Sandoval CNET News | January 28, 2010 1:09 PM PST

Summary

Andrew Cuomo, attorney general for the state of New York, has launched an investigation into the marketing practices of 22 e-tailers, including Staples, 1-800-Flowers.com and Orbitz.
Andrew Cuomo, attorney general for the state of New York, has launched an investigation into the marketing practices of 22 e-tailers, including Staples, 1-800-Flowers.com and Orbitz.

Cuomo's office said Wednesday it issued subpoenas to the merchants and requested information about the retailers' relationships with three marketing companies, Webloyalty, Affinion and Vertrue. These firms have allegedly misled consumers for years into joining membership programs and paying monthly fees.

Webloyalty and the other companies are so-called post-transaction marketers that have compiled a long history of consumer complaints and class-action lawsuits. Typically, the three firms present pop-up ads to online shoppers when they're finalizing a transaction. Some consumers have said the ads appear to be a discount coupon from the retailer.

The ads offer discounts or cash back coupons if the shopper will only provide an e-mail address or username. Buried in the fine print however, are the full terms, which state that by providing an e-mail address, the customer is agreeing to sign up for a membership program and authorizing their credit card to be charged sometimes as much as $20 a month. How can these marketers charge credit cards without the owners giving them their card information? Simple, they buy it from well-respected merchants, such as Continental Airlines, Priceline and Buy.com.

For more on this story, read "New York examines Web marketing 'scam'" on CNET News.

Talkback Most Recent of 14 Talkback(s)

  • Until they voluntarily clean up their act ...
    these e-tailers have lost my business.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    kd5auq
    28th Jan 2010
  • RE: New York examines Web marketing scam
    All proceeds from this scam need to be returned to consumers. Class Action anyone? The people behind it need to be personally sued and forfit all earnings and any money made and also pay heavy fines, they should be wiped out financially. Send a message.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Dflo
    28th Jan 2010
  • Dream on.
    "All proceeds from this scam need to be returned to consumers."

    As is the case in 100% of these scams, the perps will get away with a promise not to do it again. Then the scumbags will go and do it again, in not quite exactly the same way. Paying a pack of lawyers to keep them out of jail is just a cost of doing business for these bastards.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    jpdemers@...
    29th Jan 2010
  • Bingo!
    They launder the money--if they're caught, they declare bankruptcy, and before the ink is dry, they spring up under a new name and carry on like nothing happened.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Vinny_z
    29th Jan 2010
  • RE: New York examines Web marketing scam
    Go Get those greedy greasy little Pricks Hang them up with rope made out of the dollars they stole from real hard working people. Nigerian Scams live well in the U.S. I see. Set an example and watch the web change overnight. time to pony up for your deeds
    ZDNet Gravatar
    MrMagQQ
    28th Jan 2010
  • No one goes to Jail
    The state fines them. They all walk with as much money as their lawyers can get them and the little guy still gets screwed!!!
    ZDNet Gravatar
    tsenuta
    29th Jan 2010
  • RE: New York examines Web marketing scam
    They should also go after Video Professor and freecreditreport.com, both of which are scams. I can't believe these crooks are still allowed to advertise their scams on TV, one with cutsie songs.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    ITOdeed
    29th Jan 2010
  • re: Video Professor and freecreditreport.com
    I don't think Video Professor is all bad. Their products helped my family learn Windows and not come to me several times a day. But the free lessons are not full lessons that they say.

    But freecreditreport.com, yes, they are not free. They should have that name taken away and face a big, big fine.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Me_too
    31st Jan 2010
  • Right
    I guess PT Barnum was right
    ZDNet Gravatar
    MrMagQQ
    31st Jan 2010
  • ZDNet Gravatar
    bart001fr
    2nd Feb 2010
  • Microsoft advertises "Operating System"
    Wouldn't a computer operating system be something that lets you get your work done without being preoccupied with updates from 10 different programs and antivirus and spyware software?

    Sounds like a scam to me.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    bbneo
    1st Feb 2010
  • Funny, but...
    An 'operating system' is a set of tools for operating a computer. So technically M$ are OK with selling licenses for operating systems. Of course they do not sell the OS iteself, otherwise someone else would be selling the licenses. Windows is and will remain the property of Microsoft.

    Linux is an operating system, too, and GNU programs are a set of tools that make the operating system useful to humans. Taken together, a GNU/Linux distribution such as Ubuntu can make using a computer easy and fun. And although you DO get informed about updates, there is only one updater program, and it will shut up and go away when you say so. Antivirus and spyware are optional.

    Of course you know by now which 'operating system' I prefer. Have lots of fun!
    ZDNet Gravatar
    barence773
    6th Feb 2010
  • RE: New York examines Web marketing scam
    How about raising the ante a little?
    You have a lawyer that gets these scumbags off,
    he has to pay some sort of bond so that in the event those scumbags re-offend he won't be as quick to rush to their defence. Make the lawyer think twice before defending the indefensibe.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    inkwell
    1st Feb 2010
  • That's not quite right
    Here's the way to do it.

    The defense lawyer pays a small fee, (about $1000) as a bond.

    If the perp reoffends the lawyer and the perp go directly to jail for a set minimum of time, no discretion of the judge. The penalty has to be hardwired into the law and the judge must not have the discretion to tone it down from the minimum which I would suggest 5 years for the first offense, doubled thereafter for each succeeding repetition, as in 5, 10, 20, 40... you get the idea! and the judge would still not have any say in the penalty if the law were well written.

    Unfortunately we all know the law is there to protect the guilty. The innocent be damned!
    ZDNet Gravatar
    bart001fr
    2nd Feb 2010

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity