[Trust]

"Two separate class action lawsuits were filed on April 20, 2007 against Commission Junction, BeFree and ValueClick. One names CJ and BeFree publishers (affiliates) as the plaintifs. The other names CJ and BeFree merchants as the plaintiffs. So what do these lawsuits center around? Adware."

http://affiliatefairplay.com/newsblog/2007/06/12/two-class-action-lawsuits-filed-against-cjbfvalueclick-on-behalf-of-affiliates-and-merchants/

[Donuts]

ValueClick owns CJ and BeFree and several others companies.

ValueClick was recently sued in the Reservation Rewards scam:
http://forum.abestweb.com/showpost.p...66&postcount=1

ValueClick was recently sued in a major Spam case:
http://forum.abestweb.com/showpost.p...9&postcount=19

The FTC is questioning their lead generation tactics:
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/pro...503&ID=6721379

And now they are being sued by an affiliate and a merchant for breach of contract and for shirking their fiduciary responsibilites promised and owed to their contracted partners:
this thread

We've watched them promote nastyware (remember when todd told us weatherbug had been tested), facilitate spammers, enable sub-affiliate id networks to break the rules, created a special category of affiliate terms for those doing "special" stuff via bho's, promote esteemed partners like ebates, spread nasty screensavers and other parasites among many other things over the years. Merchants, for the most part, believe what CJ tells them and many think of affiliates as just noisy and complaining (even though their interests and ours are mutual and we seek to protect both). That view of them and us may change as the court system continues to reveal the facts of things.

Trust is earned, not given. In light of these suits, I believe merchants will begin to question why they should trust those who claim to be trustworthy.

As a public company, suits can be a huge impetus for real change. Court tags you for facilitating spam, behavior and compliance needs to change. Court tags you for reservation rewards scam, then no more of that. Court tags you for breach of contract with your affiliates, lots of behaviors need to change.

Aside from suits, the FTC can redefine or clarify or enforces current rules on incentive marketing, and lots of changes come as well.

My point is, we've reached that brink finally, where injured parties are sufficiently fed up to take legal and enforcement action. Between incentives investigations, reservation rewards scam, spam case and this new one - we'll soon learn if change in our industry's biggest network is ever going to happen or not. The wild west was tamed similarly, and internet marketing is often compared to it. Will greed drive continued lawless-like behavior or will a degree of civility be imposed (and great prosperity follow!).

[UncleScooter]

Man this is great. Read section 16 on this document. It is written so anyone can understand it and it lays it out just like it is!!!

This could be the best thing to happen to our business in a LONG time.

[Leader]

I figured there'd be lawsuits over this. But I hadn't figured it'd take this long!

Now they need to hit Snare, too. LS is liable for the same stuff, at least up until they started that campaign to boot paras (which is probably just PR anyway).

Also I wish that class-action suits provided better returns for the class. I can imagine the settlement ending up being a 50c addition into our accounts. Even so, if it gives the networks a sufficient kick, the end result should be less parasites.

[UncleScooter]

All I hope is that the plaintiff attorneys are of the unfriendly and money-hungry variety. It'll also be interesting to see if the judge has the plaintiff send the opt-in letter or makes CJ send it. I have seen it both ways in CA suits.

If the judge is computer literate, this will be a great case. If it is some ancient relic who thinks his email address is AOL.COM it is in trouble.

[Mack]

Is there a place where I can donate to this legal fund? I'd like to buy this team a cup of coffee, then a beer or two. Win or lose, hopefully the publicity will teach clueless merchants the truth and make them realize the true value of real affiliates.

[Sam Bay]

Who's filing suits? Are there any names as to who the affiliates and merchant(s) are?


Oh, I see: Mireille Carrier (You go Mireille!)

[Ron Bechdolt]

About time!!!

[Alan Hamilton]

If the end result of this suit is that CJ and other networks cease empowering those who engage in these practices, I welcome the attorneys who filed this suit to the court ordered booty. As for the class getting a larger share of the award, if the practices stop, affiliates WILL be awarded in the form of ending traffic / comission stealing! Good luck to the class.

[BG4512]

"One names CJ and BeFree publishers (affiliates) as the plaintifs. The other names CJ and BeFree merchants as the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff is the person who BRINGS the suit. The defendant is the person who has suit brought against them. Is this just a typo/vocab mix-up or do we have it the wrong way 'round? I can't seem to get the "more info" sites to load up for some reason.

[UncleScooter]

No, this is correct. One suit is publishers vs. CJ, the other is merchants vs. CJ.

The site does seem to be down this morning. I wonder what's up with that?

[Donuts]

Originally Posted by UncleScooter

All I hope is that the plaintiff attorneys are of the unfriendly and money-hungry variety.

I know what you mean... are they willing to go the distance, do they have the experience and know-how and chutzpah to follow through.

The plaintiff's lawyers website seems down right now (perhaps they had a publicity false start - but the case is in the court system), but did you take a look at the plaintiff's law firms (yes, two) that are now involved? It seems froim what I saw that your hopes have come true Scooter.

[Adam Ward]

(yes, two)

One being:
http://www.hagens-berman.com
SEE http://www.hagens-berman.com/enron_lawsuit

[Gr_Sacc]

Originally Posted by UncleScooter

Man this is great. Read section 16 on this document. It is written so anyone can understand it and it lays it out just like it is!!!

This could be the best thing to happen to our business in a LONG time.

Thanks for pointing out section 16 in particular. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

[Haiko de Poel, Jr.]

Originally Posted by Donuts

perhaps they had a publicity false start

Nah, just $7 hosting that went offline - I'm surprised no one said DDoS LOL.

[MINDsprinter]

Hopefully someone like Kelly gets to testify. Those videos she has would be really great for showing a non-techy jury what exactly is going on.

[1av8r]

er...Kellie right?

[MINDsprinter]

er...right! oops!

[kea12345678]

Hey: I had not seen anyone else post about this. But, it looks like a class action lawsuit against VCLK over adware. Anyone have more info?

http://www.cjclassaction.com/

[1av8r]

That's where all roads are leading to on this thread.

[MichaelColey]

Haiko merged kea12345678's thread into the main one here.