Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Affiliate Marketing Consultant Andy Rodriguez's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Sunny Miami
    Posts
    8,384
    DoubleClick Sued Over ‘Diabolical’ Banner Ads

    July 22, 2003

    By: Ken Magill
    iMarketing News Editor
    ken@dmnews.com

    Claiming that some ads served using DoubleClick’s DART technology are "a diabolical scheme to deceive computer users into misdirecting their computers to Internet sites of defendants’ clients," a class-action lawsuit has been filed against the New York marketing services provider.
    At issue are the ubiquitous ads masquerading as computer warnings aiming to trick computer users into clicking on them.

    Filed last week in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, PA, the suit alleges that the ads are unfair and deceptive advertising and that they have unjustly enriched DoubleClick.

    "In a conspiratorial enterprise having no motive but to procure pecuniary gain for themselves, [DoubleClick] deceptively and fraudulently commandeered millions of unwitting Internet users to the commercial Web sites of defendants’ customers through dissemination of tens of millions of deceptive Internet advertising banners that impersonated computer system warnings," the complaint alleges.

    "Through use of such Fake User Interface (‘FUI’) dialogs that fraudulently represented themselves as computer system error messages, defendants tricked millions of Internet users into interrupting work they were performing to respond to the fraudulent system message, only to unexpectedly find both computer and computer user thus hijacked to commercial Web sites of defendants’ customers, where these customers attempted to hawk services and software."

    The suit seeks a restraining order barring DoubleClick from serving further computer warning ads. The complaint also calls for compensatory and punitive damages, including $500 per each member of the class action, $5 for each computer warning ad served by DoubleClick, and court costs and attorney fees.

    A DoubleClick spokeswoman said yesterday the company had not been served with the suit yet and so the company’s lawyers were unable to comment.

    The plaintiffs, however, claim that DoubleClick was served July 17.

    "It may not have made its way to the appropriate people within DoubleClick, but our information is that DoubleClick has been served," said plaintiffs’ attorney Stanley D. Ference of Ference & Associates, Pittsburgh.

    As for why the suit names DoubleClick and not its clients, Ference said: "Potentially that may happen. [But] it’s our understanding that DoubleClick controls a large channel of distribution and has input into the ads. To stop the ads, it’s a heck of a lot easier to go after one person with the control than to have to go after a number of little folks."

    Ference also said that fake computer warning ads described in the complaint differ from direct mail that tricks recipients into opening envelopes because direct mail does not take control of the recipient’s computer and redirect it. Also unlike direct mail, advertisers using fake computer warning ads often make it difficult for the person who clicks on them to get back to the original task, he said.

    "You go to close it, and another window opens up. They’re trying to keep your eyeballs on that screen as long as possible," he said. "And not only is it modeled after the [Microsoft] operating system error message, it’s also got the little ‘X’ that traditionally closes something out. You click on that ‘X,’ and what happens? Does it close it out? No. It’s part of the ad."

    So far he has received "several hundred e-mails in support of the class action," he said.

    Named as lead plaintiff is Pittsburgh resident Christopher Steelman, who Ference characterized as "somebody who got fed up" with the ads.

    The complaint defines as members of the class action anyone in the United States who has encountered banners or pop-up ads disguised as computer warnings.

    "DoubleClick is believed to have served in excess of 500 million such banner ads," a statement by the plaintiffs’ attorneys said July 18.

    The suit also names "100 John Does … including but not limited to directors, officers and employees of DoubleClick Inc., its affiliates, parent of subsidiary corporations or of other legal entities, and third-party agents of and/or principals of named defendants."

    The other plaintiffs’ attorney is Brian Samuel Malkin of Malone, Larchuk & Middleman PC, Wexford, PA.

    Andy Rodriguez,
    Online Advertising / Affiliate Marketing Manager

    TigerDirect.com
    P: (305) 415-2313
    E: andy.rodriguez@tigerdirect.com

    Parasite Free in 2003!

  2. #2
    ABW Ambassador buy_online's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    3,234
    Thanks Andy, another cool lawsuit (if there is such a thing). I'll have to remember the "FUI" thing.

    IMHO Pop-ups are evil, I hope these guys get a little roasted, perhaps that will curtail some of those types of advertising.

    I promise no pop-ups to my visitors in our about pages, and privacy pages, it's also a great lead-in to explaining about parasites.

    Fred
    ______________

    You might just be a redneck if..."Your talent in the local beauty pageant was making noises with your armpit"

  3. #3
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    You can bet someone like Andy would notice this law suit. He's one of the few AM's in this industry who wears an affiliate sales manager's hat. Most are just pushing eyeballs hoping to joins ranks with the Ad industry wanks. Of course the online Ad industry wanks are seeking to work their way into a porn industry job.

    Hillarious to think what an attorney thinks about those with a advertising mindset.

    Mike & Charlie ...

    If they won't adopt and feed a bird ..flip them one! BBQ some Gator and remember to flush WhenU..

  4. #4
    ABW Adviser Panel Dynamoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Opposite the Slough of Despond
    Posts
    5,465
    I hate the fake error message popups. In my Real Life job we get people report them to the help desk every so often.. "it came up with a warning to say I was broadcasting an IP address!" etc etc.

    ________
    All your commission are belong to us.
    Check out the latest Homeland Security press releases.

  5. #5
    ABW Ambassador Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,178
    Hate 'em, hate 'em, hate 'em!!!

    I've often wondered how many people click on those things thinking there's a legitimate problem. I really hate the vibrating ones that just keep vibrating over and over and over...

    I hope DoubleClick gets the message with this suit, and let others be warned: if you take advantage of the consumer, you will eventually be called on it!

    My site is also a "no pop-up zone" and people know if anything pops up while on my site, it's a legitimate computer problem, or a software app annoying them.

    It will be interesting to see where this goes.

    Andy

    _______________
    "If you were born to be shot, you'll never be hung." -Unknown

  6. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Banner Ads
    By YourAnimalStuff in forum Building Traffic, Newsletters & Advertising
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 16th, 2008, 04:59 PM
  2. Google Sued Over Click Fraud in Web Ads
    By UncleScooter in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: December 25th, 2005, 05:57 AM
  3. Hotels.com Sued by Affiliate for Gator Ads
    By ahugedeal in forum Suspicious Activity!
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 2nd, 2003, 11:24 PM
  4. Gator sued over pop-up ads
    By buy_online in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2002, 09:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •