Welcome, guest! Login
Close

Login to Your Account


  |  » Forgot your password?
Join

Both Affiliate and Merchant are responsible

 
Tools Search
  #1  
Old
2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner 
Join Date: January 18th, 2005
Location: St Clair Shores MI.
Posts: 17,328
Both Affiliate and Merchant are responsible

Finally the FTC and Can-SPAM laws pierce the merchant/affiliate relationship to make both parties responsible under the laws. Nor more cop-out... the affiliate did it ...will hopefully change merchant AM practices of recruiting spammers into their mass advertising fold to throw off the scent from the FTC bloodhounds.

Diet Patch Spammers Settle With FTC
By Roy Mark


The bogus diet patch spammers settled with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Thursday on charges they violated the CAN-SPAM Act and other federal laws.

Last year, Phoenix Avatar and its principals fought the charges, claiming they could not be held liable because the FTC could not prove that they actually sent the spam.

Thursday's settlement bars the defendants from making false or misleading claims for their products or services and bars unsubstantiated health, efficacy or safety claims.

The settlement provides for a suspended judgment of $230,000, the total amount of diet patch sales. Instead, the defendants will pay $20,000. But, if the FTC finds that Phoenix Avatar cooked its books, the entire $230,000 will be due.

In April 2004, the FTC filed suit in U.S. District Court charging Daniel J. Lin, Mark M. Sadek, James Lin, Christopher M. Chung and their company with violating the CAN-SPAM Act and the FTC Act by marketing bogus diet patches using massive amounts of illegal spam.

Although the FTC won a temporary restraining order halting the unsubstantiated claims and freezing the defendants' assets pending trial, Phoenix Avatar appealed on the grounds that marketing affiliates, not Phoenix Avatar, sent the spam.

In July, U.S. District Court Judge James Holderman issued an order finding that CAN-SPAM liability "is not limited to those who physically cause spam to be transmitted, but also extends to those who 'procure the origination' of offending spam." The court held that the FTC had amassed a "persuasive chain of evidence" connecting the defendants to violations of the CAN-SPAM Act and the FTC Act.

The new settlement ends the litigation with a stipulated order for permanent injunction and final judgment. The final order bars the defendants from using false header information or not providing a mechanism by which consumers can opt out of further e-mail messages regardless of who sends out the e-mails.
__________________
Webmaster's... Mike and Charlie

"What have you done today to put real value into a referral click...from a shoppers viewpoint!"
Reply
 

Tools Search
Search:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What's LinkShare to do with this... Lyte Rakuten LinkShare - LS 17 March 12th, 2005 09:52 AM

X

Welcome to ABestWeb.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

ABestWeb.com is the largest affiliate marketing community on the Internet. Join us by filling in the form below.


(4 digit year)

Already a member?



Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.