I just won a $1000 Walmart Gift Card
Matt Carter
"Congratulations!! You have won todays contest in your area!!
Click below to claim your prize of a $1000 Walmart Gift Card
*participation required"
If you click through on the ad, you find (surprise!) that you haven't
really won anything. Instead, you find that in order to get your
$1000 gift card from Prize-Rewards.net, you must complete 13 "Sponsor
Offers". According to the instructions, "Sponsor offers may require
you to purchase products and take other actions such as obtaining a
loan, transferring a balance, or similar steps."
My state (Virginia) has laws prohibiting this kind of deceptive
advertising. For example:
Virginia Code 59.1-416 says:
__BEGIN_QUOTE__
A. No person shall, in connection with the sale or lease or
solicitation for the sale or lease of goods, property, or service,
represent that another person has won anything of value or is the
winner of a contest, unless all of the following conditions are met:
1. The recipient of the prize, gift or item of value shall be given
the prize, gift or item of value without obligation; and
2. The prize, gift or item of value shall be delivered to the
recipient at no expense to him, within ten days of the representation.
B. The use of language that may lead a reasonable person to believe he
has won a contest or anything of value, including, but not limited to,
"Congratulations," or "You have won," or "You are the winner of,"
shall be considered a representation of the type governed by this
section.
__END_QUOTE__
VA Code 59.1-421 says that anyone who sues over this code section and
wins shall recover reasonable attorney's fees.
VA Code 59.1-204 defines statutory damages of $1000 or actual damages,
whichever is *greater*, for any person who suffers loss as a result of
an intentional violation of the statute.
My questions are:
1) Does this internet ad violate VA Code 59.1-416?
2) If so, does my state (VA) have jurisdiction?
3) If so, how deeply into the trap does one have to go before s/he is
legally considered to have "suffered a loss as a result of a violation
of the statute" (in order to trigger the statutory damages)?
As to question #1:
One of the purposes of Prize-Rewards.net's offer is to collect your
personal data and sell it to third parties. So, I think the ad fits
the "in connection with the sale or solicitation for sale of goods or
services" language of the statute.
As to question #2:
VA Code 8.01-328.1 says: "A court may exercise personal jurisdiction
over a person, who acts as to a cause of action arising from the
person's:
1. Transacting any business in this Commonwealth;
2. Contracting to supply services or things in this Commonwealth;
3. Causing tortious injury by an act or omission in this Commonwealth;
4. Causing tortious injury in this Commonwealth by an act or omission
outside this Commonwealth if he regularly does or solicits business,
or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives
substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered,
in this Commonwealth;"
I think the ad meets at least some of these (disjunctive)
requirements.
In 1957, SCOTUS decided (in McGee v. International Life, 355 U.S. 220)
that a foreign corporation mailing an offer to a person subjected that
corporation to the jurisdiction of the courts of that person's state.
Timothy
> I recently received on my web browser an internet ad saying:
>
> "Congratulations!! You have won todays contest in your area!!
> Click below to claim your prize of a $1000 Walmart Gift Card
>
> *participation required"
>
> If you click through on the ad, you find (surprise!) that you haven't
> really won anything. �Instead, you find that in order to get your
> $1000 gift card from Prize-Rewards.net, you must complete 13 "Sponsor
> Offers". �According to the instructions, "Sponsor offers may require
> you to purchase products and take other actions such as obtaining a
> loan, transferring a balance, or similar steps."
>
> My state (Virginia) has laws prohibiting this kind of deceptive
> advertising. �For example:
>
I eally wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you. This is an ancient
scam perpetrated by people who know how to avoid actually sending out
the giftcards, especially not big ones like a $1000 Wal-Mart
giftcard. You will probably never be able to find out who really sent
you the offer; nor will you be able to get them to agree that Virginla
law applies to them. You also shouldn't bother completing the 13
"sponsor steps." Just forget about it. You (almost certainly) are
never actually going to receive the $1000 giftcard.
And if you do get the card, Wal-Mart might refuse to accept it ('cause
it might be stolen or otherwise in violation of their rules)--- and,
BTW, the card would be taxable income.
Mike Jacobs
> On Feb 15, 3:07�pm, Matt Carter <r_q_einstein-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I recently received on my web browser an internet ad saying:
>
> > "Congratulations!! You have won todays contest in your area!!
> > Click below to claim your prize of a $1000 Walmart Gift Card
> > My state (Virginia) has laws prohibiting this kind of deceptive
> > advertising. �For example:
>
> scam perpetrated by people who know how to avoid actually sending out
> the giftcards, especially not big ones like a $1000 Wal-Mart
> giftcard.
Matt, listen to Tim. Don't do it. Aren't you the same guy who told
us a few months ago you fell for a similar scam with "free travel" as
the come-on, requiring you to sit through a torturous pitch for buying
a time-share property before you would even get the so called "travel
voucher" and even then you would have to jump through an infinite
number of impossible hurdles before you could ever actually get any
actual travel? Didn't you figure out, after that experience, that
this was a "shell game?"
Dude, don't you have anything better to do with your time? I mean,
seriously. Are you doing this _knowing_ it's a scam, trying to be a
"private attorney general" and shutting down the scammers and maybe
even collect some money from them for your trouble? Good luck,
man. But, that didn't work so well the first time, did it?
Face it, Matt, the scammers who run these games, along with other
spammers, pop-up ad artists, junk faxers, junk phone callers, TV
pitchmen, and carnie barkers, are _way_ cleverer at evading getting
caught, than you, and most lawyers, are at catching them, even when
what they do is blatantly against some law (such as junk faxers, and
junk phone callers who violate a "do not call" listing). And they
set up so many shell- corporations-within-shells, etc. that it's
hellishly hard even for a top-notch PAG to pin anything on one of them
and actually _collect_ even if you win a lawsuit. But if that's how
you want to spend your life, Matt, more power to you. Just don't say
we didn't warn you.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Matt Carter
> You will probably never be able to find out who really sent
> you the offer
That doesn't seem hard. I clicked on the ad, and it went to a page
served by "Prize-Rewards.net" containing this text:
"Powered by Prize-Rewards.net."
"Copyright 2004-2009 Prize-Rewards.net"
"Prize-Rewards.net is solely responsible for all Gift fulfillment."
"The above listed merchants or brands in no way endorse or sponsor
Prize-Rewards.net's offer"
Further, I viewed the "Terms and Conditions", which state:
"Prize-Rewards.net grants to you a limited license to use the Service
solely for non-commercial and personal purposes."
"the Service is the property of Prize-Rewards.net or its licensors"
"You agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Prize-Rewards.net
from any and all third party claims, liability, damages and/or costs
arising from your use of the Service"
So, I'd name Prize-Rewards.net . Am I missing something in this
regard?
> nor will you be able to get them to agree that Virginia
> law applies to them.
Of course *they* wouldn't agree. :-) The question is whether a Judge
would agree. That's what I was asking, and I'm still curious.
A Michigan Attorney referred me to World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v.
Woodson, which shows how a manufacturer defendant with no connection
whatsoever to the forum state (aside from the the manufactured product
being used once in the forum state) is not subject to the forum
state's jurisdiction. But that case is far enough outside the set of
instances where a state has personal jurisdiction that it doesn't help
identify the border of that set. I was curious whether there has been
any good case law yet involving personal jurisdiction and unsolicited
offers from internet sites.
> You also shouldn't bother completing the 13
> "sponsor steps." Just forget about it. You (almost certainly) are
> never actually going to receive the $1000 giftcard.
I agree completely. I suspect one would spend over $1,000 on the
sponsor offers (not counting time lost). I further suspect it would
still be hard to get Prize-Rewards.net to follow through on delivering
the promised $1,000. I never considered actually trying to jump
through all of Prize-Rewards.net's hoops to get the gift card.
> BTW, the card would be taxable income.
True. This is another gimmick that scammers use. Before giving you
the "gift", they require you to give them your social security number,
ostensibly so that they can report your "gift" as income to the IRS.
At that point, even the pigeons who went through the 13 sponsor offers
have enough brain cells to say, "I'm not handing over my social
security number to this company!" and they walk away empty handed.
Here's a big reason for me not to try to sue Prize-Rewards.net:
They seem to be located in Canada!
The Whois record for "Prize-Rewards.net" shows the registered owner of
the domain is in Canada.
And the fine print on the Prize-Rewards.net terms and conditions says:
"This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of Canada."
It is, therefore, quite interesting that their terms and conditions
also state:
"The Service is only offered to United States residents"
I'm sure this is part of their strategy.
So, even if you get a judgment against them in your home state for
violation of a "Prizes and Gifts Act" statute (like the one I quoted
in my OP), you won't be able to do anything with that judgment. The
"full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution (obviously)
only applies to U.S. states, so you won't be able to register the
judgment in Canada.
Now, if Canada has a Prizes and Gifts Act outlawing the original
fraudulent "prize" notification AND if Canada has fee-shifting
provisions for violation of that law, THEN maybe it would be worth it
to have a Canadian attorney sue Prize-Rewards.net in Canada.
Matt Carter
> Aren't you the same guy who told
> us a few months ago you fell for
> a similar scam with "free travel"
You have a good memory, Mike. :-)
In that case, according to the agreement, all I had to do to get the
travel was attend a presentation in Columbia, MD. Spending a Sunday
afternoon with my wife driving from Northern Virginia to your fair
town was not a big cost for me. I knew that it _might_ be a scam, but
I also had what I thought was a slam-dunk case with a written
solicitation promising the free travel, an audio recording of the
salesperson specifying all the terms and conditions, and a company
with nearby assets ripe for the seizing. I did successfully win a
$1000 judgment against the company that did the sales presentation,
but not for the main reason I sued. (The judge ruled that the
solicitation misrepresented the source of the sponsorship, since it
claimed to be from Delta airlines. That had minimum statutory damages
of $1000. The judge did NOT allow me to recover any travel from that
company since a different company (Worldwide Travel) was supposed to
provide travel according to the T&Cs.)
In the present (Prize-Rewards.net) case, the T&Cs require completing
"13 sponsor offers", which sounds quite onerous to me (much more so
than taking an afternoon drive with the wife). Not a chance I would
even attempt that.
> Didn't you figure out, after that experience, that
> this was a "shell game?"
Of +course+ the "$1000 Walmart Gift Card" is a sham. :-) The
advertisement, even on its face, clearly violates the law. When
someone makes a business out of deceiving consumers, especially when
the business's actions clearly violate the law, I'd like to see them
shut down (or forced to change).
> Dude, don't you have anything better to do with your time?
You spend several hours a week sharing your legal knowledge here on
MLM (and we appreciate it!). Presumably, it gives you a sense of
personal satisfaction to serve a good cause. Well, same goes for me:
When I see blatant law-breaking, I enjoy being a part of stopping it
(if I legally and practically can). That's part of the reason why I
volunteer hundreds of hours a year as a part-time police officer in
Virginia (which I do around my full time software engineering job, my
part-time graduate studies in computer science, and spending time with
my lovely wife and two kids).
> I mean, seriously. Are you doing this _knowing_
> it's a scam, trying to be a "private attorney
> general" and shutting down the scammers
In the "Global Services/Worldwide Travel" scam that I posted about
before, I didn't "know" it was a scam until after they failed to
provide the travel as promised. (Many companies *do* follow through
on promises they make to induce you to sit through a sales
presentation. About 10 years ago, I got (without a fight) two pairs
of round trip tickets to Hawaii just for showing up at a condo sales
presentation in Alexandria, VA. About 8 years ago, I got (again,
without a fight) two free tickets to Epcot Center for sitting through
a timeshare presentation and free breakfast near Orlando, FL.) So,
no, I did not go into it "knowing" it was a scam. But I did suspect
it might be, and so was keeping good records.
In the present "Prize-Rewards.net" case, the advertisement itself
violates the law, so I was wondering whether a suit could be brought
on that alone. (I wasn't going to waste my time completing the 13
sponsor offers.)
> and maybe
> even collect some money from them for your trouble?
As I stated in a prior post, I wouldn't accept any money beyond my
costs. I decided, before going after Global and Worldwide, that any
punitive damages I received beyond costs would be donated to charity.
But, fee-shifting provisions and statutory punitive damages common to
consumer protection laws are intended specifically to incentivize
private parties to take action against scammers. I would not look
down on anyone keeping any winnings collected from a scammer.
> Good luck, man.
> But, that didn't work so well the first time, did it?
You're referring to the fact that last time I sued a suspected scammer
(Worldwide Travel), a judge ruled against me and awarded costs to the
defendant on the grounds that I had provided "insufficient evidence".
Lawyers with whom I had consulted throughout the case, and who had
told me that I had a good case and didn't need a lawyer, were shocked
and concluded that the judge was incompetent at best. Even my witness
at trial, a Maryland attorney, called the trial a "mockery of
justice", and urged me to appeal. Though I am confident the judge was
wrong, I decided not to appeal because it wasn't worth the estimated
$15,000 in legal fees to fight the wrongful $2,500 judgment against
me.
I think one's chances of running into a judge like that are extremely
low. By and large, judges follow the law and act reasonably. So, I
wouldn't let an anomaly like Judge Richard McCue skew the balance when
determining whether to go after a fraudster in court.
By the way, just a couple of months ago, Worldwide Travel (the company
I had sued) declared Chapter 7 bankruptcy:
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2009/12/07/daily57.html
Apparently, they had over 5,000 claims against them, most of them
being $100 deposits that consumers had placed in order to receive free
travel. In its bankruptcy filing, the company reported less than
$50,000 in assets, but more than $500,000 in claims. I find it quite
telling that the company only thought they owed the consumers their
$100 deposits back, not the actual travel which the company had
promised them. This shows, as I had asserted all along (and which the
company fiercely denied in court), that the company never intended to
make good on its travel certificates.
> Face it, Matt, the scammers who run these games, along with other
> spammers, pop-up ad artists, junk faxers, junk phone callers, TV
> pitchmen, and carnie barkers, are _way_ cleverer at evading getting
> caught, than you, and most lawyers, are at catching them, even when
> what they do is blatantly against some law (such as junk faxers, and
> junk phone callers who violate a "do not call" listing). And they
> set up so many shell- corporations-within-shells, etc. that it's
> hellishly hard even for a top-notch PAG to pin anything on one of them
> and actually _collect_ even if you win a lawsuit.
I acknowledge that many of them have worked hard to find and exploit
loopholes in the law and deficiencies in law enforcement. But if we
take a defeatist attitude, then the bad guys win without a fight. I
would rather hold them accountable under the law. Or, if the law is
faulty, I'd like to know where it needs fixing so that I can lobby my
legislators.
I remember one of your posts from a few years ago in which you were
replying to a woman who didn't want to testify against a criminal
suspect because she was worried about retaliation. You told her, in
your typical eloquent prose which I am unable to emulate, that the
law's ability to protect people depends on normal citizens being
willing to stand up to bad guys in court. Cowardice to prosecute in
the short run leads to a more frightening, lawless society in the long
run.
> But if that's how
> you want to spend your life, Matt, more power to you.
Injustice is unpalatable, and the addressing of injustice under the
law is, in small doses, enjoyable and rewarding to me. Alternatively,
learning how a skilled lawyer would go about handling a consumer
protection case, or the difficulties in doing so, is also interesting
to me.
That's why I started this thread. In my OP, I was asking whether one
could successfully sue in this set of circumstances, and was wondering
what the difficulties might be. I didn't mean to imply that I was
determined to sue Prize-Rewards.net . (In fact, I have decided not
to.)
> Just don't say we didn't warn you.
So noted. As always, thanks for helping to make MLM what it is.
Cy Pres
<r_q_eins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In the present "Prize-Rewards.net" case, the advertisement itself
>violates the law, so I was wondering whether a suit could be brought
>on that alone. (I wasn't going to waste my time completing the 13
>sponsor offers.)
I think your problem there would be a lack of standing. Simply being
offended by an advertisement being false doesn't cause you any legally
cognizable harm. If you were in competition with the business making
false allegations, it could be presumed that that company was getting
business by unfairly competing with you, and you'd have standing.
However, unless you as a consumer are actually deceived, you don't
have anything to complain about.
I wouldn't take that as gospel. Some states have expansive consumer
protection statutes, and I suppose some may allow "private attorney
general" style actions against bad actors. However, these are
uncommon even if they exist.
There are, however, state and federal administrative agencies which
deal with consumer protection issues, and filing a complaint with
these kinds of agencies might result in an investigation. Also, many
state attorney general offices are aggressive about pursuing consumer
complaints. I have seen people get results with such complaints.
Mike Jacobs
> Mike Jacobs wrote:
> > Aren't you the same guy who told
> > us a few months ago you fell for
> > a similar scam with "free travel"
> > as the come-on?
>
> You have a good memory, Mike. :-)
I try. Plus, IMO your earlier case was particularly memorable and
interesting.
> In that case, according to the agreement, all I had to do to get the
> travel was attend a presentation in Columbia, MD.
You _didn't_ get the travel, you just got a _voucher_. That was the
easy part. That was the come-on. Then, they set up impossible
hurdle after another before you could actually _get_ the travel, using
the voucher. So, you never _did_ get any actual free travel. Slight
difference in style, same underlying scam idea. Just keep changing
the rules until the rube gives up and goes away, after you've shaken
him down for all he is willing to put out.
<details snipped>
> In the present (Prize-Rewards.net) case, the T&Cs require completing
> "13 sponsor offers", which sounds quite onerous to me (much more so
> than taking an afternoon drive with the wife). Not a chance I would
> even attempt that.
Oh, good.
> > Didn't you figure out, after that experience, that
> > this was a "shell game?"
>
> Of +course+ the "$1000 Walmart Gift Card" is a sham. :-) The
> advertisement, even on its face, clearly violates the law. When
> someone makes a business out of deceiving consumers, especially when
> the business's actions clearly violate the law, I'd like to see them
> shut down (or forced to change).
The question is not how desired that result would be, rather, the
question is, do you have the resources it would take to do that? And
even if you do, is this the cause to which you really want to devote
those resources? It may have sounded flip and sarcastic when I said
that last time, but I really meant it - take stock of what it would
really take to pursue this, vs. your chances of success, and figure
out for yourself if it's worth pursuing, or if you should let it go.
> > Dude, don't you have anything better to do with your time?
Yeah, that did sound flip. But, I meant it nicely. 8*)
> You spend several hours a week sharing your legal knowledge here on
> MLM (and we appreciate it!).
You're welcome.
> Presumably, it gives you a sense of
> personal satisfaction to serve a good cause.
Yeah, but you don't see all the posts I _don't_ reply to. No one is
twisting my arm. I only respond if it's interesting to me, _and_ if
it won't take too much time (or any) to research beyond a quick,
starting-point Web check. Certainly I say nothing that anyone should
_rely_ on as formal legal advice, since that would require doing
_actual_ research with original sources and making _sure_ all the i's
were dotted and t's were crossed, which I mostly would only do if
someone pays me for my time. Mostly, I try to raise questions
instead of providing definitive answers, sort of the way law
professors teach (the "Socratic Method"). But in the course of doing
so, hopefully we all (myself included) learn something about the legal
reasoning process, learn and test what rhetorical tropes do or do not
effectively persuade, and learn a bit about the general shape of the
substantive law on some point, and how it evolved.
> Well, same goes for me:
Glad you're here participating too.
> When I see blatant law-breaking, I enjoy being a part of stopping it
> (if I legally and practically can).
All I'm saying is, don't butt your head against a brick wall. That
doesn't help anybody.
> That's part of the reason why I
> volunteer hundreds of hours a year as a part-time police officer in
> Virginia (which I do around my full time software engineering job, my
> part-time graduate studies in computer science, and spending time with
> my lovely wife and two kids).
Kudos to you, Matt. The volunteer spirit is an important part of
sharing the blessings that we have with others less fortunate. I do
mean that.
> > I mean, seriously. Are you doing this _knowing_
> > it's a scam, trying to be a "private attorney
> > general" and shutting down the scammers
>
> In the "Global Services/Worldwide Travel" scam that I posted about
> before, I didn't "know" it was a scam until after they failed to
> provide the travel as promised.
Okay. Maybe if I were in your shoes, I would have done the same
thing. I'm not sure where the point would have come where I would
have said, "Heck with this, it's a waste of time" or if I would have
gone as far with it as you did.
I have pursued several junk-fax spammers and gotten some money from
them. But those are cases where I did _nothing_ to reach out to
these people or to encourage them to use my own ink and paper and
bandwidth to blizzard me with their scammy advertising. And, there
is a Federal law (as well as state laws in many states) with real
teeth that can be used to get statutory damages against junk faxers.
I have _not_ done this on my own. The law is simple, but the fact
patterns and shell corporations are far too complicated (part of the
scam) for anyone to figure out unless they spend _huge_ amounts of
time doing so (and, of course, time is money). I hired a lawyer who
does _nothing_but_ junkfax and do-not-call violations for a living,
meaning it's worth it to him for him to do all that research and
digging, because he can _spread_it_out_ over the volume of his
clientele. He can also bring a single suit representing multiple
plaintiffs once he has identified a particular culpable spammer, an
additional kind of volume efficiency.
> (Many companies *do* follow through
> on promises they make to induce you to sit through a sales
> presentation.
No one said there aren't such things as _legit_ sales promotions. We
were only talking about the scam ones. The reason scam promotions are
able to survive is by camouflaging themselves to _look_like_ legit
promotions.
<details of actual valid sales promo snipped>
Yeah, and my son gets all kinds of free stuff (concert tickets, etc)
by phoning in answers to radio quizzes, too. Like I said, there
_are_ legit ways many businesses use giveaways as sales promotions.
> > and maybe
> > even collect some money from them for your trouble?
>
> As I stated in a prior post, I wouldn't accept any money beyond my
> costs. I decided, before going after Global and Worldwide, that any
> punitive damages I received beyond costs would be donated to charity.
Yeah, but you would still want to _collect_ it, partly to help shut
them down, right? Even if you don't profit personally from it.
> But, fee-shifting provisions and statutory punitive damages common to
> consumer protection laws are intended specifically to incentivize
> private parties to take action against scammers. I would not look
> down on anyone keeping any winnings collected from a scammer.
Sure. Neither would I. Nothing wrong with that. It _is_ an
imposition on the victim, however "minor" it might seem to some. And
the victim is entitled to compensation, as the law specifically says
(in such cases where it does so say).
> > Good luck, man.
<snipo>
> By the way, just a couple of months ago, Worldwide Travel (the company
> I had sued) declared Chapter 7 bankruptcy:
That, unfortunately, is yet _another_ way these scammers often slip
out of your hands even after you think you've got 'em. Note, this
often doesn't mean they are giving up the Ferrari and the Miami Beach
mansion, tho. Their BK lawyers are just as skilled (and well-
compensated) as their criminal and civil defense lawyers are. Many
of these scammers hire big, national silk-stocking firms to represent
them and pay huge legal fees to lawyers who help them to keep doing
what they are doing.
<WWT details snipped>
> > Face it, Matt, the scammers who run these games, along with other
> > spammers, pop-up ad artists, junk faxers, junk phone callers, TV
> > pitchmen, and carnie barkers, are _way_ cleverer at evading getting
> > caught, than you, and most lawyers, are at catching them, even when
> > what they do is blatantly against some law (such as junk faxers, and
> > junk phone callers who violate a "do not call" listing). And they
> > set up so many shell- corporations-within-shells, etc. that it's
> > hellishly hard even for a top-notch PAG to pin anything on one of them
> > and actually _collect_ even if you win a lawsuit.
>
> I acknowledge that many of them have worked hard to find and exploit
> loopholes in the law and deficiencies in law enforcement. But if we
> take a defeatist attitude, then the bad guys win without a fight.
I'm not saying, give up without a fight. I'm saying, pick your
battles. And don't fight if all you would get would be a Pyrrhic
victory.
> would rather hold them accountable under the law. Or, if the law is
> faulty, I'd like to know where it needs fixing so that I can lobby my
> legislators.
Go at it, Mate.
> I remember one of your posts from a few years ago in which you were
> replying to a woman who didn't want to testify against a criminal
> suspect because she was worried about retaliation. You told her, in
> your typical eloquent prose which I am unable to emulate, that the
> law's ability to protect people depends on normal citizens being
> willing to stand up to bad guys in court. Cowardice to prosecute in
> the short run leads to a more frightening, lawless society in the long
> run.
You said it pretty well. At bottom line, _we_ (society,
collectively) have to take responsibility - not by vigilante action
outside the law, but by _supporting_ the means that the law _does_
provide for bringing evildoers to justice.
Note to Hilary - I'm not throwing away my "question authority"
bumpersticker, here. This statement above is not inconsistent with
that position. Even though it sounds like what I'm saying above is
"the cops are your friends" (which, for a middle class / professional
person like myself, they generally are), sometimes the "evildoer" is
the one wearing the badge. When bad stuff happens, one has to
_question_ the actions, intentions, and bona fides of everyone
involved, civilians as well as governmental, without wearing
artificial blinders that allow some of them to cover up wrongdoing by
seeming legit, is all I'm saying. The law (particularly the
Constitution) places _limits_ on what governmental authority can do,
and an exercise of authority is itself illegitimate if it oversteps
those bounds.
> > But if that's how
> > you want to spend your life, Matt, more power to you.
>
> Injustice is unpalatable, and the addressing of injustice under the
> law is, in small doses, enjoyable and rewarding to me.
Okay. Go at it, and get 'em good.
> Alternatively,
> learning how a skilled lawyer would go about handling a consumer
> protection case, or the difficulties in doing so, is also interesting
> to me.
I'm _not_ a skilled lawyer, at _that_ particular field. That's why I
hired _somebody_else_ to represent _me_ when I got junk faxes. As
noted above, it's not so much a matter of innate smarts, or of any
particular complexity in the law, but rather, of how much _time_ do
you want to (and can afford to) spend, digging thru all the factual
details of the particular scam as well as of the shell corporations
involved, to find out who _really_ is doing it, and how they do it, so
you can stop them?
> That's why I started this thread. In my OP, I was asking whether one
> could successfully sue in this set of circumstances,
Clearly, yes, one could sue. Whether it would be successful depends
more on your particular FACTS than on any particularly complicated
issue of law. That's the part the scammers are expert at, hiding
their wrongdoing so it is a _huge_ effort on your part to truly
uncover it and present it in a _provable_, case-winning fashion.
What you suspect (or "know") to be true, and innuendo/inference/
speculation, are usually _not_ enough, and thus, the perps walk.
> and was wondering
> what the difficulties might be.
The difficulties are legion.
> I didn't mean to imply that I was
> determined to sue Prize-Rewards.net . (In fact, I have decided not
> to.)
Smart boy.
> > Just don't say we didn't warn you.
>
> So noted. As always, thanks for helping to make MLM what it is.
You too.
Cy Pres
<r_q_eins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>A Michigan Attorney referred me to World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v.
>Woodson, which shows how a manufacturer defendant with no connection
>whatsoever to the forum state (aside from the the manufactured product
>being used once in the forum state) is not subject to the forum
>state's jurisdiction. But that case is far enough outside the set of
>instances where a state has personal jurisdiction that it doesn't help
>identify the border of that set. I was curious whether there has been
>any good case law yet involving personal jurisdiction and unsolicited
>offers from internet sites.
That case would be Zippo. For more on Zippo, see here:
http://tinyurl.com/yzswxw6
However, whether there is personal jurisdiction depends not only on
the outer limits of due process under the U.S. Constitution, but what
the state has actually enacted in law under its "long-arm" statute.
Some states specifically make their own long-arm statute coterminous
with the constitutional limit, and others don't.
The outer limits of personal jurisdiction, in Internet-based
jurisdiction cases, depend on the extent to which the entity does
business within the state. Just a couple emails probably doesn't
create jurisdiction, at least until someone actually does business
with them. Then they're probably on the hook under specific
jurisdiction over the outcome of that one business dealing, but not in
general for any legal beef someone has with them.
Substantial business dealings in all the states is generally
sufficient to establish general jurisdiction. For instance, you could
probably sue McDonald's anywhere.
Additionally, you don't mention where the company in question is
incorporated, or where it has its primary place of business. For all
I know, that's in your state, and all this other stuff doesn't matter.
Finally, just because personal jurisdiction may exist does not
necessarily mean that venue is proper, but that's another issue.
Also, see my other post for why I don't think you have standing to
bring a lawsuit in the first place.
Bob
<r_q_eins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>A Michigan Attorney referred me to World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v.
>Woodson, which shows how a manufacturer defendant with no connection
>whatsoever to the forum state (aside from the the manufactured product
>being used once in the forum state) is not subject to the forum
>state's jurisdiction. But that case is far enough outside the set of
>instances where a state has personal jurisdiction that it doesn't help
>identify the border of that set. I was curious whether there has been
>any good case law yet involving personal jurisdiction and unsolicited
>offers from internet sites.
You'd be better off looking at the website personal jurisdiction
cases. They're far more on point.
The most famous case is Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.
Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997). A Fourth Circuit case (Maryland law, not
Virginia) "adopt[ed] . . . the model developed in Zippo." ALS Scan,
Inc. v. Digital Service Consultants, Inc., 293 F. 3d 707, 713 (4th
Cir. 2002).
gloc...@gmail.com
micky
>
>> My questions are:
>> 1) Does this internet ad violate VA Code 59.1-416?
>> 2) If so, does my state (VA) have jurisdiction?
>> 3) If so, how deeply into the trap does one have to go before s/he is
>> legally considered to have "suffered a loss as a result of a violation
>> of the statute" (in order to trigger the statutory damages)?
>>
prohibited by law." If they have that or not, and how it would apply
here if they do, I don't know.
**Legitimate offers I think. I suppose liars use it too.
--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.
Mike Anderson
prohibits restrictions on what has to be done to claim the prize.
I.e. the way I understand it all, if a state had a law saying "a raffle
is illegal" and this was portrayed as a raffle, then that wording would
void the prize to anyone in that state. But if the state said "a raffle
is legal and an offer of a prize obligates the prize-giver to provide
that prize under these circumstances" and the law clearly defined a
raffle as "any system of providing tickets and that one ticket would be
pulled at random to determine a prize winner. But tickets must be
available at no charge and any advertisement of a raffle in this state
must comply with this law" then them only selling tickets in that state
and not having free ones available could be seen as illegal under the
law (and that's not just "null and void" illegal but "we'll fine you
more than you took in by selling tickets" illegal.) That's why most
give-aways like peel-off stickers on a soda cup at your local fast-food
franchise say "no purchase necessary. For a free game piece, send a
self-addressed envelope" or such.