FTC Gets Angry Over "Free" PC Offers 156
Wister285 writes: "The Federal Trade Commission is going after buy.com, Value America, and Office Depot for running 'misleading' free PC offers. The FTC is claiming that the advertisements don't disclose the true restrictions and costs of the PCs, which can be up to $1000. When will people learn that Big Brother is always watching? Catch the story over at ZDNet." This goes way beyond "monitor not included," too.
Re:$400 Rebates (Score:2)
Everytime you buy one of these "free pc's" you have to sign a contract. I don't know about some people, but when I sign a contract I read it. Anything that is not stated in the contract cannot apply to the deal being made. Unfortunately people sign things without reading them. They forget that they are bound to do with these contracts say. They get screwed by extra charges, they get pissed. Sorry but I think that's their problem.
Maybe I'm just being an elitist pig again `;^)
hmm... (Score:1)
but then again, their customers are probably born every minute.
Re:Free eMachines for $600 of 'net service. (Score:1)
"Vegetarian" subs (Score:1)
D'Angelo's, a sandwich chain here in New England, used to have two types of vegetarian subs. But because they were cooked on the same grill as meat, someone decided they could not be called "vegetarian". They're now "vegetable" subs.
Ooo, ooo, me too! (Score:2)
By "clearly thinking" I don't mean to imply I was thinking clearly. I must not be, because consumers of stupidity doesn't make sense, but then, neither does falling all over myself. I'm going to go try that now, it sounds like fun, and it counts on my quota of three impossible things I always do before breakfast (and I'm getting pretty damned hungry -- it's past midnight here, and so far I've only figured out what women really want and squeezed the toothpaste back into the tube once I was done with it).
Re:And remember this... (Score:2)
Don't worry, they couldn't care less.
Re:"free" PCs (Score:1)
Re:Proof That Government Can Be Good (Score:2)
I vote with my money, though..
When an advertisement seems insulting or misleading, I try my very best to a) let the company know and b) not spend any money there.
And fine-print doesn't always matter when it comes to matters of perception.
Re:Only $29.99 - another annoying advertising gimm (Score:1)
xx, and not xx + 1.
xan
jonathon
Re:Proof That Government Can Be Good (Score:1)
You see, libertarianism, much like its almost direct opposite philosophy, communism, is basically just political masturbation. It looks really good in theory, and both of them promise to make things great for people--the difference being that libertarianism makes things great for the really smart and communism makes things great for the really dumb--but the results aren't quite what you expect, and it ends up being virtually impracticable.
As much as I enjoy masturbation, I try not to mix it with my politics :P
I disagree vehemently with your statement that libertarianism is impracticable. The United States was and is the single most libertarian nation in history, the formation of the U.S. was the single biggest libertarian event ever, and the Constitution is the single most important libertarian document ever. Modern libertarianism is very much rooted in the thinking of our Founding Fathers.
America certainly has its problems, but it has flourished and in a mere 200 years (a blip in time, historically) this libertarian nation has been the most free and prosperous one on earth. In light of this, how can you possibly say that libertarianism is 'impracticable'? I say that it's more than practicable - it's proven.
Look at the more-libertarian-than-now industrial American economy of the mid-to-late 1800s and early 1900s. Free market as far as the eye can see. But everybody ended up getting screwed except for either the really smart, clever, ruthless people, the really rich people, or the really rich, smart, clever, and ruthless people.
I must disagree with you on this as well. Everyone did not 'end up getting screwed'. Not the rich, not the middle class, and not the poor. Our nation flourished under a free market, and the standard of living went up for everyone, even the poorest of the poor. The Industrial Revolution pulled *millions of people* out of poverty and gave them the means to own a home, and have a retirement plan with benefits - the 'American Dream'.
Eventually people (i.e., the non-plutocrats) got fed up with it and formed labor unions to prevent just these types of abuses. Congress, after a fashion, finally woke up and started passing laws to enable this to a certain extent.
I agree that corporations often need a swift kick in the ass, and I support the peoples' right to free association - to apply collective bargaining as a means for achieving better pay and working conditions. I do not think that Congress should play a role in that at all, and I do not think that any company should be forced to accept unions if they choose not to.
So you see, we had our experiments with libertarianism. We ended up not liking it. We told the Government to get involved. And you're a fool if you think that the government's going to cease its involvement based on the nagging of what (societally) amounts to a political splinter group that most people don't even know exists.
The libertarian movement is thriving and in fact slowly and steadily growing. Through organizations like the CATO Institue and the Future of Freedom Foundation, we already have a large impact on public policy - far greater than that of a 'splinter group'. We are most definitely here to stay. The Libertarian Party is also growing, and actually getting some candidates elected at the state and local level, but it remains to be seen whether it will succeed at the federal level. Incidentally the LP natl convention is taking place today and tomorrow, and will be televised on CSPAN, if you're interested in watching.
With all that said, I do not beleive that libertarianism holds a 100% monopoly on the truth. I obviously believe strongly that it contains a tremendous amount of wisdom, but I think that there are aspects of other ideologies that merit careful consideration as well. I hope that someday humankind will figure out the keys to living together in peace, prosperity and freedom.
Re:$400 Rebates (Score:2)
IANAL, I guess I'll have to pay one to be on call 24/7
Please get your facts right (Score:1)
and this post about India's moon mission by 348 that was moderated up to 4, Insightful.
It was not moderated up to four, it went to five and is currently still at top of thread.
Also the Enoch Root post you refer to was never validated as it was posted as an AC.
criticize something based on a "friend's" knowledge or facts that can't be shown or proven, or when they post an opinion that isn't that far out there but is in direct contradiction with the general beliefs
You mean like your post that you've been spamming every thread with? Your facts are not proven, merely rantings of an unstable intravert that more than likely got his karma lost on his primary account. I pity you.
Never Underestimate The Stupidity Consumers (Score:5)
It isn't too difficult to buffer my statement, either. I can point to a couple immediate things, such as the number of times people drop $17 to buy a formulae pop CD from N'Sync or Brittney Spears or the number of idiots who really thought that if they flew to the Publisher's Clearing House headquarters, they were going to become multi-millionaires, because Ed McMahon had said they might have already won on the envelope they receieved in the mail. Then there are the thousands of idiots who fall prey to telephone scams. They willingly hand out $10,000, $20,000 -- even $100,000 with the promise of securing a million-dollar lottery that you've already won!.
What's funnier is that, in the last scenerio, these people usually end up falling for the same scam a second or even a third time! We hear them on 20/20 and 60 Minutes blabbering their sob stories to half of the televised world, expecting us to sympathize with their gullability.
So, while I think this is stupid that the FTC should have to step in considering how rediculous it is to actually expect that the PC's were without attached strings (who cares what the advertisements failed to mention, you don't need more than a handful of IQ points to figure this stuff out), it is nonetheless their duty to look for obvious exploitation of consumers. And, in this case, I think it's safe to assume that stepping in to defend the lowest common denomonator may have been appropriate.
---
seumas.com
And remember this... (Score:2)
Re:Proof That Government Can Be Good (Score:1)
Re:Proof That Government Can Be Good (Score:2)
Re:Ooo, ooo, me too! (Score:1)
Re:Never Underestimate The Stupidity Consumers (Score:1)
The only way that I would be sympathetic to the consumer is if they are either physically blind or nearly blind, whereby they cannot physically read the fine print. To the rest of these yahoos, tough luck, learn to read.
There was a story on Dateline a few days ago about a company who was selling credit card protection, claiming that you would be responsible if your card was stolen. Of course everyone knows that you are only liable for $50. But not these morons who were taken. Oh no, they are too good to actually read the terms of the card, where it says in plain english, YOU ARE ONLY LIABLE FOR $50. (In fairness I think the company who was actually selling this never really sold them anything, so they are wrong and should be stopped, however, I am sure that a company that would actually provide this sort of protection would be branded a scam by Dateline with little provocation).
This is the problem with the US, people are lazy, I mean LAZY. They expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter, when life actually requires you to think once in a while.
There is a sucker born every minute, but you can no longer take advantage of this in the US without getting busted. Sad, trying to fight Darwin tooth and nail.
ughh, sorry for the meandering rant.
Re:Ooo, ooo, me too! (Score:1)
$400 Rebates (Score:5)
Brother..... (Score:1)
If sounds too good to be true... (Score:1)
Free PC -- HA !
Re:My 2 cents... (Score:1)
t1 not included (Score:2)
kick some CAD [cadfu.com]
May I enlighten your self-interest? (Score:2)
A lot of posters have been angrily pointing out that - in various ways - if the good lord had not intended consumers shorn, he would not have created them sheep.
While there is some truth in that, it's worth bearing in mind that dishonest marketing enables an unscrupulous trader to take market share from the decent and honest merchants that people of discernment, distinction and intelligence (such as are to be found posting here) would prefer to deal with.
Losing market share yet not wanting to sell at a loss, those decent and honest merchants must needs raise their prices in proportion to their loss of economies of scale.
Hence, what the FTC is doing is protecting you, the smart consumer, from the financial and market consequences of the stupidity of the herd.
As such, their action is to be applauded.
Re:My 2 cents... (Score:1)
--
This is silly (Score:3)
C'mon. These companies are selling a service, not hardware. If the buyer didn't figure this out when they signed on the dotted line, then it sucks to be them.
Re:Free eMachines for $600 of 'net service. (Score:1)
--
so wait.. (Score:5)
shamless (Score:1)
kick some CAD [cadfu.com]
Re:What about FreeDSL? (Score:1)
I've heard FreeXDSL.com is better.
Personally, I want good service, so I'll pay for it.
--
Doesn't this seem arbitrary? (Score:4)
Details about restrictions were either missing from the ads or printed in miniscule type.
Lack of Details? Miniscule Type? Anyone who has ever watched any TV commercial is used to these sins. ...credit cards, automobiles, cigarettes, alcohol, weight loss programs, just about every product or service that can be sold... vast amounts of advertising lies hide behind indecipherably-sized "qualifications" of the adverted claims, qualifications which often amount to "What we just said was true iff you ignore all of these ugly details" or "The results we just claimed occur only in exceedingly rare cases." We are merely seeing examples of such qualification in the other objectionable parts of the "Free PC" ads cited by the FTC.
I'm not saying that the FTC's accusations are wrong. What is wrong is that when the FTC picks on only certain companies or ad campaigns. The FTC should either address the greater problem of almost universal deception in advertising, or abandon the issue altogether.
Not quite the same, but very related (Score:2)
They'll say over and over again, "Only...nine...hundred...dollars...NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS! We've never had a deal like this!" and that's what the large bold price in the lower left says. But that price is after rebates, and they don't mention that you have to send in the rebates half as often as they mention how $900 is an incredible deal. Also, on some of the channels, they only show the true price once every few minutes, which I feel is straight out fraud.
I also feel that the AOL deals you have to sign up for are not as well explained as they should be. They quietly hide the fact that in addition to the $1200 you have to pay for the $900 computer, you have to sign up for $720 worth of AOL. Even though you'll need Internet access anyway, and the "overall" deal isn't too bad, it requires you to put over $2100 up front.
Anyway, I'm glad someone's stepping in for the consumer. Most people interested in these deals are rather ignorant and rely on the salespeople to steer them right. These salespeople are, in turn, rattling off terms like "700 megahertz Athlon processor" knowing the consumer has no idea what it means. Then they tell the weary consumer how cheap it is, and the consumer signs up, not caring anymore. They just want a computer and to know how much it costs.
Banks in on the act (Score:1)
The bank saves by having more customers using it's online services, and just offers its name to give credibility to the product.
Re:Here's the math (Score:1)
You're just entering college, and don't have that much money. (What student doesn't?) You have a regular job, but either can't or don't want to put the computer on a credit card. You figure that you'll pretty much need 56K internet access for a couple years any way, and know that you can't afford the $30-$50 a month for a high speed account, and most companies allow upgrades on contracts anyway, if you decide to go that route. So, you get a cheap PC, and get a new internet account setup. I know a lot of students that this worked out really well for.
OEMs can work out deals with Microsoft to give discounts on Windows computers sold with MSN internet. (Some might even do something slessy, like sell you MSN with a computer, take the rebate check, and not tell the costumer about it at all. This does happen, I have seen it for myself. ) Just because an OEM is offering a discount doesn't mean that its a piece of crap your getting, companies like Compaq, HP, give these rebates also.
Let's do some more math for our college student:
Computer purchased on credit at 20% interest, with decent 56k internet access: ($400 * 1.2) + ($20 * 36) = 1200
Computer purchased with rebate and internet access: ($0) + ($20 * 36) = 720
I have seen several people get burned with this type of deal, but if one plays there cards right it can work out well. I don't normally recommend it to friends, but their is use in some people getting free PC's.
Wait a second (Score:2)
Anyway, what the FTC said was 'be more up front with your advertising'. No one had their children spying on them or their face stuffed in a cage with hungry rats. The point is that you can rip people off all you want - as long as you do it openly. It's the lying the FTC is trying to stop.
Plus, I think it's easy for us technical people to forget that for most people computers and the internet are mysterious, frustrating and frightening. Little do they realize they're supposed to be frustrating and annoying.
Double Negative (Score:1)
Re:Proof That Government Can Be Good (Score:2)
If that's what your eyes see, maybe you should consider having them upgraded [slashdot.org]. In fact, the government in the Gilded Age was constantly meddling in the economy, on the side of big business (e.g. strikebreaking either directly or by turning a selective blind eye to crimes committed by the Pinkerton gang). Not a free market by any reasonable definition.
But everybody ended up getting screwed except for either the really smart, clever, ruthless people, the really rich people, or the really rich, smart, clever, and ruthless people.
More accurately, the politically connected were able to screw everybody else, which is what happens when the extent of government exceeds a certain critical threshold.
To drag the thread back onto the topic, the fundamental issue here is the definition of "fraud". There is a vast mushy grey area between putting one's best foot forward and outright lying. It is a legitimate function of government to draw some sort of line in the grey area and enforce it. The main concern I see with the FTC action is that it seems to be trying to do the former (a legislative prerogative) when its mandate is limited to the latter.
/.
Re:Never Underestimate The Stupidity Consumers (Score:2)
No, it's not at all harsh.
Stupidity should be painful, and excessive stupidity should be fatal.
Preferably before reproduction occurs, but unfortunately that isn't the case often enough.
--
Re:What about FreeDSL? (Score:1)
A few bits from their Terms of Service [freedsl.com]:
You are prohibited from taking any action to bypass, defeat, or disable any functionality of the Service, including, without limitation, any action that alters, blocks, or disables any advertisement, banner, promotional material of any proprietary notices, or labels that are provided on the Software or through the Service. Winfire will immediately charge You for the Enhanced Level Service 1: DSL Plus if You do any of the abovementioned prohibited actions and you hereby consent to such charge.
If you try to hack the software to get rid of the banners, they'll start charging you $10/month.
i) Basic Level Service
FreeDSL, with connection up to 144K (depending on Your phone line).
Terms: No monthly fee. Thirteen (13) month service commitment; penalty for early cancellation.
It's only 114kbps DSL (slower than ISDN)! And if you aren't satisfied with their service, you have to keep using for 13 months or pay a cancellation fee (uncertain of amount for Free DSL, but for the Enhanced DSL services, the cancellation fee is $200).
In order to use the Service, it is necessary to have a Modem. This Modem must be compatible with our network.
Self-explanatory. According to http://www.freedsl.com/join/modem.asp [freedsl.com], DSL modems cost $179.
You are responsible for providing the proper operating environment for the Modem and You expressly agree not to abuse it, or expose the Modem to moisture, excessive heat or cold, electrical current in excess of its operating specification, or other conditions inconsistent with the Instructions.
And if you break the DSL modem, you have to pay for it (another $179?) as well as shipping, etc. EVEN IF you don't want a replacement.
You agree to only register one e-mail address with Winfire. If You register more than one e-mail address, Winfire may terminate Your Account.
Not certain if this pertains to only Winfire e-mail accounts or e-mail accounts anywhere (if it's the latter case, eww...)
All that, and you have to put up with the ads. Anything else I missed?
--
EMachine not honoring rebates (Score:1)
Re:Never Underestimate The Stupidity Consumers (Score:1)
Remember: not everything is obvious to all people. The people being duped by these kinds of scams aren't all illiterate trailer trash. They're normal people, and normal people routinely do things that require a lot more intelligence than some people like to give credit for.
The problem is not that people are dumb, but that the human animal has predictable behaviour traits. Psychologists and human behaviourists have studied us as a species for some time now, and they've learned a lot about how we work, what motivates us, and how we can be manipulated. They know our back doors.
Some unscrupulous people use this knowledge of human behaviour in the fields of confidence scams, telemarketing and shystering. In the corporate world, manipulating people into doing things (especially making purchases) that are against their own best interests is considered just part of doing business; there's no shame in using people's psychological makeup against themselves, so long as it results in increased profits for the business.
Attempts to mislead abound. Offers for "free" goods that in fact require substantial supplementary purchases to obtain. TV commercials where actors with stethoscopes and white lab coats pimp pain relievers and nicotene patches, never outright claiming to be doctors, but trying very hard to imply to the viewer that they are medical authorities. Music, perfumes and pheramones pumped into boutiques to put consumers into a state of mind where they are better disposed to making purchases. There is a giant industry dedicated to manipulating people into making purchases that they ordinarily wouldn't make, using a variety of methods both obvious and subtle.
Many of us realize that others are attempting to manipulate them, and so have trained ourselves to be suspicious when we hear trigger words like free. But we have trained ourselves to act against our basic nature. We can't expect that everyone is so disciplined as to completely abandon their basic human nature and treat everything they see and hear with suspicion. In fact, this is really undesirable; it's unconscionable to say that we have to give up being human just to protect ourselves from unscrupulous marketers. A better solution is to demand a higher ethical standard from marketers; to place limits on the kinds of scams they can try to pull.
A healthy dose of suspicion and skepticism is probably an essential defense mechanism in modern society, but that does not mean that we should sit by and allow advertisers to try to decieve, mislead and manipulate and then blame those who fall for it for failing to suppress their natural instincts as human beings.
Go FTC! (Score:1)
So, you end up standing there looking everywhere (I'm talking about looking for several minutes) for some explanation of why this computer is $0. Sometimes there's a "*" and sometimes not, but either way (at this particular store anyway, and I don't think they're unique) there's no fine print to be found. With some machines like the e-Machines they already have 1-2 rebates from the manufacturer and then the store automatically deducts the ISP rebate which can also vary depending on who the ISP is (although it is often $400).
Anyway, if the FTC doesn't enforce this I'm sure a lot of newbie computer users will get screwed. Who the hell buys these 3-year ISP deals, anyway?
Re:There's only one way they'll listen (Score:2)
Unless she barbeques them first...
--
We are not as stuped as they think (Score:1)
And here is the fallacy of assuming that consumers are stupid. A consumer does not have to be stupid to fall for ads, just less smart then the copywriters. The FTC is needed not because consumers are stupid, but because advertiser spend their days creating not so obvious lies. The hard job of the FTC is to determine when those lies become harmful. For instance, Pizza Hut can say it has the best pizza under one roof, because that is obvious hyperbole, but Papa John implying that Pizza Hut uses water out rusty taps may be harmful. Saying a PC, or anything, is free when money is required up front is a lie. Even if you get that money back, there is small but finite amount of value lost in inflation. People should understand that this is the case, but it requires a level of critical thinking that many people lack.
My favorite example of successful deceitful advertising is Sunny Delight. Many people buy Sunny Delight instead of Orange juice. It is cheaper, tastes better to a certain palette, and the ads show happy healthy children. Sunny Delight is also mostly sugar with few of the benefits of Orange Juice. These ads do not lie, but they are carefully constructed to mislead and cajole. The only people who do not fall for these lies are those that are smarter than the highly paid, highly motivated, advertising demons.
Re:$400 Rebates (Score:2)
There is plenty of fine print in each and every one of those contracts. Too bas little Lucy and Bo who live in the doublewide down at the trailer park don't bother to read it.
Re:Please get your facts right (Score:1)
BTW, even though I think you are just a bedwetting spammer, I did get a kick out of your sig link. Caught me off guard. You get points for that.
"free" PCs (Score:1)
There's only one way they'll listen (Score:1)
It's time to send in Janet Reno and seize his children!
Re:This is silly (Score:1)
It all boils down to common sense. I have no sympathy for those who refuse to think when typing on a computer keyboard.
Common people just don't understand... (Score:1)
libertarian != anarchist (Score:1)
Secondly, libertarianism is not anarchism. While it's probably true that some libertarians are anarchists, your garden variety libertarian recognizes that government is necessary for certain things, such as protecting the life, liberty, and property of the citizens.
Libertarianism is distinguished by the fact that its subscribers tend to have a smaller list of "necessary (or permissible) functions of government" than most people, but that doesn't mean that the list is empty.
Are you trolling, by any chance?
Re:so wait..no wait (Score:1)
Re:This is silly (Score:1)
Makes me wonder. The free PC market has already had quite a few casualties. Am I wrong, or wasn't the big free PC fad about this time last year?
blessings,
People NOT idiots??? ... oh yes they are!! (Score:1)
Have you never worked closely with people? After working for 15 months at Sears behind the customer service desk, I made the following observations:
1. Most people have no concept of compound interest; a low monthly credit card payment means you got a "good deal."
2. A simple sales tax computation is beyond the grasp of a good number of people, including fresh high-school graduates.
People are idiots because they refuse to think. The brain, like a muscle, atropies when not used. Sure there ARE predators out there that are out to rip people off, but failing to read the fine print on a contract or not doing simple math is no excuse to cry injustice. There are certain survival skills that all of us have to follow, whether it be in the jungle or in the city. Failing to grasp the simpler skills makes you an easy target.
We can't live in an idiot proof society; idiots won't let us. Libertarianism is fine thing for people who stand up to take responsibility for their lives. Unfortunately, irresponsible people will see this as a license to commit even more irresponsible acts.
Until virtually everyone decides to practice critical thinking and responsible decision making, we WILL have to suffer fools.
Re:Two words (Score:1)
I think this is a point that most people forget. At some time recently, that lesson went out of fashion per se. What we need are some more public service programs (read education) that say, "Before you spend any money, do some research."
I am absolutely amazed by the number of people that go to a car dealer to buy a car, and they say "I can afford this much per month." I can guarantee that that person will get their car at that price plus 20 per month (what's a few dollars?) and be happy. Then slowly become miserable when they realize they are paying that affordable amount for 6 or 7 or more years.
If people do research before purchasing anything, they will know what the scams are and what the deals are. And as other posters mentioned, it is impossible to know everything about everything, but this is different. Just know enough about what you are buying.
Re:We are not as stuped as they think (Score:1)
Also (offtopic), on Sunny Delight -- I'm glad I'm not the only parent who sees through this marketing B.S. and reads the nutrition label! I couldn't believe it when I read the label on a Sunny Delight bottle before (our kids like it so my wife used to think it was just another orange juice and bought it for them) -- it's laughable how close it is to Kool-aid and people think it's good for their kids!
Same thing with those Lunchables "meal-packs". Products like these are worse than junk food because their makers/distributors try to pass them off as "just as good as" real food or orange juice when simply reading the *government* required nutrition label refutes advertising. But how many people actually read those labels even some of the time?
Re:Here's the math (Score:1)
They cover most major cities--unfortunately, not where I live, but I have heard Good Things about the service.
Or the other obvious reasons (Score:2)
Or 3) the FTC goes after lots of people all the time for similar reasons when they step over a line, and this is being reported on because its trendy.
Or 4) The FTC works on a basis of consumer/Better Buniness Bureau complaints and these companies have been having a lot of upset [would be] customers who are complaining.
OR 5) The issues they cited were considered bad by degree, and they determined that these companies were violating them to a degree more action worthy than others.
!OR! 6) They are planning to go after these issues in a more generalized way and are starting with an easy to understand target that a lot of people complain about and has extreme versions of the problems so that they can be sure it will all hold water before spreading out the enforcement.
Or maybe some /.ers just have to bash govenment one way or another. The FTC does its job and the anti-govs who don't call them fascists complain that they didn't try to sweep the entire ad industry this week. And a big brother comment in the main post, no less. Can we try to be a little less paranoid around here?
-Kahuna Burger
Re:so wait.. (Score:1)
Re:My 2 cents... (Score:2)
I went to see my *investment* banker today... (Score:3)
Let's see... 36 months of MSN at $22/month comes out to just about $800, a return of -200%!!
And to think, I was going to trust this guy to manage my portfolio! I should have turned around and ran the other way when he informed me that 70% of the 600 million (!!) people living in the U.S. do not currently own a computer...
What, do they give degrees out at candy stores now?
Re:Proof That Government Can Be Good (Score:5)
As a Libertarian, I will attempt to explain my position.
(apologies to Eric Raymond, of course). There are obviously people and--more often--corporations who purposefully deceive consumers to the fullest extent possible for the sake of making a big fat profit. That's why we have things like fraud laws and agencies like the FTC to enforce them.
The protection of the people against initiation of force and fraud are about the only things Libertarians DO believe is the role of government. Libertarians absolutely oppose the use of fraud.
It isn't easy for average Americans (bless their dim li'l hearts) to see through these kinds of offers, and it's great to see people who know what they're doing trying to protect them. Kudos to the FTC.
Here is where we actually depart ways. I do not believe the average American is an idiot. I believe people should be free. With that freedom, comes responsibility. A society that protects its citizens from responsibility is not a free society. Would you really want to live in an "idiot proof" society? Are you willing to give up your rights as an adult in order to have the government raise you children for you? Are you willing to give up a free market in order to avoid having to read the fine print?
Re:Here's the math (Score:2)
You're just entering college, and don't have that much money. . . . You figure that you'll pretty much need 56K internet access for a couple years any way
Any college student that figures as such is, frankly, an idiot. For about $30-50 paid at one time, that student can get access to their school's LAN with a desktop PC. A free Internet access provider provides service for those times when the computer is at home (i.e. now). There is no reason to have a traditional dial-up service while at college, unless you move off campus -- always an option.
BTW, I did know a few people (humanities majors, mostly) who still did keep and chiefly use their AOL accounts while at college. Fortunately, most of them chose to connect via TCP/IP instead of dialing in.
The Fine Print (Score:2)
The FTC has a case (Score:2)
I think it is also misleading to advertise prices with the rebate amount already subtracted. Rebates and coupons are always "invalid when combined with other offers," so their real value is always less than their claimed value. A $300 rebate on computer equipment for opening an E*Trade account isn't really worth $300 when anyone can get a $75 cash rebate for opening an account with no further purchase requirement. A $400 rebate for committing to an ISP for three years isn't worth $400 if you're committed to paying more per month than other users of that ISP.
Is there any computer advertising that is not misleading? True monitor sizes are always "viewable area" fine print -- has that carried over to flat screens yet? Printer pages per minute figures practically assume blank pages. 56K modems don't run faster than 53K. Disk drive manufacturers have decided that a gigabyte is 10^9 bytes, not 2^30 bytes (a 7% difference; when we start talking about terabytes it will be a 10% difference).
Lawyer:Getting people to read contracts is *tough* (Score:2)
Even in my office, I had trouble getting people to read the document. Yes, I was their lawyer, and no, I wasn't tryring to trick them. But, damnit, when someone's signing under penalty of perjury that they've read the document before signing, I expect them to read it -- *especially* when I'm notarizing their oath.
Nonetheless, again and again, people tried to just sign it, and were surprised that I wouldn't let them hand it back to me without actually reading it . . .
I had this problem even though I was conscientious about it. For a clerk who just has to initial it it will be a lot worse.. . .
There's also the problem of an "adhesion contract." If you hand someone the contract and tell them what it says rather than making them read it, the contract is on the terms you tell them, not the written contract. A few car rental companies have been burned badly this way.
hawk, esq.
Reminds me of the Pizza Hut ad here in Australia (Score:2)
Vivek Mittal
Research Technologist
Telstra Research Labs
Re:libertarian != anarchist (Score:2)
Maybe I shouldn't have named libertarians, anarchists, or anyone--just "those who thing the FTC was wrong to do this." Free-marketers would probably be the most accurate description.
--
Re:"free" PCs (Score:2)
Around 800 dollar for the three year plan, minus 400 for the rebate, equals about 400 for 3 years of internet access, or a little over 10 dollars a month
Nope. $800 for the PC, minus $400 for the rebate, equals $400 for the PC after rebate. The Internet access costs $21.95 per month (apparently AOL sets the trend for such things) for three years, which you must pay even if you never use it or decide to go with DSL instead. The $400 rebate winds up saving you negative $390.20 after you pay for your 36 months of Internet service.
TANSTAAFL (Score:3)
"There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch".
20 Page Legal agreement to buy a music CD? (Score:2)
Now adays it's far far worse. My last health insurance policy was some 50 pages... totally incomprehensible. With complicated legal agreements, a summary in large print is absolutely necessary... and that summary needs to be fairly accurate. Leaving out essential items from the large print like... "only valid w/ rebate" or "only with 2 year $500 service contract" is just plain old deception. Period.
Pretty soon we will be facing an 15 page ELUA for music CDs on the shrink wrap. I don't have time to scan every legal agreement... do you? What if it says you can't use it with a non-sony player... on page 4, 6th paragraph, sentance 2?
We have a right to expect the large print to accurately reflect the legaleaze for every day transactions.
False Advertising should be punished heavily (Score:4)
Good grief! Is it not simple enough to make a law that says, "The price you advertise next to a product must match the product advertised?"
--
Re:Proof That Government Can Be Good (Score:2)
But whether or not you think the average person is stupid or smart, one thing is absolutely true: he is not able to be well informed on every subject necessary to make him a good consumer. And as long as they are able, companies will take advantage of that fact in order to bleed as much money out of him as possible. Whether they do it through outright fraud or through somewhat deceptive practices, it's going to happen. Marketing works, and it's something that is by its very nature deceptive. (Yes, I know there are exceptions.)
As for the fact that libertarians believe that government should fight fraud--good, I'm glad you think so. I guess I assumed that they would think it wasn't fraud in this case because a well informed consumer would know better. To me, that isn't a fair standard. (I realize that it sounds fair. Doesn't make it so.) Tell me, do you think it's fraud in this case?
Would you really want to live in an "idiot proof" society? Are you willing to give up your rights as an adult in order to have the government raise you children for you?
These questions really cut too broad strokes for me to answer them intelligently, and I'm not sure they're relevant. Mostly they seem rhetorical.
Are you willing to give up a free market in order to avoid having to read the fine print?
If you mean perfectly free, yes. Absolutely. Only not to give up reading the fine print. I just don't want it to be fine. What do I really want? A society based on truth, rather than deception.
--
reading the fine print (Score:3)
Secondly, they put so much boilerplate garbage in there that it is extremely tedious reading. Paid at the wages I'd draw for reviewing such documents, the effort of reading would often be more costly than the real price of the service.
That sheer length also makes you tend to skim, if you do read it. Instead of looking at every word and thinking "what does that really mean?" (as you should do when dealing with anything written by a lawyer) you are tempted to take things at their first appearance.
People really should start saying "No, I'm not signing that, this (lease/license/service/purchase) is a simple thing and the contract should be under a page of normal-sized type." But it's become such common practice that you simply wouldn't be able to get many services without signing a contract that the average person just can't fully understand.
It would take an organized effort to end small-print trickery. Maybe such a group already exists... I'm going searching, I want to join!
Never Overestimate The Grammar Slashdotters (Score:3)
No wait, stoned people in glasses shouldn't throw houseparties.
No, that's not it, housepeople should use stonewear not glasses.
Forget it. I may not make sense, but at least I grammar right.
Re:Never Overestimate The Grammar Slashdotters (Score:2)
We're talking about the consumers of stupidity. Duh.
---
seumas.com
Why Big Bro watches (Score:2)
Here's the math (Score:3)
$0 for a CPU
$250 for a monitor
$225 for CompUSA service contract
$21/mo for 3 years = $756
Total for a cheap piece of garbage: $1231
Not exactly rocket science!
JHK
Pop never sounded this good before! [ballinthehouse.com]
Not flaming you or anything... (Score:2)
Many people have complained in the past that what they get at/from a restaurant doesn't look like what they saw on TV. There is a good reason for this...
Heat.
Specifically, heat from the lamps used to light the "scene" being shown of the food. These lights get damn hot (ask an actor), and food can't stand up too them, so they "fake" the food up in many ways (like motor oil being used for syrup).
I saw a show on FoodTV (or some other channel) about this - they showed how they made "roasted" turkey for those Thanksgiving meals you see on TV come November/December - they take a regular turkey (or chicken, or whatever), and use a heat gun on it! Makes it nice and brown on the outside, as even colored as they want, in no time flat. Use a knife to cut a little breast meat, then "roast" that with the heat gun. Spray a bit of oil on it - voila! - instant turkey.
For the turkey, though, it wasn't so much about heat as it was about time, and appearance - it takes a good cook to make a great looking turkey, and even then, they couldn't get it done in the 30 minutes it takes to make a "fake" roast turkey...
My 2 cents... (Score:2)
Proof That Government Can Be Good (Score:3)
--
I believe you're right! (Score:2)
Two words (Score:2)
--
Re:Your Friendly Big Government (Score:2)
In the bad old days of high fidelity audio equipment, there was a contest among the manufacturers and retailers to see who could write the most misleading ads for audio amplifiers. You would see ads for a 500 Watt audio amplifier, which meant that the amplifier produced 500 Watts, in one channel, for 10 milliseconds, at 90% total harmonic distortion, with a 1% duty cycle. This was unfair to ethical companies that advertised realistic power ratings. The FTC cracked down on the audio industry and made everyone use realistic measurement techniques.
Re:Proof That Government Can Be Good (Score:2)
--
Re:Never Underestimate The Stupidity Consumers (Score:2)
It's a little harsh to criticize the people who fall for such things as the Publishers Clearing House sweepstakes. A lot of the people who participate in such things are older, isolated, not very cunning, maybe losing a little cognitice sparkle and from an era where people were more trusting...
Wait, now that I think about it , isolated, not very cunning and lacking cognitive sparkle also describes most of the people I encountered working tech support. And those people need the FTC to help them out, especially if the FTC could help them type faster and tell the difference between a right and left mouse click.
Free eMachines for $600 of 'net service. (Score:2)
puzzling (Score:2)
What about FreeDSL? (Score:2)
It's about time time. (Score:2)
Claiming that something is free when people have to pay for it out of pocket is not healthy. That's rude.
Re:$400 Rebates (Score:2)
But my problem is I don't want to read the freaking fine print on every single add just to figure the real price...
About 50% of the stuff at Circut City has a rebate these days... annoying as heck..
$1354 Original Price - $400 Compuserve 2000 Premier Internet Service Instant Savings - $75 eMachines Mail-In Rebate - $50 Canon Mail-In Rebate - $130 in Circut City Mail-in Rebates - $200 Price Break = $499
Thats real text from a Circut City add today...
Re:reading the fine print (Score:2)
good government (Score:2)
i completely disagree. the gov exist for all people, even the stupid ones. a company with some decent marketing can do a lot of damage to consumers before the gov catches up and puts a stop to it, and if the FTC wants to come down on these dumb ads, more power to them.
one of my friends works with autistic people, and *some* of them just give their money away. they have no idea what it is. they just figure "if you want it, here ya go".
presumably, there are other people out there that are more functional, but still gullible enough to fall for this "free pc" bs.
i see no reason why the wolves of our society should be able to prey on them unhindered. if you have to spend money to get the device, then it's not free, and the ads should be clearer.
Re:My 2 cents... (Score:2)
Re:TANSTAAFL (Score:2)
"The broader the smile, the sharper the knife"
Re:And remember this... (Score:2)
"Not using double negatives will be disallowed" - Sabrina:tTW.
Re:Proof That Government Can Be Good (Score:2)
It used to be illegal to use the word 'free' in advertising *at all* unless something actuall was free.
An ad saying 'come on down and get your Free mattress today!' meant exactly that. If people showed up, and you said 'it's only free if you buy another one first', you got sued..
Re:Here's the math (Score:2)
$250 for a monitor
$225 for CompUSA service contract
$21/mo for 3 years = $756
Total for a cheap piece of garbage: $1231
Oh. I was expecting "priceless" in the punch line.
--
Re:This is silly (Score:3)
Nope, it sucks to the poor tech support rep that gets to explain the charges appearing on the idiot's credit card statement.
Background: I worked for an ISP as a lowly tech suport rep(no longer exists, they were bought out by CompuServe / AOL / Mindspring / Earthlink), and we had one of the first single disk setup for windows (maybe the first? can't remember) that a user could use to create their own ISP account, without help from the ISP.
I to this day am amazed at how many users failed to grasp that when they click okay, after entering their credit card agreement, and picking a monthly pricing plan, that they just might be charged, even if they don't understand what they just did!