Picture this: you receive an email, or see a banner ad, that congratulates you for somehow being eligible to receive a free plasma TV or a free Nintendo Wii, if you would just take a few minutes to complete a survey, with no visible indication of any conditions. When you click on these promising propositions, you find yourself thrown into a miry labyrinth of third-party offers that are largely irrelevant to what you had originally hoped to walk away with. Soon enough, you realize that those “free” products that were dangled in front of you just a few moments before now require your participation in peripheral offers that require you to put down some cash, nullifying the whole notion of “free” that lured you in the first place.
This makes you feel:
A) Happy, because after you complete those few offers, you’ll have your coveted “free” product
B) Sad, because you feel deceived and realize that nothing that good in this world is entirely free
C) Angry, because you feel duped and realize that these tricksters are probably making a sizable living off of those more unknowing
D) Apathetic, because this is nothing new
Most, if not all of you, probably chose answer D. The Federal Trade Commission was not apathetic, but thirsty to make an example out of a big enabler of these types of dubious activities.
ValueClick, the sixth fastest gaining Web property in 2007 (according to comScore Media Metrix), was that example.
On February 13, ValueClick announced that it had agreed to a $2.9 million settlement with the FTC and recorded a charge for that amount on its fourth quarter 2007 financial results. The FTC made the settlement more authoritative and audible on Monday.
The FTC’s complaint was two-tiered. Not only did it charge ValueClick and its Hi-Speed Media and E-Babylon subsidiaries with the use of misleading advertising conveyed in spam emails, banner ads, and pop-up windows, but also with the failure to secure consumers’ sensitive financial information. The latter charge comes in the midst of false claims that consumers’ information was secured according to industry standards.
Going forward, ValueClick will be forced to clearly divulge the real costs behind “free” advertising offers, and must back up its information security claims.
The $2.9 million settlement is the largest ever stemming from the 2003 CAN-SPAM Act. It garnered a unanimous 5-0 vote in favor of the settlement, and marks the commission’s third case targeting deceptive “free” merchandise offers extended by Internet lead-generation activities, and the 18th case directed at faulty data security practices at a company that deals with sensitive consumer data.
Sources:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/03/17/
ValueClick-to-pay-to-settle-spam-complaint_1.html
http://blog.clickz.com/080317-170201.html
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=
Articles.showArticle&art_aid=75680&passFuseAction=
PublicationsSearch.showSearchReslts
&art_searched=valueclick&page_number=2
Jason Hahn
e: jhahn221@gmail.com
|
Digg 
