FTC Settles With Texas Based Spammer

fermion writes "The FTC has settled with the Austin, Texas-based company, ClickForMail.Com, Inc, on a charge of deceptive trade practices. The FTC charges that ClickForMail promised a preapproved credit card through AllPreApproved.com but failed to deliver the product. We all have heard that such spam and schemes can be very profitable, but do we ever believe a large number of people will fall for it? In this case, thousands took the bait. The victims allowed AllPreApproved.com to deduct $49.95 from their bank accounts. In return the victims received not a credit card, but a list of hyperlinks which could be used to get credit cards." (Read on for more.)

"As is usual, the settlement does not assign blame. The FTC made ClickForMail pay $815,000 and promise not to lie about its services in the future. Apparently ClickForMail is not prohibited from sending out future UCE. This investigation is part of an FTC task force which is filing actions against 45 companies. One of the scams is an update of the eternal scholarship con.

If anyone gets spam from Texas, or if you live in Texas, make sure to use the new Texas Spam Law. Individuals can sue for $10 per UCE, up to $25,000 a day."

Another light settlement

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't lie again? It wasn't legal before. Why is that even in the settlement? Did they return the money to those they defrauded? What's the FTC trying to accomplish here? Is this too many questions in a row?

nice

[doofusclam]

So as they've been essentially let off the hook, what's to stop them doing it again under a different name? And does the fine cover the revenue they fraudulently took from people?

Re:nice

[herrvinny]

815,000 divided by $49.95 is more than 16,000, so yes, the fine probably does cover the revenue from the scheme.

I have trouble caring

[tiled_rainbows]

I know that spamming is wrong, and fraud is wrong, and spamming + fraud is therefore doubly wrong, but in cases like this, as with the Nigerian money-laundering scams, I find it very difficult to sympathise with the victims of such a blatant scam. I know I should, but there's a cruel part of me that sees this as stupid people being taught a painful but valuable lesson.

Re:I have trouble caring

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

"I know that spamming is wrong, and fraud is wrong, and spamming + fraud is therefore doubly wrong,"

Nope. Two wrongs make a right. Didn't you get the memo?

Re:I have trouble caring

[JuggleGeek]

I don't sympathize with the victims at all - they were idiots, they lost 49.95 each, and they'll probably send more money to another spammer before long.

Even so, the scammer should be punished, hard. I'm not convinced this is hard enough.

He faces a $ 3.6 million fine!

[spineboy]

This is IF the jury finds him guilty as accused. I imagine the defense lawyer will want a jury who has never touched a computer, so that he doesnt wind up with 12 spam angered jurors, who throw the book at his client.

How about as a suggestion for posting guidelines. Most of the initial replies I have seen so far on this article indicated that they didn't read the article. Can you make a link counter, or cookie system that automatically mods down the posters score by 1 point if they haven't read at least one of the links? I know there could be problems with this, but it'll help reduce the chaff, and improve the S/N ratio. Just a thought

Re:He faces a $ 3.6 million fine!

[scrytch]

> I know there could be problems with this, but it'll help reduce the chaff, and improve the S/N ratio. Just a thought

Actually, it would likely have the opposite effect of what you intended -- people who already read the article before it was posted to slashdot, or otherwise already understand the issue in depth would be penalized for not clicking through, resulting in more noise.

You could force people to take a quiz, which might even be appropriate for an academic forum with a panel of people whose ti

No prison time?

[Unsolicited Commando]

Hmmm... he lied to customers, gleefully took their money, and wasted communication resources. I know many states like Texas have fines in place. Even here in California on Jan 1st 2004 fines will be $1000 per UCE, but no matter how much the fines are as long as there is no jail time the fines will just become part of their business plan.

Re:No prison time?

[Steve B]

I know many states like Texas have fines in place.

Darn -- I'd just sort of assuming that somebody caught spamming in Texas would get the death penalty....

How convenient.

[dacarr]

They slap him with a fine and don't tell him to not send spam. I'm worried this is going to set a precedent.

Re:How convenient.

[Kindaian]

How could they sue him again and get more fines if they would proibit him to do it again? ;)