Toyota Claims Woman "Opted In" To Faux Email Stalking 667
An anonymous reader writes "ABC News is reporting that a California woman is suing Toyota for $10 million for sending her email that appeared to be from a criminal stalker. The woman claims the emails terrified her to the point that she suffered sleeplessness, poor work performance, etc. Toyota says the ruse was part of a marketing campaign for the Toyota Matrix. A Toyota spokesman says they are not liable for the woman's distress, because 'The person who made this claim specifically opted in, granting her permission to receive campaign emails and other communications from Toyota.'"
I'm over 35 (Score:5, Insightful)
Saatchi & Saatchi told the marketing magazine OMMA last year that it had developed the campaign to target men under 35 who hate advertising.
I'm over 35 and I really hate advertising now. If I did something like this, I'd be in jail awaiting trial, my name would be smeared all over the place, and my life as I know it would be over - even Saatchi & Saatchi wouldn't hire me.
Toyota? Nothing.
Saatchi & Saatchi? They'll probably get more business because the dipshit MBAs will think that "there's no such thing as bad publicity."
Assholes.
Re:I'm over 35 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm over 35 (Score:5, Funny)
When I first read the article, it made me realize that my least-favorite people were neatly represented here; a gold-digger playing "Lawsuit Lotto", brainless marketing drones, and two sets of evil lawyers; a) the lawyers who wrote a shitty, incomprehensible opt-in, and b) the ambulance-chasing losers inciting this woman to get every penny she thinks she deserves.
What I propose is simple. Arm them all with machetes, and drop them in a pit. Last one standing get lifted out, bandaged, and after convalescence is put to work earning a modest but honest living for the rest of their life.
Within 1 year, I predict that frivolous lawsuits would mostly cease to exist, legalese would become plainer, and slimy marketing campaigns would become scarce.
$_EVIL_RANT = "false"
The preceding text may contain hyperbole and derision, substances which the State of California has determined can cause cancer and advanced stages of whining. By reading this post, you agree to the following:
a) you are opting in to reading it, you agree not to hold the writer responsible for your personal wretchedness,
b) you agree not to take the writer literally, and/or post responses implying the above proposal was in any way serious (unless you are a television producer, and are willing to pay me lots of money to produce this as a prime-time sporting event),
c) you agree that if you have mod points, you will award the writer +1 (of any positive category of moderation),
d) and most importantly, you agree not to sue the writer in an attempt to pay off the credit cards you maxed out a couple years ago. Plus, I have no money, so suing me won't do you a damn bit of good anyway.
No mercy for the weak! (Score:3, Interesting)
Last one standing get lifted out,
Piffle. This here is Thunderdome. They leave under their own power or not at all. :-P
Re:I'm over 35 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'm over 35 (Score:5, Insightful)
I had forgotten the existence of the Toyota Matrix until I read this article.
When it comes to brand recognition, there IS no such thing as bad publicity. Brand association, on the other hand...
I'll be buying a commuter car in the next year. I was leaning toward a small Honda anyway -- but this gives me one more reason to not buy a Toyota.
That said, when it comes down to it, it'll be about prices and reviews anyway. And if this article helped me remember that Toyota offers a commuter car, then the PR campaign worked.
Re:I'm over 35 (Score:5, Funny)
I was leaning toward a small Honda anyway
Would that be the Honda Fit? It's a small, 5-door competitor to the Toyota Matrix which outperforms it in all customer satisfaction metrics, as well as fuel efficiency and crash safety. Plus, instead of steel, it's made of chocolate. Delicious AND biodegradable.
Don't tell anyone that we're 'turfing for Honda's PR company!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Toyota should be issued a restraining order to never contact this person again. Next time a flyer with a Toyota ad in it arrives at her door...jail time for the execs.
Seriously though, people in the company need to be held personally accountable. As you pointed out, litigation clearly isn't effective to prevent companies from doing things like this.
The Toyota and Saatchi marketing directors really should be dealt with as if they had stalked this woman. Similarly, those responsible for IKEA's "let's
Re:I'm over 35 (Score:5, Insightful)
There is such a thing as bad publicity, and you can very easily help end this.
Call your local dealerships and tell them that though you're a loyal Toyota customer, as a result of the Amber Duick situation and the way corporate has pretended there's nothing wrong with the situation, you apologize, but you cannot in good conscience remain a Toyota customer. Be polite, and be prepared to explain and to provide reference.
Then call Toyota and do the same. Toyota's toll free is 800-331-4331, and extension 5 is specifically dedicated to telling Toyota about experiences you've had with their company.
Tie up each call with "if Toyota were to publically apologize, release Saatchi and Saatchi from advertising and release Chad Harp from spokesmanship, I would be able to believe that this was a temporary oversight. As long as the company and individual who allowed this to happen retain their positions, I must conclude that Toyota believes that fake stalking by a man on the run from the law claiming to be ready to show up at the customer's home is an appropriate marketing behavior, and I cannot do business with you again."
Ask that the dealerships contact corporate and explain that they're losing customers as a result of Toyota believing that it's appropriate to pretend to stalk their customers.
They'll listen if they think their bottom line is at risk.
Clarification on the campain (Score:4, Informative)
It is designed as a prank to pull on someone else. What happens is you gave the email of someone you want to prank and it sent them a fake personality where they'd fill out their personal details and give consent to receive further emails.
You were then sent a schedule (or one was presented before you agreed to prank them) of exactly what they would receive.
This is not nearly as sinister as the money grabbing woman filing the lawsuit made out to be. Not only does it require someone you know to initially set up the prank, it describes the nature of the prank to whoever sets it up and, through the fake survey, it ensures that you have to actively take action for it to start and you are unlikely to be targetted by strangers.
If you sue anyone, sue the friend who not only started the prank, but didn't tell you about it when you were apparently being so traumatised.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Interestingly, Crazy girls most of the time are not also Hot, but Hot girls most of the time also turn out to be Crazy.
Opted In (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Opted In (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Opted In (Score:5, Funny)
Apple has been running a very creepy campaign recently where they get people in berets to sit in corner shops with Macs and sneer at potential customers.
Oh, sorry, I've just been informed that that wasn't a marketing effort at all, those were just regular Mac users.
Re:Opted In (Score:5, Funny)
If I received messages like that, I'm sure that I'd immediately run out and buy the car. Would that work for telephone soliciters?
CALLER: I'm coming over to kill you!
ME: Why yes, I'd like to test drive your new car.
CALLER: I'll also rape your dead body!
ME: Really! A free cookbook with a test drive. Awsome.
Advertising these days... (Score:5, Interesting)
Advertising gets weirder and weirder. I don't understand how this is supposed to get someone to buy a car. The only thing I could think of is she didn't had a car so maybe she's supposed to buy a Toyota so she can get the hell away? I think it's lost on me.
Re:Advertising these days... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not designed to get the stalkee to buy cars. It's designed to get the friend that set them up to buy cars. The friend is now in collusion with Toyota, they share a dirty little secret, they're friends now...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Boss) We need to come up with an edgy new marketing scheme...
Guy 1) Hey, let scare the shit out of some lady.
Guy 2) Yeah, Lets make up a fake stalker!!!
Guy 1) Sweet... Lets make him a criminal too!
Guy 2) Serial Killer?
Guy 1) Naw, Just a regular criminal.. Maybe petty theft?
Guy 2) From a different country?
Guy 1) Oh I like the way you think!!!
Boss) This is a GREAT idea, nothing can possibly go wrong! We will have people
Re:Advertising these days... (Score:4, Insightful)
"I think it's less to do with creating a good image of Toyota and more to do with getting people thinking about Toyota. "
It's working! I'm thinking: 'Toyota, what a bunch of assholes!'
I don't understand advertising (Score:4, Insightful)
How does this in any way make anyone want to buy a Toyota?
I get that companies all want to 'push the envelope' these days so you see them over the competition, but this is just ridiculous.
I guess that's another benefit to marking every email I don't recognise as spam.
Re:I don't understand advertising (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't understand advertising (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand North American business and advertising in general.
When you want nothing to do with them, they call you during dinner with things you don't want and don't need. When you do need them, because something is wrong with their product, they let you talk to machines until you get fed up.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
These days, the calls during dinner time are from machines too.
Re:I don't understand advertising (Score:4, Informative)
In the first case they don't have your money yet.
In the second case they already have your money.
This sudden transition from star to looser for the customer happens less frequently in most places in Western Europe because stronger consumer laws mean that as a consumer you can much more easily claw back your money without spending a penny in lawyers.
Read the damn EULA (Score:4, Funny)
Limitation on Scope of Content
The Toyota Web site, toyota.com, contains information regarding Toyota and its products and promotional programs. The Toyota vehicles described on this site contain uniquely American specifications and equipment and are offered for sale only in the continental U.S.A. The promotional programs described on this site are only available in the continental US and may be limited to particular states as described by the program. All pricing information referred to on this site is in U.S. dollars.
No Representation or Warranty
Toyota reserves the right to modify the information contained on this site at any time without notice. While Toyota makes all reasonable efforts to ensure that all material on this site is correct, accuracy cannot be guaranteed and Toyota does not assume any responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or authenticity of any information contained on this site. By viewing this site, you agree to release and indemnify Toyota from all legal responsibility arising from sending you emails, hiding in bushes outside your house, picking through your trash and dry-humping your dog, cat and/or hamster(s). This site and all information and materials contained herein, is provided to you as is without warranty of any kind.
Re:Read the damn EULA (Score:5, Informative)
And once again for those of you who are incredible dense ...
JUST BECAUSE YOU PUT IT IN A CONTRACT AND GET SOMEONE TO SIGN IT DOESN'T MAKE IT LEGALLY BINDING.
We've been over this, it in fact was one of the factors that lead to the civil war, after which we (the USA) made efforts to make it so a bullshit contract could no longer be considered valid.
The right to freedom in America should only be given to those who care enough to understand what having and protecting that right means, your right to freedom would most certainly be revoked.
Possible CAN SPAM implications (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Possible CAN SPAM implications (Score:4, Informative)
That's exactly what happened. She didn't purposely sign up to be stalked. One of her friends signed her up. To get her to "opt-in", she was sent an online quiz, and as part of the quiz she "signed" an EULA opting in to the "marketing campaign".
Her lawyer's point is that she didn't realize she was opting into being stalked; she thought she was opting in to take a stupid online quiz. You can't pretend that signing the thing is "informed consent", when the whole point of the quiz was to hide the fact that you were about to sign up for this "marketing campaign".
I think this comment [slashdot.org] demonstrates the principle pretty well.
Dear Toyota Marketing (Score:4, Insightful)
So it was okay because it was fake? (Score:3, Insightful)
work performance (Score:4, Funny)
she suffered sleeplessness, poor work performance...
Unanswered question: how was her work performance before the emails? Was it really that much worse?
$10M - Sounds a bit Low (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words anything that would, in plain English, explain what you were agreeing to, no one would sign.
And regarding $10M, though this may seem like a lot of money, the point to this type of suit is deterrent, and at $10M, I doubt that it is.
Sooo... (Score:4, Interesting)
[Hypothetical Situation:]
I jokingly said to the Toyota person 'oh sure, you can send me threatening email, but then I get to come to your store in the middle of the night and slash all the tires of your vehicles'. We both had a great laugh over it, shook hands, and we walked away.
2 death threats later, and Goodyear is having a wonderful fiscal year.
[/Hypothetical]
Somehow, I doubt Toyota would be as easily forgiving if the tables were reversed. So why should this women have to cave in?
Safe word? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, but terrifying sure is. Victims of stalking find that they are incapable of doing day-to-day things. The lady had a legitimate fear, she told her friends, then she later was ridiculed for those fears. This is all the fault of Toyota.
I for one hope that she wins the whole $10 million. Maybe only that way will dumb-ass marketers start *thinking* about what they do!
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, but terrifying sure is. Victims of stalking find that they are incapable of doing day-to-day things. The lady had a legitimate fear, she told her friends, then she later was ridiculed for those fears. This is all the fault of Toyota.
I for one hope that she wins the whole $10 million. Maybe only that way will dumb-ass marketers start *thinking* about what they do!
I suspect (but do not know) that once we see the actual emails there's no way on earth anyone with an IQ above retarded would believe it was real. Have you ever seen one of these campaigns? Even imbeciles know they're fake.
Have mercy! (Score:4, Funny)
If imbeciles didn't hire lawyers, what would all the two-bit lawyers do for a living? Please, someone think of the 2b lawyers! They have children too!
SB
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, you've got your headquarters in your hindquarters. No offense. Even if we grant your premise, that some large proportion of people would spot the campaign as fake, you have to remember that (1) Telling lies from truth is different from IQ. Some very bright people are extremely gullible, some very dull people have an unerring radar for falsehoods. (2) It's neither morally nor legally permissible to purposely scare the hell out of someone merely because they're less intelligent. (3) Many tens of thousands of people - mostly women - are stalked each year in this great nation, and a portion of them murdered by their stalkers. So a campaign like this odds are will reach some of them, who already know that stalking threats are real, have already been stalked, and just like a veteran hearing a backfire and finding himself back in battle, can easily be returned to the real psychological state - even by an instance they intellectually know is fake.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Man, you've got your headquarters in your hindquarters. No offense.
No offense taken.
(1) Telling lies from truth is different from IQ. Some very bright people are extremely gullible, some very dull people have an unerring radar for falsehoods.
Perhaps I used the wrong semantics. I don't mean that literally. What I meant is that a reasonable person would be able to understand that it isn't "real". It appears likely to me that this woman is just greedy. But as I said I've not seen the campaign materials, so it's just what I suspect based on my knowledge of similar "viral" marketing.
(2) It's neither morally nor legally permissible to purposely scare the hell out of someone merely because they're less intelligent.
I'm really not sure how to respond to this, except to say that I believe thinking like this created the concept of Politically Correct speech. You need
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the point is that it's impossible to avoid frightening imbeciles. What matters what a reasonable or average person would think of these e-mails. Not what a paranoid schizophrenic thinks of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe McDonalds wouldn't need warning signs if they didn't serve coffee at temperatures that can cause third-degree burns after 2-7 seconds of exposure.
Maybe McDonalds wouldn't need warning signs if they had simply helped the 79-year-old victim with her $11,000 in medical expenses, or accepted her later settlement offers of $90,000 and $300,000.
Maybe Mcdonalds wouldn't need warning signs if documents obta
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yep (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe McDonalds wouldn't need warning signs if they didn't serve coffee at temperatures that can cause third-degree burns after 2-7 seconds of exposure. ::sigh::
.
Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit."
If you don't believe the national Coffee Association (I mean, what do they know about coffee, Right?) , How about Bunn? Their website (http://www.bunn.com/retail/bunn_difference.html) says "The patented ready-to-brew reservoir keeps water at the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200." and another page (http://www.bunn.com/retail/dos_donts.html) mentions "water at 200 Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature)" and further down the page that say "Don't" "Re-heat for serving any coffee with a temperature below 175 F ", which means it has to be above that temperature to be served.
Still not convinced? How about a judge?
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 F (82 C) in this case) is not “unreasonably dangerous.”
"The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 F [93 C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150–160 F [66–71 C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further."
Maybe McDonalds wouldn't need warning signs if they had simply helped the 79-year-old victim with her $11,000 in medical expenses, or accepted her later settlement offers of $90,000 and $300,000.
Why should they help her? The spill (and therefore the injury the spill caused) was her fault, not theirs.
Oh, and she asked for $20,000 to cover her $11,000 of medical bills. Hmmm.
Maybe Mcdonalds wouldn't need warning signs if documents obtained from Mcdonalds didn't establish that more than 700 people were burned to various degrees by Mcdonalds coffee between 1982 - 1992.
The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever.
Please explain how one burn per 24,000,000 cups is 'unreasonable dangerous'.
Maybe you need to come up with a better example of a lack of "common sense" in US courts
'Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants' does fine, thank you.
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
And groups that work with burn victims have urged the restaurant industry to serve coffee at a lower temperature, especially to customers who are in vehicles are are unable to stand up and brush spilled coffee off of themselves. The reason the victim in the McDonalds case was burned so severely is the coffee soaked in to her clothes and pooled in her seat.
You're right, she was responsible for spilling the coffee, and shares the blame for her injuries. But the spill was not the main cause of her injuries; the temperature of the coffee was. That's why the jury found she was 20% responsible for the burns she suffered to her thighs, buttocks, and groin.
I've often been served food in restaurants on plates that were hot enough to cause severe burns, and never has the server failed to warn me. It's a courtesy, as well as a moral and legal obligation to warn a customer of an unexpected hazard with your product. And sitting at a table is very different than being belted in to a car seat and unable to remove the hot coffee after the spill.
The jury felt the warning on the McDonalds cup was neither large enough nor sufficient to warn of the potential danger, and that's why they found in her favour.
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone drinks their coffee black like me, there is no cream or milk or other ingredients added to dilute the heat. Scalding hot coffee in a styrofoam cup, remains too hot to drink for many minutes afterwards.
I do not enjoy struggling to sip scalding hot coffee which burns my tongue. I also do not like having sore burned spots on my tongue and on the roof of my mouth, for the next couple of days. That sometimes happens, if I am not careful, even with coffee that is only slightly too hot.
Coffee does need to be hot to taste good, but I have never noticed any improved taste from it being scalding hot. My personal experience is not consistent, with what your source says. Good fresh brewed coffee only needs to be hot, not scalding hot.
Coffee only tastes good if is has been freshly brewed, not too long before serving it. The scalding hot coffee that I have had at fast food places, frequently is that terrible smelling and terrible tasting, overcooked old coffee. It sometimes smells like it has been cooked several hours earlier and kept very hot all that time. Instead of that wonderful, rich fresh fresh brewed natural coffee bean smell, it frequently has that sickeningly overpowering, disgusting strong burnt smell and taste.
Good water is also important for good coffee. Where I live, the water tastes good, but bad tasting water can make bad tasting coffee. People such as myself who drink their coffee black, probably notice the actual taste of the coffee much more than people who add milk and sugar.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but if you make $9 million in profit and lose $10 million in a lawsuit, then they'll not do the marketing campaign again. Even if they make $12 million from the campaign (doubtful), the return becomes so small that it's not worth them doing any more. Further to this, hopefully the arsehole marketer who came up with the idea loses a job or some advertising agency loses revenue as Toyota moves to another company.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Further to this, hopefully the arsehole marketer who came up with the idea loses a job
Saatchi & Saatchi told the marketing magazine OMMA last year that it had developed the campaign to target men under 35 who hate advertising.
Hey, thanks. So, Mr. Marketing Genius Man [not you, parent], why exactly is it that you think that there are people out there who hate advertising or marketers in general? Maybe because of stupid ideas like this?
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, $10 million isn't something to sneeze at, even for a company with $200 billion in yearly revenue. That $10 million represents a lot of lower level employee's worth of salary which might lead to lots of average Joes getting layed off (face it, it won't be the execs. that feel the hurt). On the other hand, it sounds, to me, like they, honestly, earned the punishment (though, perhaps somewhat less than what she's asking) on this one. It isn't reasonable to say that just because she checked a box somewhere agreeing to accept marketing communications from a company that she should expect those communications to take the form of a simulated stalking. What next, are they going to go door to door in white robes burning crosses on people's front lawns to drum up attention for next year's Carolla?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
weird isn't worth $10 million...
Isn't worth 10 million?
Why don't we stop and think about this for a moment...
When you sell something, say your car, do you always offer the buyer your lowest price in hopes that he increases his offer as negotiations progress? Or do you, oh I don't know this may sound crazy, offer your highest price because he is going to negotiate it down?
You do realize that the $10,000,000 figure is the attorney's opening bid, to which the courts and the defendant (toyota) will argue the value down.
Very rar
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
They sure did. Very creepy, and no doubt terrifying at the time... ummm...
Except if it was so terrifying, why did she do everything but call the police, who have the powers to actually investigate things like this and would have probably figured out in about 5 minutes who sent the emails? Why make her boyfriend sit by the bed with a club, when she's getting notices from someone who sounds like a hardened and probably ARMED criminal that they are coming for a visit? If this were a real event, she and her boyfriend would likely be dead by now.
Why sit cowering in your home for FIVE DAYS then claim you were unable to live your life for MONTHS, when a quick three-digit phone call ("911", in case anyone has forgotten the number) would have started an investigation that would have rapidly debunked it in a hurry? Toyota would have no doubt issued a deep apology to avoid a lawsuit, suffered some well-deserved bad press, and Ms. Duick could have gone about her life with nothing more than a probable (and understandable) lifetime hatred/contempt of Toyota Motor Company, and not a long-term debilitating fear.
I'm not saying Toyota was in the right here. No way. This was just plain effing stupid.
I think both parties are clearly in the wrong. Toyota's actions were reprehensible and deserving of punishment, but Ms. Duick's response (or utter lack thereof) certainly gave Toyota no indication of the harm they were causing to her. They thought they had agreement, she was unaware of the agreement, they acted stupidly, and she didn't do anything useful to help herself until after she found out it was a prank ad campaign.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
You have probably an overly optimistic guess as to what the police would have done. (On top of that, the article does not specify one way or the other whether or not she called the police)
Here's my guess about what that 911 call would have sounded like:
911) What's your emergency?
Woman) A man is coming to my house.
911) Who is the man, and has he threatened you?
Woman) I don't know, and no, he hasn't threatened me. He's just coming to my house.
911) You don't know who the man is?
Woman) No, I only got an email. I've never met him.
911) I'm sorry, unless there is a man in your presence who has made a credible threat against you or physically assaulted you, we can't do anything. Have a nice day.
--Jeremy
Re:Yep (Score:4, Interesting)
Why sit cowering in your home for FIVE DAYS then claim you were unable to live your life for MONTHS, when a quick three-digit phone call ("911", in case anyone has forgotten the number) would have started an investigation that would have rapidly debunked it in a hurry?
Three reasons:
1. The law of averages. If you email credible threats to enough people (and when I say credible, I mean to say that since her "friends" colluded with Toyota, that's what made the threats credible to her, I don't mean to say that those threats would have necessarily been credible to the police), so let's say if you email credible threats to two or three thousand people, you are bound to hit a few disturbed individuals (or if not disturbed yet, just at the brink). Plus, I should also say that since those targets were not chosen at random, they were chosen by their so-called "friends", so it would make sense that some of those "friends" would pick the most paranoid and the most emotionally immature persons they know. When it comes to annoyingly paranoid and emotionally immature people, I believe that many of us have the capacity to prey on that weakness and give those types of people a very hard time (that's what some call bullying, notice that strong people and/or emotionally mature people rarely get bullied themselves. I'm not saying that it never happens, just that it rarely does).
2. I don't believe you know 911 very well. 911 is for *immediate* life-threatening emergencies only (at least, in California it is). I've called 911 myself (from my landline) to report a drunk driver that had hit several cars and had driven away just as recklessly (that was before CHP had those signs on the freeway that now tell us to do just that), but at the time, the 911 operator told me very rudely that this wasn't a life-threatening emergency, to call the police instead on their regular line, and to hang up the phone right now! Also, you said "hardened and probably ARMED criminal", good luck saying that to the 911 operator: "W: He's probably armed.", "911: Probably!!? Is he? Or isn't he *ARMED*?", "W: Well, he's probably armed. I haven't seen a weapon yet.", "911: Where is the suspect right now?", "I don't really know. Last time he contacted me, he said he was in Florida, but he said he's coming over. If he's prompt, he's due any minute now. If the guy is a flake, I can't really know for sure."
3. And last but not least, city police departments are not all funded equally. When I lived in Oakland, and there was a trespasser in my backyard, the police didn't (or couldn't) come. And when I made the same call when I lived in Alameda, the police came absolutely right away, and in full force. I should also say, that in places like in Berkeley or Alameda, the police usually swarms suspects just like they do on TV. In Oakland, I've witnessed several instances of cops fighting suspects with their battons, losing to them, and the suspects successfully running away, because in all these cases, the cop was alone, and he was against one or more suspects (and also the city cops in Oakland are instructed not to use their use their guns unless their lives are absolutely in danger). And it doesn't stop there, in cities like San Francisco and Oakland, the police will purposefully downplay any crimes that are committed against you, and they'll do everything they can to dissuade you from even filing a police report or starting a formal investigation (because if it gets reported, it goes in their statistics, and if it goes in their statistics, it makes their city look bad). So if you live in a city like that, and have any experience with the police, you come to learn that you can't really depend on the police, especially for something as trivial such as threats made over email -- made by an unknown person (who's not even in their jurisdiction yet according to his own emails/mailed hotel invoices).
Re:Yep (Score:5, Funny)
1. Well below average intelligence
2. Unable to communicate in a coherent fashion(no ability to elaborate on a point except to repeat it verbatim but louder)
3. Blissfully unaware of points 2. and 3.
4. Create weird recursive lists when trying to explain the failure of other people to communicate coherently.
Re:Yep (Score:4, Funny)
Those who are blissfully unaware that the list is recursive are doomed to repeat it.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you read the article?
Toyota's marketing campaign was in POOR taste, although one wonders why she never reported it to the police.
I think giving her 10 million seems high, but I think that a class action suit with everyone who got this incredibly lame marketing campaign isn't such a bad idea.
Pretend stalking someone is a terrible idea.
How about this:
What if you kept getting phone calls.. that said:
I'm coming for you.. in a mysterious raspy voice, at all times of the day.
That would be a clear cut case of stalking and instilling fear.
"Informed consent" = no way (Score:5, Interesting)
FTFA:
I work in research with human subjects, and there is no way this constitutes informed consent.
If Toyota wants to argue that the fine print spelled it out and it's her fault she didn't read it carefully enough, maybe they can win the case through legalistic hairsplitting. But if they buried it in fine print and incomprehensible language, they're jerks no matter what.
But they're making a much broader claim if they're calling it informed consent. Informed consent means that she comprehended what was going to happen to her as a result of agreeing. In other words, "informed consent" isn't just a statement about the objective content of the opt-in statement -- it's an assertion about the state of mind of the person who gave consent. If she had truly given informed consent, then not only would she have no legal claim, but she'd have no moral claim either (because she'd have known what she was getting into). But it's blindingly obvious that that isn't true here.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hah! I am Vwerd from the Planet Klwrhaz, and I also work with human subjects. That is why we will insert a small device in your visual cortex which flashes pictures of naked supermodels. Dare you require informed consent?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Toyota wants to argue that the fine print spelled it out and it's her fault she didn't read it carefully enough, maybe they can win the case through legalistic hairsplitting. But if they buried it in fine print and incomprehensible language, they're jerks no matter what.
If I give someone my email address and at the same time click a checkbox that says subscribe to correspondence, then it's as informed as you get. Result: I get emails. Maybe the fineprint deep in there somewhere states what will and what won't be sent, but as far as I am concerned, anything is fair game. "Here's my email address, send me stuff." If I end up with too much crap that's rubbish, I click the unsubscribe bit and be done with it. That's it. No silly $10 million dollar goldmine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm guessing she consented to the usual sort of car ad - pictures of the car in question with a model sitting on the bonnet or in the passenger seat, some blurb about how wonderful it is, and details of how to go about buying one, not fake stalking emails.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhm, I think that any means of obscuring the truth on the part of Toyota et al would render the "contract" invalid. Seems to me it's most certainly not informed consent, and is a bad faith contract. Of course I'm not a lawyer and have no idea what I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yep (Score:4, Interesting)
What if you kept getting phone calls.. that said:...
Actually, something like this happened once, almost. Some movie that Sam Jackson was in had a promo where you could go to a web site and fill out some information and Jackson's voice would make a custom call based on that information.
I was out of town on a business trip, and late in the night a buddy of mine had did this and my wife picked up. She's not a movie buff, and while I would have recognized the voice in a second, she didn't. She just heard an angry-sounding man talking about coming to our house in [our town], checking in on [one of my hobbies, one of hers], and a few other spooky things. Even though it was clearly a recording, it was really unsettling to her, so she called me right away.
Luckily, the system sends an email after calling, so when we were talking about it, I thought it sounded like something prank-ish and checked my email on a whim. I was able to talk her down, but she was a little pissed and asked me to tell my buddy not to pull that shite again.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't wonder why she never reported it to the police: its' because this entire episode, including her and her complaint, is a fake. The news story itself is the actual marketing campaign for Toyota (and Saatchi & Saatchi), not the events it relates. Why else would the marketing company put an actual sales blurb into the article?
It's a reverse psych-out, and we're the ones they're trying to punk
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
"Yeah, you need $10 million to cover that" - Tell me then, how do you punish a company except by a fiscal penalty?
Re:Yep (Score:4, Informative)
What this does is ensure that company's are probably punished for causing harm, but removes the incentive to sue for enormous amounts for trivial issues (or not-so-trivial issues that don't justify $X million). This system is relatively common, and it always surprised me that people find it reasonable that the amount of damages awarded should be relative to the offenders ability to pay - Not primarily the crime itself.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
One solution is to apply the very same punitive penalty, but award the punitive part of it to a fund/charity. In essence, whenever a major company causes somebody harm, that person is eligible to receive whatever amount is considered reasonable depending on the damages. In addition to that, the company is also fined an amount that is relative to its size and financial status, simply as a form of punishment. The latter amount never comes in contact with the victim.
The elegant thing about giving victims the penalty money is that it encourages them to take on litigation. A lawsuit is expensive, risky, and time-consuming. Without motivating litigants and lawyers with potential rewards, the powerful would be much freer to abuse the weak. In your system, this lady would stand to win at most a few thousand in actual damages, but would risk losing tens of thousands in costs should Toyota prevail. Further, all the good lawyers would be on salary or retainer for large companies; few would be willing to work for a chance to get paid a reasonable hourly rate.
It's good to keep large companies walking on eggshells when it comes to causing harm, and the current tort system is the best way we know to do so that we can afford.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think a week in jail for the VP of marketing will do much more. But a week is probably all this is worth.
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd prefer that but then again, I wasn't the one who was stalked, and a week of jail time won't do restitution to the harmed. Maybe combine it and let the VP of marketing be her bitch for a week?
One thing's for sure: when people are harmed, law as it applies to corporations should be a lot more personal and pierce the corporate veil. That would rectify a LOT of stupidity done in the search for profits.
Re:Yep (Score:4, Informative)
...and sued McDonalds because they didnt warn *coffee* was *hot*)
Everyone misunderstands this. I have a friend in Law school. They analysed this case in class, and it turns out that this is generally misunderstood. The coffee was EXCEPTIONALLY hot, not just hot. McDonalds was keeping the coffee on the burner at a higher temperature so they would have to make new batches less often. This temperature was above what is generally used, and necessary. Hence, the coffee was hotter than it needed to be, and the burns were far more severe than if it had been at the normal temperature (I think this is generally somewhere around 50C).
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
And individuals will come and try to sue hoping an easy way to get rich (after hearing about the women who drop hot coffee on herself and sued McDonalds because they didnt warn *coffee* was *hot*)
Yes, everybody who is capable of ordering coffee knows it's hot. McDonald's coffee was scalding hot, more than 40F higher than the minimum temperature known to produce third degree burns - a 49 cup produced third degree burns over 6% of that woman's body, and lesser burns over another 16% [wikipedia.org]. If you think experiencing that is an easy way to get rich, I have to believe neither you nor anybody you love has ever experienced a serious burn.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
79 year old Stella Liebeck suffered third degree burns on her groin and inner thighs while trying to add sugar to her coffee at a McDonalds drive through. Third degree burns are the most serious kind of burn. McDonalds knew it had a problem. There were at least 700 previous cases of scalding coffee incidents at McDonalds before Liebeck's case. McDonalds had settled many claim before but refused Liebeck's request for $20,000 compensation, forcing the case into court. Lawyers found that McDonalds makes its coffee 30-50 degrees hotter than other restaurants, about 190 degrees. Doctors testified that it only takes 2-7 seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees. McDonalds knew its coffee was exceptionally hot but testified that they had never consulted with burn specialist. The Shriner Burn Institute had previously warned McDonalds not to serve coffee above 130 degrees. And so the jury came back with a decision- $160,000 for compensatory damages. But because McDonalds was guilty of "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct" punitive damages were also applied. The jury set the award at $2.7 million. The judge then reduced the fine to less than half a million. Ms. Liebeck then settled with McDonalds for a sum reported to be much less than a half million dollars. McDonald's coffee is now sold at the same temperature as most other restaurants.
Source: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0122-11.htm [commondreams.org]
Summary: 700 complaints of scalding incidents. Requests from the Shriners burn unit. This was willful disregard for people's health. And the size of the reward? Calculated as the profits from one morning's take from the sales of coffee across the enterprise. I'd say that's a reasonable--if maybe small--slap on the wrist.
I don't know why people choose to defend corporations over the people they hurt. It's not like McDonalds would cross the street to piss on you if you were on fire; it must be something like the Stockholm Syndrome.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A part of that break emphasizing: $160,000 for compensatory damages.
In other words, she had 160,000 dollars worth of medical bills from that coffee. (Well, that figure includes lost wages and stuff.) Which is not that amazing for third degree burns.
Incidentally, 185-190 degrees is 22-27 degrees lower than the boiling point of water. If you were to put a pot of water on the stove until it started to boil, cut it off, and wait maybe a minute...that's the temperature McDonalds was handing people coffee in in
Re:Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) most of the time people suing corporations are lazy people that want to get rich
Here's a radical question: do you have any idea if this is true?
Re:Yep (Score:4, Informative)
There was no issues in the court case about labels.
She had boiling coffee handed to her in a cup with no lid. People want their coffee hot, not beyond boiling.
She asked for reembursement for her medical bills, something like $160k, with zero dollars left over for her to keep (IE the money was to go straight from mcdonalds to the hospital billing department, not through her hands)
McDonalds was being a dick about everything, and as punishment the JUDGE said they now must pay millions to her.
I'm sure she wasn't going to complain (I wouldn't) but its not like she ASKED for millions, let alone demanded or sued for it.
That poor lady keeps getting blamed for doing things she never once did... a judge did.
If you have an issue with a judge hearing the lady ask for medical bill payment, and the judge said "Oh no, you get your medical bills, plus a few million in profits from it", that is the judges fault. Go blame him.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1.) The coffee wasn't just hot, it was scalding. The woman got 3rd degree burns, for Christ's sake. The woman had to be hospitalized for eight days and had to undergo skin grafting. She had to also undergo debridement treatments(basically, having dead and damaged tissue removed so that the healthier tissue around it can begin to heal).
2.) The woman was in the passenger seat and the car wasn't moving.
3.) The coffee was
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
And she did not get rich.
Yeah. And talk about bad PR. I don't know why people are so quick to defend corporations, but Ms. Liebeck really took it on the chin when all she wanted were her medical bills paid. Given the circumstances, the request was more than reasonable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What is the money amount going to punish? They just calculate it into marketing budget.
Exactly. And next time they sit in the conference room discussing a new ad campaign, someone will note "let's not do Option B - last time it cost us $10 mil more than we expected. Options A and C will be much cheaper."
And by the way - the coffee wasn't just hot. It was exceptionally hot; scalding hot. During the court case it was noted that coffee served at home is usually 135 - 140 degrees. McDonald's required it's coffee to be maintained at 185 degrees plus or minus 5 degrees.
That's the proper temperature for hot coffee! Check this out:
http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71 [ncausa.org]
The victim suffered 3rd degree burns - from coffee. Burns that are unlikely to come from coffee even at 155 degrees. In addition, McDonald's was aware of the safety involved with their policy and had been aware of it for 10 years with over 700 reports of injuries (including other cases of 3rd degree burns). This wasn't a simple case of getting rich with a frivolous lawsuit - it was clear negligence on McDonald's part. Investigations after the verdict showed local area McDonald's serving coffee at a much safer 158 degrees. Clearly the punitive damages worked.
Yeah, great, now it's harder to get a good cup of hot coffee served AT THE PROPER TEMPERATURE.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to be in favor of the 'corporate death penalty', and I still am, but only in a certain way.
We shouldn't break the company. What we should do is fire all corporate executives (Everyone who legally empowered to agree to contracts.), and the board of directors, cancel all stock and leave it operated by the government for a while. (1) They will run it basically as before, and also do a housecleaning to find illegal behaviors that have become ingrained in the company.
It then, after about a month, publish balance sheets and stuff so that people can see how it's doing. Then the company should issue new stock, under a new stock symbol, on the stock exchange, so people can purchase it. And the new owners will, presumably, elect a new board of directors, etc, and the temporary executives put in by the government will resign.
I.e., we don't need to dissolve the company if they commit crimes. We need to fire the people who ran the company in a criminal manner, and we need to take it away from the owners who let the company get run in a criminal manner. Then we clean it up, and sell it to whoever's willing to pay for it.
'The company', as an abstract entity that presumably provides some actual services, and employs a bunch of people, can continue to exist. So 'death penalty' isn't really the right word. Let's call it corporate forfeiture. (Hey, if we call it that, does that mean we don't have to have a trial?)
1) The government running a company, incidentally, is not without precedent, especially during bankruptcy. The federal government does assume caretaker responsibility of some business, the most famous example being when it found itself running a brothel in Nevada for about a year.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, a normal person who'd never done anything wrong would obviously assume an anonymous stranger threatening them was playing a prank on behalf of a large company. The vast majority of stalking cases are like that, and innocent people are never targeted by crazy people for no reason.
Seriously though, WTF are you talking about?
Re:Yep (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
To be fair, the claim is that this is a different fucking flu than the one we've been living through every winter. Everyone knows pig flu is scarier than human flu!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, reading the article, I have no problem with Toyota being FINED $10 million, in order to prevent them or any other company from repeating that behavior. What an unbelievably stupid thing they did.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Funny)
This "Goatse" kitten is the second ugliest kitten I've ever seen!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
*disclaimer: I haven't tested the link, being at work and all. I have no idea if it still works.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what a dumb bitch (Score:5, Funny)
slashgame: YOUR ARE IN A ROOM
slashgame: LOOK NORTH
slashgame: YOU SEE AN ANONYMOUS COWARD
slashgame: HE HAS A KAFKA-GRENADE
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COWARD THROWS THE KAFKA-GRENADE AT YOU
slashgame: CATCH KAFKA-GRENADE
slashgame: YOU CATCH THE KAFKA-GRENADE
slashgame: PULL PIN FROM KAFKA-GRENADE
slashgame: THROW KAFKA-GRENADE AT ANONYMOUS COWARD
slashgame: KAFKA-GRENADE EXPLODES ON ANONYMOUS COWARD
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COWARD TURNS INTO ANONYMOUS COCKROACH
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COCKROACH SCREAMS IN FEAR ABOUT RAID IN COMPUTER
slashgame: MOTHER OF ANONYMOUS COCKROACH SCREAMS FROM OTHER SIDE OF BEDROOM DOOR "ARE YOU WATCHING GAY PORNO AGAIN?"
slashgame: MOM ENTERS BASEMENT BEDROOM
slashgame: MOM SEES ANONYMOUS COCKROACH
slashgame: MOM REMOVES SHOE WITH SOLE OF MATERNAL INSTINCT
slashgame: MOM INSTINCTIVELY CRUSHES ANONYMOUS COCKROACH WITH SOLE OF MATERNAL INSTINCT
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COCKROACH DOES FINAL SWIRLY AROUND THE RIM AS MOM GIVE HIS REMAINS "BURIAL AT SEA"
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COWARD -- 1784 KARMA, WILL RESPAWN A FLOATER IN TIDY-BOWL COMMERCIAL
slashgame: YOU HAVE EARNED 1 BONUS SCROLL OF GUMMY-BEAR
slashgame: EXIT
me@slashdot >
Re:deception psychology experiment waiver (Score:4, Interesting)
This reminds of a psychology experiment a few decades ago, where the consent form was something like:
I agree to *insert a bunch of things here* including "I agree to be deceived."
Then you became the subject of an experiment that appeared to be one of the other things, but in reality, you were being deceived as part of the experiment.
I'm a behavioral scientist. An experimentalist. When working with behaving subjects one of the things that's harder than anything else is to understand the experiment that you performed. This was brought home during a lecture I saw being given by a very senior faculty member who was describing an experiment that didn't seem to have gone very well at all. After reviewing the not very encouraging and somewhat confusing results, he said, "it took us quite some time to realize that although we had designed and performed this experiment in good faith, the experiment we ACTUALLY had done was quite different than what we intended." The difference was one of how the subjects had interpreted the non-verbal instructions. Viewing the results in the new radically different light made far more sense. Sometimes, it's the experimenter who is the one being deceived!
Re:Scared? (Score:4, Insightful)
maybe, but Toyota overstepped a line, and it's her due right to try to make them accountable.
In the end, Toyota impersonated another person and royally overstepped the boundary of the agreement with her to send her marketing messages from Toyota.
Consider: If I grant access to my restricted private house to friend X, I can surely legally restrict that same person if he impersonates another person. According to the original agreement I must provide access to friend X, but I have no legal way to distinguish between friend X and what he impersonates, so I can clearly deny him access. The same holds for Toyota: they cannot impersonate the US President, the Police and waive this lawsuit away by saying that they had the right to send messages. While impersonating the Police is a felony (obviously), impersonating someone random immediately voids the e-mail agreement, since there is no way for the "victim" here to distinguish between them. (Toyota can send her messages, vs. Toyota impersonating a stalker).
IOW, this is in terrible bad taste. Toyota screwed up badly, and the law will likely be against them.
Re:Scared? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is with the 'victimization' culture these days?
You mean, among people who have genuine greviances? Yeah, I know! The "victims" of my pyramid scheme have SUCH a sense of entitlement!
Grow a pair and make some more money for me to steal.
I tried telling the judge that many of the people I ripped off weren't even trying to get new jobs at say, Mc Donalds to earn more money, so they obviously weren't hurt enough to change anything about their life. Jerks.
Sincerely,
Bernie Maddoff
Re:Scared? (Score:4, Insightful)
Advertising is fine, but as soon as you cross that line from advertising into the land of criminal harassment then we've got a serious problem. While I'm up in Canada, I'd be much happier to see criminal harassment charges filed against the entire company. See unless you've actually dealt with people who've been victims of this stuff, seen how the system has failed people, and how the ball has been dropped you really don't have a clue as to what can go wrong.
I don't have any problems with her going after them for this. Not only did they cross the line, they crossed the line into a felony in my book. "Opting in" be damned, you're either dense, or simply heartless if you think that way.
Re:How does this happen? (Score:5, Funny)
Just wait until the New GM (Powered By Your Tax Dollars) comes out with its own ads threatening to beat you to death with a tire iron unless you buy one of their cars. It's a whole new wave of marketing!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't even need to see the emails. I work in the email security industry, and every problem I've seen - without exception - that involved an otherwise legit and respectable company that got in trouble because of email marketing practices was a combination of two things:
1) A definition of "opt-in" that doesn't come very near to "informed consent" - where informed consent is considered an industry BCP.
2) Some genius in marketing further gumming up the works by sending something spammy, or just stupid.
In mos