Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
FTC: Tangled web of Vista companies cheats consumers
Scheme is called "negative option marketing"
The Federal Trade Commission on March 23 charged in federal court that an intertwined group of Vista-based companies are hoodwinking consumers through an allegedly deceptive technique called negative option marketing. The defendants are AAFE Products, JBE International, BSDC, KADC, Purestrike, BNRI, and individuals Brian Bernheim, Joshua Bernheim, Jared Coates, and Robert Koch.
In recent years, the various companies have sold kitchen and golf products through websites using a dubious technique called "negative option marketing," says the commission. The companies use two kinds of negative option marketing: 1) Billing a consumer's credit card for goods or services on a recurring basis until the consumer cancels the plan; and 2) Making trial offers in which consumers receive goods or services for free or a nominal fee, but the companies charge them when the trial period ends if the consumer fails to return the product or cancel the plan. Often, both techniques are combined.
The suit charges that in numerous instances, these companies: 1) Fail to obtain consumers' express consent before charging their credit card accounts; 2) Tell a fib when claiming that consumers can receive trial shipments for free or for a nominal shipping fee; 3) Do not adequately disclose the offer's terms; and 4) Make it difficult to return trial products and obtain refunds.
Here's something you might be interested in.
FTC: Tangled web of Vista companies cheats consumers
Scheme is called "negative option marketing"
FTC: Tangled web of Vista companies cheats consumers
Scheme is called "negative option marketing"
The Federal Trade Commission on March 23 charged in federal court that an intertwined group of Vista-based companies are hoodwinking consumers through an allegedly deceptive technique called negative option marketing. The defendants are AAFE Products, JBE International, BSDC, KADC, Purestrike, BNRI, and individuals Brian Bernheim, Joshua Bernheim, Jared Coates, and Robert Koch.
In recent years, the various companies have sold kitchen and golf products through websites using a dubious technique called "negative option marketing," says the commission. The companies use two kinds of negative option marketing: 1) Billing a consumer's credit card for goods or services on a recurring basis until the consumer cancels the plan; and 2) Making trial offers in which consumers receive goods or services for free or a nominal fee, but the companies charge them when the trial period ends if the consumer fails to return the product or cancel the plan. Often, both techniques are combined.
The suit charges that in numerous instances, these companies: 1) Fail to obtain consumers' express consent before charging their credit card accounts; 2) Tell a fib when claiming that consumers can receive trial shipments for free or for a nominal shipping fee; 3) Do not adequately disclose the offer's terms; and 4) Make it difficult to return trial products and obtain refunds.
Comments