Posts Tagged ‘lawsuit’

Hall of Shame: Classmates.com

Monday, November 17th, 2008

“Your former classmates are trying to contact you! Upgrade now to see their messages!” You’ve received Classmates.com spam and endured their irritating yearbook ads.

While most consider the “classmates are trying to contact you” message a marketing trick, Anthony Michaels of San Diego, CA took Classmates.com at their word and paid $15 for an upgrade only to discover that—surprise!—none of his former classmates were trying to reach him.

Michaels realized he probably wasn’t alone and hired an attorney to pursue a class action lawsuit. The suit alleges intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, fraudulent concealment, and violation of California business and professions code.

Here’s the summons and complaint:

View the classmates.com summons and complaint

Classmates.com’s reputation was already poor: The Better Business Bureau and consumeraffairs.org have been logging consumer complaints against the company for years.

Classmates is innocent until proven guilty, but in the court of public opinion no trial is needed. Their ubiquitous advertising and questionable email marketing tactics have made them an easy target—and have earned them a place in the Responsible Marketing Hall of Shame.

So, what do you think if Classmates.com?

Ever been duped by them?

Can they redeem themselves?

Scroll down to share your thoughts.

. . .

A little irony: While researching this topic, countless sites that featured this story had advertising on them from—you guessed it—Classmates.com. Here’s one:

classmates.com ad featured next to story about lawsuit against classmates.com+enlarge

Subscribe to this feed.

. . .

Source (including summons and complaint): Wired.com

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in deceptive marketing, ethics, false advertising, hall of shame, social networking | 15 Comments »

Swirly goodness? Pinkberry not all good

Tuesday, April 15th, 2008

I like Pinkberry’s marketing.

The chain of frozen confection stores based in New York and California speak in an engaging, human voice. Their branding is clean and simple, and they know that less is more.

But Pinkberry’s founder claimed less when there was more — more additives and more calories, to be precise.

And that, along with other false claims, has cost Pinkberry $750,000 in a class-action lawsuit settlement.

The claims against Pinkberry

  • Pinkberry is not “frozen yogurt.” California law requires a frozen yogurt product have its ingredients listed, to be mixed off-site, and be fermented a specific way. The company is now complying with these rules and claimed it was unaware of the laws.
  • Pinkberry is not “all-natural.” The product includes additives.
  • Pinkberry is not low-calorie. A half cup of the green tea flavored soft-serve dessert is 50 calories, while the smallest size is considerably larger than than that.

    • In the settlement, Pinkberry denied any wrongdoing. Except for a $5,000 award to plaintiff Lisa Sutton for bringing the suit, the money will go to Los Angeles Regional Food Bank and Para Los Niños, a nonprofit that helps at-risk children and their families.

    So, did Pinkberry get its just desserts, or is this just another frivolous lawsuit?

    I’d love to hear what you think. Please comment below to weigh in.

    Tags: , , , , , , ,
    Posted in branding, corporate responsibility, false advertising, message responsible, simplicity | 1 Comment »

    I got duped by Airborne

    Thursday, April 3rd, 2008

    At least she didn’t waste money on Airborne.

    Seems everyone I know has been down for the count this year with a cold, the flu or some other crud that just won’t go away.

    It also seems everyone I know swears by Airborne.

    We have a tube in our cabinet and have purchased the stuff since shortly after the product appeared.

    Boy, do I feel stupid.

    Last month, the company agreed to a $23.3 million settlement in a class action lawsuit against them for false advertising by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

    Why? Airborne is not a cold remedy and it’s never been proven to work. The double-blind tests the company has used in its marketing claims were a farce conducted by two a two-person research group, and one of the researchers had a fake diploma.

    CSPI senior nutritionist David Schardt evaluated Airborne’s marketing claims and concluded:

    There’s no credible evidence that what’s in Airborne can prevent colds or protect you from a germy environment.

    Airborne is basically an overpriced, run-of-the-mill vitamin pill that’s been cleverly, but deceptively, marketed.

    The “message for our loyal users” from the Airborne’s CEO on the company website revises history, stating that “Airborne helps support your immune system—just like it always has.” In fact, the company is facing more potential charges from the FTC and 24 State Attorneys General for the company’s claims that Airborne is the “miracle cold buster.”

    There’s no link off that page to any information for refunds, but a “rebate” is available. Unfortunately, the company has buried the information on their website in the FAQ’s in the “Promotions/Rebates” section. You need proof of purchase and a receipt to get any money back, but I couldn’t find any explanation of what the company considers proof of purchase.

    Nice.

    False advertising makes me sick. Especially when I fall for it.

    What do you think?

    Tags: , , , , , ,
    Posted in corporate responsibility, deceptive marketing, false advertising, word of mouth | 5 Comments »