Internet Astroturfer Fined $300,000 245
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced yesterday that Lifestyle Lift, a cosmetic surgery company who posted fake reviews of their services on various websites, will have to pay $300,000 to the state of New York. Cuomo's office says this is the first US case to specifically target astroturfing on the internet.
"Internal emails discovered by Attorney General Cuomo's investigation show that Lifestyle Lift employees were given specific instructions to engage in this illegal activity. One e-mail to employees said: 'Friday is going to be a slow day — I need you to devote the day to doing more postings on the web as a satisfied client.' Another internal email directed a Lifestyle Lift employee to 'Put your wig and skirt on and tell them about the great experience you had.' In addition to posting on various Internet message board services, Lifestyle Lift also registered and created stand-alone Web sites, such as MyFaceliftStory.com, designed to appear as if they were created by independent and satisfied customers of Lifestyle Lift. The sites offered positive narratives about the Lifestyle Lift experience. Some of these sites purported to offer forums for users to add their own comments about Lifestyle Lift. In reality, however, Lifestyle Lift either provided all the 'user comments' themselves, or closely monitored and edited third-party comments to skew the discussion in favor of Lifestyle Lift."
Not the first! (Score:5, Informative)
Sony got caught doing this a while back:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4741259.stm [bbc.co.uk]
The link is to the BBC coverage of the California court decision.
I found out about it after reading a Slashdot post panning one of the movies which was pushed this way.
Re:legal (Score:5, Informative)
You and I can say anything about any product we want... that's our opinion. But if the company making a product makes claims that are untrue about said product it's False Advertisement. These people just try to hide it by pretending to not be affiliated with the company. That may even be in itself Fraud.
Re:legal (Score:1, Informative)
False (or deceptive) Advertising [wikipedia.org]
Re:legal (Score:3, Informative)
It is Fraud.
Re:So they couldn't shout across the office? (Score:4, Informative)
Spreading FUD would be Slander/Defamation [wikipedia.org].
Re:Not the first! (Score:3, Informative)
And to throw in another, Belkin were also caught paying people to do reviews on some tech websites fairly recently, the whole "pay for good review" thing.
So many links on it, it is just better to link the search.
Belkin Paying for good reviews [google.co.uk]
And funny thing about these is that so many companies do it, even small-time shops, anything to get customers.
And if you were to ask most of them if they knew the legality of it, they'd never think once that it was illegal.
Re:legal (Score:3, Informative)
It sounds like wire fraud [wikipedia.org] to me. Even though wikipedia is no place to get legal advice, the definition of wire fraud is included in the article. I followed their link [cornell.edu] to the appropriate US Code section:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
The emphasis is mine, and I think that's where this activity on the part of Lifestyle Lifts employees is illegal.
Re:So they couldn't shout across the office? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:$300,000 that's all? (Score:3, Informative)
Google is overwhelmed by Lifestyle Lift web sites. (Score:4, Informative)
This is the most intense attack on social, psychological, and technical weaknesses than I've ever seen. In my opinion, it is likely to be dishonest.
And the company was only fined $300,000, an amount that is likely to be less than a day's income, I'm guessing.
Re:So they couldn't shout across the office? (Score:3, Informative)
Sincerely,
A Very Satisfied Slashdot Customer
Re:So? (Score:3, Informative)
It's because political astroturfing is considered free speech, while commercial speech is far more heavily restricted. Plus, it's far more difficult to enforce - people will actually volunteer to spread a campaign's message (or pretend they're spreading an opposing campaign's message if they think that doing so will get the opposing campaign in trouble). They usually won't volunteer to spread a corporation's message.
Re:The lesson they've failed to learn from history (Score:2, Informative)
No, you've been asleep for the last 50 or so years.
The coverup doesn't kill you if its successful any more than falling kills you.
Its when the coverup fails or you suddenly stop at the end of the fall that kills you.
Appearently you missed the iran contra affair completely among hundreds of other scandles. When they come out to tell you about how they did something bad, in reality thats just a good cover up, drawing the attention away from the REALLY bad shit they did.
Re:Microsoft shills (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So they couldn't shout across the office? (Score:3, Informative)
No, it'll be the Hurd Year of the Desktop.
Re:What I really want to know (Score:2, Informative)
A) Yes and B) No. The reason I think A) is true is because I know Microsoft's culture. They are paranoid. And they are out to win at all costs. And winning for Microsoft means that everyone else has to lose. Including any credible competition, which, we know from the Halloween Memos [catb.org] that Microsoft has viewed Linux as a credible threat since at least 1998. That's more than 10 years.
Re:What I really want to know (Score:3, Informative)
The poison is the erosion of authenticity from internet message boards.
If I'm talking with my buddy about my new car and he's saying his aunt had one and it ran great, it's completely different than if a car dealer is having the exact same discussion with me -- the conversation with my buddy has more authenticity, exactly because it's not a marketing message. The same facts may be presented, but it's a completely different message. When I can't know whether my buddy is just an advertiser paid to talk about the car or not, the lack of authenticity issue then poisons my conversation with them too.
When it becomes commonly known practice for car dealers to misrepresent themselves as regular people, as on-line it's becoming increasingly common for marketing to hire people to post fake posts, fake reviews, and create fake fan websites, suddenly the same authenticity that made people value forums, review sites, or fan websites is eroded, poisoning the whole internet.
Marketing executives always keep authenticity in mind because of the powerful effect it has on how a message is percieved.
But way to make an ass of yourself by making assumptions about how I conduct discussions.
Re:What I really want to know (Score:3, Informative)
I completely and totally disagree. In fact, the fact that we're having this discussion is proof of that authenticity.
If I believed you weren't arguing for yourself, if I thought you were being paid by a media company to try to shift the public frame towards astroturfing being okay, then you'd lose the authenticity you have, and I'd stop arguing with you -- Arguing with someone whose job it is to present a certain point of view would be a waste of time.
It's because I believe you're a regular person expressing your opinion of your own free will that your opinion gains authenticity. When the fundamental premise of arguing of one's own conviction and opinion leaves, when someone is aruging as an obligation to their employer, the whole discussion -- regardless of what is said -- loses value.