In the brick and mortar world, it's often been the state attorney generals or the FTC who first step up about misleading recurring charges scams (see Trilegiant or Joe Francis), but what may have slowed the appropriate actions in this case have been the online community's idea, Facebook should do the policing.
I mean, whenever someone calls to sell me a recurring charges scam, I don't cry to the phone company.
Here's the thing: even if it takes a certain amount of naivete/stupidity to fall for these scams? It's still the scammers who should be ashamed of themselves, not the people being scammed. The scammer committed an immoral act; the scammed at worst were stupid. It's not even the kind of stupidity that involves greed on the mark's part, like 419 scams; it's just a mistaken belief that people aren't quite as larcenous as the more skeptical of us know them to be.
The fact that every time something on this topic is posted so many people leap to beat up on the people who were duped and not the people who took advantage of them makes me sad about the general state of people's values. Meanwhile, no one remarks on the stupidity of thieves who leave a blazing electronic trail straight back to the hideout. That, my friends, is seriously dumbass.
@MissNormaDesmond: I'd heart you again, if I could. It pisses me off that that's the reaction. Nobody deserves to be the victim of a scam, just like nobody deserves to be the victim of a crime.
@MissNormaDesmond: I hugely agree, and that fucking attitude is not limited to e-trolls, either. You get grown men and women who are supposedly solid citizens saying "Well, you know, caveat emptor and all that." Fuck that noise. Caveat vendor. If you're going to con people, you deserve to be fined and publicly humiliated. The fact that you're conning the credulous or the dim makes it worse, not better - you're taking advantage of people who can't defend themselves for your own fiduciary benefit, which is evil by definition.
A $5M class action on $200M/yr is a parking ticket, not a cause for concern among investors. If they can sleep at night already, this won' change that.
@colonelpanic: Let's see, they've gotten around 54m in funding, their revenues are around 200m, and their profit is where? They have a bloated employee population and spend a crazy amount on marketing. When you're trying to go IPO, a 5-10m hit (maybe around the same time they go IPO) is definitely NOT a parking ticket.
I'm not disputing the claims that this is one big scam, but after you received a bogus charge on your phone bill from an offer through Zynga, why the fuck would you then give them your debit card number? The type of people that get scammed like this are the reason frozen pizza directions say "Remove cardboard from pizza before cooking." They're the same ones who believe the e-mail saying they've won $10 million in the Nigerian lottery, and all they need to do is send their bank account info so that the cash can be transferred.
@Z und Vielpunkt's chick: I totally agree with you. That's why I stated at the beginning of my comment that I wasn't disputing the Plaintiffs' claims. This whole situation should have been remedied well before it got to the point of a lawsuit. But then you have people screaming about policing the internet. There's also the issue of Facebook's involvement. For the sake of their own business, they should not have allowed these kinds of activities to take place on their watch. Looks to me like they turned a blind eye to reap the profits.
There's always going to be silly scams similar to this. I think there should be a government agency to which consumers can report scams like this. Well, at least one that will take these claims seriously and investigate them before people have to start suing to get a refund.
@Meiyou Wenti: I disagree. Being intellectually unsophisticated (or "a fucking idiot") makes you vulnerable to being taken advantage of. Consumer laws of most states take into consideration whether the victim is unsophisticated (or "a fucking idiot") when providing punishments and remedies.
What is most concerning is that this company is headed towards IPO and Pincus has admitted to doing "every horrible thing to get revenue." His tactics (scam revenue) are geared towards getting him the highest possible payday, and these tidbits above only confirm that he doesn't place much value on ethics.
What's just as concerning are what the people around him (his leadership team) are doing to further enable this. His CFO, Mark Vranesh, came from Supportsoft with him. Vranesh's successor and former Finance team at Supportsoft helped them lose a 10.7 million USD class action due to the fact they over-inflated revenues - did this practice start while Vranesh and Pincus were still there?
I'd be highly suspicious of Zynga's revenue statements in the lead up to their IPO. #markpincus
@MissNormaDesmond: Thanks for replying! Definitely not contesting his own blog posts, which is public record. I'm just wondering how subjective comments from tweets tied to the "sleaze-ball" accusations that this article attempts to convey (knowing the popularity of this website—can possibly damage an individuals reputation) can be defended as truth? #markpincus
@Konstantin Rabinovich: What was said that was untrue? Whoever Alaska Miller is, they gave their impression that Pincus's talk wasn't very good and gave them a sleazeball vibe. They didn't even call him a sleazeball directly, only said that that was the vibe they got. They have a right to their opinion, and to state it. If that's the talk from which the excerpt on Tech Crunch was taken, I can certainly see where they got that impression.
If I say that Sarah Palin seems like an idiot to me, she can't sue me for libel -- I haven't claimed that I have intelligence tests that prove she's an idiot, I've just stated my opinion. Libel is only actionable if it involves an untruth. Palin truly seems like an idiot to me, hence she can't sue me for libel for stating that fact.
[Edit: That was badly written. I should have said, "A published statement is only libelous if it involves an untruth."]
Never trust a guy who has an aspiring male model on the payroll whose sole job is to troll blogs and post cut & paste comments about how awesome he (Pincus) is. Surely I can't be serious? Oh, yes, say hello to "Blake Loftus" #markpincus
11/26/09
11/19/09
I mean, whenever someone calls to sell me a recurring charges scam, I don't cry to the phone company.
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
The fact that every time something on this topic is posted so many people leap to beat up on the people who were duped and not the people who took advantage of them makes me sad about the general state of people's values. Meanwhile, no one remarks on the stupidity of thieves who leave a blazing electronic trail straight back to the hideout. That, my friends, is seriously dumbass.
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
There's always going to be silly scams similar to this. I think there should be a government agency to which consumers can report scams like this. Well, at least one that will take these claims seriously and investigate them before people have to start suing to get a refund.
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/17/09
11/14/09
What's just as concerning are what the people around him (his leadership team) are doing to further enable this. His CFO, Mark Vranesh, came from Supportsoft with him. Vranesh's successor and former Finance team at Supportsoft helped them lose a 10.7 million USD class action due to the fact they over-inflated revenues - did this practice start while Vranesh and Pincus were still there?
I'd be highly suspicious of Zynga's revenue statements in the lead up to their IPO. #markpincus
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/15/09
If I say that Sarah Palin seems like an idiot to me, she can't sue me for libel -- I haven't claimed that I have intelligence tests that prove she's an idiot, I've just stated my opinion. Libel is only actionable if it involves an untruth. Palin truly seems like an idiot to me, hence she can't sue me for libel for stating that fact.
[Edit: That was badly written. I should have said, "A published statement is only libelous if it involves an untruth."]
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/13/09
11/13/09