Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryanwaggoner | Hacker News Reader

Unbelievable. Even if the product in question was completely fraudulent, how does it make any sense at all for the FTC to settle with the company who made it for $0 and then go after the ad network who promoted it for the entire amount that consumers paid? Are they supposed to test and verify the products and services of every advertiser on their platform?

This is nothing more than extortion, likely for the purposes of boosting some career politician's clout by increasing a number in a spreadsheet in Washington.

I wish they'd sue Google for some of the crappy ads that appears on their site, both so Google would clean things up, and also so someone with deep pockets would fight the FTC on this ridiculous policy. But I'm guessing these shakedown artists won't go after anyone big enough to put up a fight.

View on HN

The FTC settled with "VirtualWorks", the makers of the "private VISA debit card", for $0. That's the $0 figure in the post.

Jason is irate because he believes VirtualWorks, being the party that actually offered the card, should shoulder all the blame for deceiving consumers. He appears to find it bizarre that they could get off scot-free while he, the mere VP/Engineering of an ad network, could be stuck with an $800k settlement.

But if you read the FTC case, the issue that triggered the investigation wasn't the terms of the card, but rather the web-based promotion of the card, and specifically the way the enrollment for the card was buried in a payday loan signup. According to the FTC, presumably after discovery, these were matters under Swish's control.

I think you're being awfully knee-jerk here. Jason may be right, but it's not as if his story is uncontested; it in fact directly conflicts with much of a detailed formal statement submitted to a real court by real lawyers for the FTC.

Do any of the FTC have much business or technology experience? SEC is run by ex-bankers, should FTC be run by ex-marketers?

How much of Jason's settlement will actually go back to affected consumers? Zero. It will go into the FTC's budget.

What insight would a person with such experience have brought to this case, in your view?

This shows that the "company who made it" settled for $52,000, despite what the OP says:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/08/everprivate.shtm

Ha, only because that's what he could pay.

The order imposes a $5.5 million judgment against the settling defendants, which is suspended upon payment of $52,000 by the debit card company’s owner. The full judgment will become due immediately if the settling defendants are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The order also contains record-keeping and reporting provisions to monitor compliance.

In light of what tptacek posted, "unbelievable" is an excellent description.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com