misleading
Latest
Facebook and eBay crack down on fake product reviews after UK warning
Facebook and eBay are taking steps to crack down on fake and misleading product reviews, following an advisory notice from the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Both companies have signed agreements to better identify, investigate and respond to fake reviews, resulting in Facebook removing 188 groups and disabling 24 user accounts, and eBay permanently banning 140 users.
Sega and Gearbox targeted in Aliens: Colonial Marines lawsuit
Gearbox Software and Sega have both been named in a class action lawsuit alleging that the two companies knowingly misrepresented Aliens: Colonial Marines in trade show demos. After the game was released to negative reviews, some players and critics claimed the game's trailers and demonstrations didn't match up to the final product. The lawsuit's plaintiff, Damion Perrine, and the law firm of Edelson LLC have decided to take the matter to court for consumers. The suit cites a tweet from Gearbox head Randy Pitchford, who called initial complaints over the delta between demo and final game "understood and fair." The legal action also suggests demos were misleadingly labeled as "actual gameplay," and that Sega embargoed press reviews until the early morning of Colonial Marines' release date, preventing early buyers from discovering the differences. Accordingly, the suit asks for class action damages for anyone who pre-ordered the game or bought it on release day. The next step in a class action suit like this will be for the courts to certify the class. Unless Sega and Gearbox fight for a settlement right away, Edelson will next need to figure out how many players were mislead in the way described in the lawsuit. Once determined, the class will be notified of the suit, and the case can move forward.
Australian High Court rescues Google, says it isn't responsible for the content of ads
No one can doubt the stamina of Australia's consumer watchdog, the ACCC. For six long years it hauled Google from hearing to hearing, court to court, in the belief that the internet giant should be held responsible for any "misleading" advertisements displayed as search results. But now the ACCC must accept defeat. Five judges of Australia's High Court have unanimously overturned an earlier ruling from a lower court that would have required Google to set up a compliance program to vet ads. The upshot is that Mountain View can't be blamed if one of those ads turns out to be deceptive. The specific example that triggered the lawsuit -- that if someone had searched Google in 2006 for the words "Honda Australia," they'd have been shown a sponsored link from one of Honda's rivals -- may already seem like an outdated objection. As a result of this final ruling, that's exactly what it is.
Aussie regulator raps TV makers for touting 'WiFi ready' products
Sony, LG, Panasonic, Samsung and Sharp will no longer be marketing their TVs and Blu-Ray players as "WiFi ready" in Australia unless they're actually ready to connect to a WiFi network. Many products labeled as such often require the additional purchase of a $100-$120 AUD ($80-$100) dongle, and the ACCC, the country's US FTC doppelgänger, has ordered the makers to stop the practice. It all started when a customer complained to the watchdog after feeling burned when his "WiFi ready" TV... wasn't. The fact that similar terms were being used on products that actually have built-in adapters was another strike against the practice, according to the regulator from down under. However, if you happen to reside somewhere else in the world, it's caveat emptor, as usual.
Australian court holds Google responsible for misleading search ads
In a turnaround from a lower court ruling, three Australian Federal Court judges ruled yesterday that Google was responsible for its advertisers' content and that it breached the country's trade law by hosting misleading ads. The case centered on four ads in particular, in which the advertisers used the names of their competitors to ensure the ads appeared in search results for said companies. That, the court ruled, was likely to mislead folks searching for those competitors. While there's no fine imposed on Google with that judgement, the judges are asking Google to change its practices and to pay court costs. The ruling also, of course, sets quite a precedent if it is upheld. Not surprisingly, Google disagrees with the judges' decision, noting that it believes "advertisers should be responsible for the ads they create on the AdWords platform," and that it's now considering its options (including an appeal to the High Court).
Did Apple shrink the Samsung Galaxy S in Dutch lawsuit filing?
We haven't had a chance to head on down to The Hague to have a look-see for ourselves, but Dutch tech site Webwereld spotted some more inconsistencies in Apple's Samsung lawsuit filings. This time the culprit is a shrunken Galaxy S, standing side-by-side with an identically tall iPhone 3G -- when in reality the Samsung phone is seven millimeters taller than its Apple counterpart, and slightly wider as well. The image, filed in the Netherlands, is part of an intellectual property suit against Samsung, and came to light just days after accusations that Apple manipulated photos of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 that it submitted to a German court. While misleading, this latest error isn't nearly as concerning as last week's shrunken Tab -- which could easily be described as image manipulation, considering that the tablet included in that filing represented an incorrect 4:3 aspect ratio, while the Samsung device has a 16:10 display. Update: The phone pictured above is the Samsung Galaxy S, not the Galaxy S II. [Thanks, Florian]
Did Apple alter photos of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in its injunction filing?
Previously, on Apple Versus Samsung: Cupertino's finest sued Samsung for making "similar" products -- a legal spectacle that most recently culminated with an injunction blocking the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 across Europe (with one exception). The case hinges on Apple's assertion that Samsung is ripping off its designs, but tech site Webwereld spotted signs that perhaps Apple's claims are exaggerated, and that the outfit might have even gone so far as to alter images of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 to suit its case. The comparison shot you see up there is lifted from page 28 of a filing made by Freshfields Bruckhaus Derringer, Apple's European lawyers. Both devices look pretty identical with an aspect ratio of 4:3 -- except in reality, the Tab has a 16:9 16:10 aspect ratio and is far narrower than Steve's magical slate. Of course, we might never know if this was actually a malicious move on Apple's part -- certainly, Samsung's legal team isn't saying anything. For now, though, if you're game to play armchair attorney, head past the break for a comparison shot of the competing tabs as we actually know and love them. [Thanks, Jack]
Notion Ink Adam gets caught Photoshopping its bezel away
How big is the Notion Ink Adam's screen? Well, it depends on what time you looked at the company's site today. If you were one of the unlucky folks who saw the image titled "preordernow.jpg," the screen's a tiny bit smaller and the bezel a tad larger than it is for all the fortunate peeps pre-ordering from the "preordernow1.jpg" pic that's currently gracing the site. Now's your chance, guys -- go grab yourself the truly magical and revolutionary tablet whose specs change with the wave of a Photoshop airbrush. [Thanks, Andrew] Update: To be clear, we don't know which of the two 'shops is the real deal -- technically, neither is, they're both renders -- but earlier prototypes have shown some pretty slinky bezels. It'll be on Notion Ink to demonstrate just how slim the Adam's screen surround is when it finally unveils the real deal.
Best Buy advertising higher than regular prices as sales?
Could some Best Buy "sales" not really be sales at all? Shocking, we know, but stay with us for a minute. As Consumerist reports, the mega retailer seems to have recently begun advertising some laptops at prices that are actually higher than their regular price, and then taking things one step further by placing "as advertised" signs on the laptops in store -- thereby giving consumers the impression that they're getting a deal. A tipster to Consumerist specifically sites laptops like the Dell and HP modes advertised for $649.99 and $699.99 in the latest ad pictured above, which are apparently $20 and $50 higher than their regular price -- previous laptops advertised at higher prices also now seem to have gone back to their regular price. Of course, all of this seems to technically be on the up and up, since Best Buy isn't actually advertising the laptops as being "on sale" but, if it is indeed a regular practice, it's definitely not doing a service to customers, to say the least. Update: So here's the deal: Best Buy is bundling 6 months of its Ask an Agent and Virus and Spyware Protection packages into the offers. Each would normally cost you an extra $20 ($40 in total) which Best Buy is now giving away for "free" with the inflated price tag. Hey, we're sure you were going to buy those anyway, right?
Dell engaged in misleading business practices, says NY judge
According to a state judge in Albany, New York, Dell and its financing arm "engaged in deceptive business practices related to financing promotions for its computers and technical support." The decision, which was just released yesterday, contained quotes from NY State Supreme Court Justice Joseph C. Teresi stating that the Round Rock mega-corp dabbled in "repeated misleading, deceptive and unlawful business conduct, including false and deceptive advertising of financing promotions and the terms of warranties, fraudulent, misleading and deceptive practices in credit financing and failure to provide warranty service and rebates." The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo last year, and while Mr. Cuomo was understandably delighted with the outcome, a Dell spokesman made clear that it didn't agree with the decision and it would be "defending its position vigorously." As for potential restitution for NYers, we won't know any of that until further proceedings are held.[Thanks, Nate]
DirecTV whines over HD survey results, sues Comcast for false advertising
You're probably familiar with the old adage that getting sued just isn't satisfying enough until you take someone else to court over the exact thing that you're being accused of, but even if you're not, DirecTV's here to refresh your memory. The satellite TV provider has apparently scrunched up its nose at a recent promotional advertising campaign in which Comcast claims that two-thirds of satellite customers felt "Comcast delivered a better HD image" when compared to DirecTV and Dish Network alternatives. Not believing that we oh-so-capable humans might be able to actually perceive the difference when an HD feed is somewhat crippled, DirecTV decided that the results mustn't be correct, and suggested that the "survey upon which Comcast relies does not provide or sufficiently substantiate the propositions for which Comcast cites the survey," and concludes by boldly proclaiming that all of the claims "are literally false." Of course, Comcast is standing strong behind its results for the time being, and while either party could most certainly have a case against the other, why are we using cash for HD channel expansion to pay legal teams?[Via TGDaily]
Dissecting Sony's PS3/Xbox 360 price comparison
Over at sister site Engadget, they've noticed that a recently released Sony fact sheet (relevant section pictured above) uses some pretty interesting math to make the Xbox 360 look more expensive than the PS3 once all the extras are added in. Let's go through their list and see what's valid and what's just obfuscation? Console: Starting with the lower system prices is a little misleading right off, since a majority of PS3s and Xbox 360s are sold in the pricier premium packages. Still, I'm sure that $499 looks a lot better than $599 from Sony's point of view. "Requires Users to Buy": This is misleading because none of the following items are actually required to, y'know, use the system. However, the items are required for 360 owners who want certain functionality that the PS3 has right out of the box. "Extras" or "Add-ons" might have been a better heading. HDD (20GB): Yes, this does cost $100 if you buy the core 360, but upgrading to the premium SKU gets you the HDD and extras like a wireless controller, headset and component cables for the same price. Highly misleading. HD-DVD drive: A fair comparison, but only if you want to play HD movies on your system, which is far from a valid assumption for all buyers. Wireless controller: This is possibly the worst item, making it seems like the 360 doesn't come with a controller at all. Buying the core 360 and a $50 wireless controller actually gets you two controllers -- one wired, one wireless -- compared to the PS3's $0 for one wireless. And, as stated above, using the premium pack comparison would change this $50 to $0 for an apples-to-apples comparison. Online Access/Xbox Live: Possibly the biggest argument in Sony's favor, the $50/year for full-featured Xbox Live balloons into even more over the life of the system (I'm surprised, in fact, that Sony didn't extend this cost to include a few years of service). However, the free silver subscription provides much of the functionality for free, making the comparison a little more complicated. So is it fair to say that the 360 costs more, in the end, than the PS3? Yes and no. It really hinges on whether HD movies are important to you and whether or not you're willing to pay for online multiplayer. Regardless, implying that you need to spend close to $700 to use a 360 skirts dangerously close to the edge where creative marketing meets false advertising.(Thanks to everyone who sent this in)
