Teeth-Whitening Company Sues Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, …
A dental whitening company that admittedly used deceptive ad campaigns to trick users into signing up for expensive subscriptions is now suing Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and others
News link: here
51 Responses
12.13.2009
Someone needs to put these companies down. They’re generating all their revenue by giving naive consumers the shaft, and now they’re filing a frivolous lawsuit because people got sick of their shenanigans. Shenanigans.
12.13.2009
I’m tired of idiots that click on ads like "viral videos" or "Get ripped in 4 weeks" or "Secret to whitening teeth" — you’re encouraging these lunatics into thinking their ads actually work–that making a claim without proof is beneficial to society….
12.13.2009
The ads DO work.the product does not.
12.13.2009
Did you sneeze when you started typing that?
12.13.2009
Yes, as the "Sue everything" model has worked so well for other companies.Maybe try having a real product with value to consumers? Just a thought.
12.13.2009
They are just trolling for a settlement, which I imagine all three will laugh at and drown the little crooks (all of them) in litigation. This is one time that the big guys are in the right. You KNOW their legal departments are going to use this to unleash all their pent-up legalese rage on some *****, once again, trying to sue their way to riches.I am all for the crushing of the scam artist…. they piss me off.
12.13.2009
Grammar Nazi FailI call Godwin’s Law
12.13.2009
Before these comments get any worse, read the article!This has nothing to do with Google rejecting scam ads, and everything to do with them accepting scam-scam ads.(And the suit is bogus, by the way.)
12.13.2009
I can’t stop laughing right now because I keep imagining some poor bastard sneezing while typing, as I read the above mentioned guy’s comment. hahaha!
12.13.2009
I don’t think you read much of the article yourself, cand.
12.13.2009
Their you grammar tool!
12.13.2009
What about 1 *****? 1/2 a *****? Is there a threshold point?
12.13.2009
if only Google could adblock there lawyers too
12.13.2009
Yes. 2 *****. exactly 2 *****. No more, no less. He already stated that.
12.13.2009
If people click on the ads, that means they have to pay Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft. If you don’t buy the product, then they should suffer a loss.
12.13.2009
I got tired of seeing yellow teeth on my browser and downloaded adblock. Works good!
12.13.2009
So there’s no mom’s solution to whiter teeth? No more fluorescent-yellow vs snow-white comparisons? alright. Now we just have to investigate what’s under those "I pumped myself in 4 weeks" ads with the picture of a douchebag before & after, and all those weight loss ads with flacid stomachs all over. ..I think it’s time to get adblock.
12.13.2009
They’re = they areif only Google could adblock "they are" lawyers toolol
12.13.2009
wait.. what?? you can sue someone for NOT letting you scam or con them??
12.13.2009
Looks like that mom "discovered" lawyers, too.
12.13.2009
"In addition to accusing the search engines of running infringing ads, the complaint (.pdf) names a slew of parties as defendants: Dazzlesmile LLC’s former advertising agency Epic Advertising, a.k.a. Azoogle.com, AzoogleAds U.S. and Epic/Azoogle; a Canadian named Jesse Willms and his corporation, “1021018,” which owns Just Think Media; a Cyprus-based company called Farend, owned by Nomilink Management, also based in Cyprus, with presences in Iowa and Colorado – all of which Dazzlesmile LLC claims are also owned by Willms; AtLast Holdings/AtLast Fulfillment, which shares a Colorado address with Farend and apparently fulfilled orders for the infringing products; and John Does affiliated with Epic Advertising and Willms."Damn. I’m just surprised that they didn’t include the electric companies that supplied electricity to all the computers that displayed the ads and God in their lawsuit.
12.13.2009
Please learn a little something about the subject before commenting on it. k thx by
12.13.2009
There IS such a thing as bad publicity, despite the urban legends.
12.13.2009
I’m going to pistol whip the next guy who uses the word shenanigans
12.13.2009
with his runny nose and teared eyes
12.13.2009
Dugg for me assuming you were being sarcastic and laughing.
12.13.2009
Free speech? Regardless of their tactics – I mean, if say, a member of some hate group came up to you and asked you to hand out flyers promoting their organization, you’re totally free to decline. Sure, they’re allowed to hand out the flyers themselves, but why should anyone else be forced to peddle their garbage? I think the Internet has made people completely lose track of what free speech means. Why should we care what ads Google does or does not choose to run? Why are you concerned about where this might lead? It’s not like advertising on Google is an inherent right – they have no obligation to run your ads, nor should they. Shouldn’t Google have a right to protect its image?
12.13.2009
WHITEN YOUR TEETH FOR 98 CENTS. BUY SOME PEROXIDE AND BRUSH WITH IT, IDIOTS.
12.13.2009
Exactly. FTA:"And while the lawsuit does not take the search engines to task for running deceptive ads — just infringing ones —…"
12.13.2009
I was going to was going to rant about freedom of speech in favour of the company, after reading about their tactics though, ***** them.This type of thing could get out of hand in the bigger picture, with Bing and News Corp close to a some sort of news exclusive deal and Google blocking ads, this is just internet censorship by proxy.All of it will be white washed in the media as "just business" and us, the people, will slowly have limited access to information unless we pay for it. The plan for a cable style subscription internet gets ever closer.I agree with the blocking but I think we should all be careful of what we wish for. If this company is deceiving people then shouldn’t a court of law be dealing with it rather than search engines doing it under the guise of "our safety"?I don’t know, I have mixed feelings.
12.13.2009
generally i don’t trust ads as a source of technology / science news.
12.13.2009
I wondered what happened to her
12.13.2009
Costs…nuff said
12.13.2009
RTFAing says jaydrag0n is right
12.13.2009
Just think of the damage Google, Yahoo and Microsoft could do to this guy if they wanted.
12.13.2009
awww, poor shady company is having a harder time scamming people/s
12.13.2009
I am glad I am not the only person who downloaded it for that reason!
12.13.2009
No you won’t. I call shenanigans.
12.13.2009
True, these misleading advertisements or websites are generating a lot of revenue. A friend of mine got scammed and lost 20 euros. But the worst are the fake antivirus ads on Google because you get both scammed and infected.Recently, Microsoft said that they would sue all those companies offering fake antivirus for Windows. I hope that with all the money they have, they can clean up this mess a bit.Let’s hope other companies follow the example too.
12.13.2009
I said the same thing in another thread and got bashed for it. But I agree with you.
12.13.2009
Peroxide and sand..
12.13.2009
rtfa
12.13.2009
I thought there had been a lessening in those BLOODY ANNOYING ads, lately.
12.13.2009
You’re right. Keep clicking on the ads and not buying anything.
12.13.2009
Umm, so you are dumb for just clicking on them now?
12.13.2009
I always click on those ads because it makes those ***** lose money.However, I think all the websites that advertise that crap should be sued. because they are part of this dirty scheme. I’ve seen the teeth whitening and "work from home" crap on all kind of reputable sites such as CNN, and I don’t know why they allow those ads to run from their sites.I mean, I make some money from ads on my website, but I won’t allow any crap there, I try to keep it clean.
12.13.2009
Sure was a confusing article
12.13.2009
Also please learn what "begs the question" means
12.13.2009
I’m so sad that this kind of companies and practices are throughout our society.