Chris Pirillo wasn’t to happy to find some of his videos listed on Zango. Well you can listen for yourself how Chris felt about the whole situation.

Viewing the above video does not require the installation of adware onto your computer. Oh, I mean crapware…at least according to Chris…just his opinion of course.

Revver publishers should let Revver know how they feel about their content being syndicated to Zango. Of course, this isn’t the first time the Zango/Revver relationship has come up.

It looks like a ruling was handed down yesterday on ValueClick’s motions to dismiss. From the web site of the plaintiff’s attorneys:

On August 27, 2007, the Honorable Florence-Marie Cooper issued two orders denying, in part, ValueClick’s Motions to Dismiss the Class Action Complaints. The Court held that Defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing that Plaintiffs could not proceed in the lawsuits.

The pdf’s of the ruling are available as well at:

SRC Motion To Dismiss Order
Carrier Motion To Dismiss Order

Lots of legalese. It looks like the cases will proceed. Additionally, it appears that the plaintiff’s will have te opportunity to amend one claim the judge moved to dismiss if they so chose. So that point may end up back in the claim in some form. At least, that’s what it appears to my non-legal mind towards the end of the Carrier MTD Order.

I’m still wondering if and when ValueClick (VCLK) and/or CJ will have any kind of public comment regarding these lawsuits.

AFP will continue to follow developments in these lawsuits as they progress.

Every Affiliate Manager has probably seen these sites come through their program for approval. It’s the ready-made mall sites that are sold as packages to people so they can make their millions on the Internet while they sleep. I’ve often heard Affiliate Managers ask whether there is any harm in accepting these types of sites into their program, even though they realize the sites are not likely to convert sales. It seems that there may indeed be risk in accepting these types of package deal sites into programs.

On August 21, 2007, the FTC issued a press release outlining the action taken against a company selling these types of mall sites to consumers. The investigation was conducted jointly by the FTC and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and it appears the AG will be filing a parallel case.

The case was filed against The Results Group, LLC which sold affiliate sites and hosting to consumers as a business system for $99 to $599. They claimed that their system was generating over $50,000/month in commissions for some of their users. Yeah right. Anyone in this industry knows that is far from realistic. The Results Company would then pressure consumers into purchasing more “advertising” for the site they had purchased.

The FTC felt that consumers were provided with false and misleading information regarding The Results Group “turn-key” system. The upshot is that The Results Group will be returning about $435,000 to consumers and will give up thousands in cash which were the proceeds from the sale of luxury sports cars, the value of life insurance policies and a Las Vegas real estate deal. All of that sounds like the FTC hit them with “disgorgement of ill-gotten proceeds” legal whammy, which means they can go after those things purchased with money earned through a scam.

While less than half a million may seem like a bit trifling for the FTC go after, the order was for $19.5 million and $435,000 is the settlement amount. It sounds as if the FTC agreed to take whatever they could get based on current assets.

The FTC mentioned two merchants promoted through these web sites, Amazon and Overstock. While it is doubtful (or at least I would hope so) that the FTC or an AG would go after any of the merchants partnered with these types of mall site scams, there is a potential branding issue for merchants. As a merchant, do you really want your brand connected with such scams? Let alone even being mentioned in an FTC press release.

These types of scams can only exist because they have merchant affiliate relationships. Since anyone with half a brain in this industry knows that these types of sites just aren’t going to bring in any amount of revenue to write home about, it seems to be no reason to be connected with this type of business model at all.

My personal advice would be to hit the decline button and stay clear of such “turn-key” solutions.

The FTC recently received a court ordered temporary injunction against and the freezing of EDebitPay in regards to business practices related to their prepaid debit cards and short-term loans. My write up on the situation is bit lenghy based on the current available information, so I’ve posted it on my forum. You can see the full details here.

The gist of the allegations is that EdebitPay has been charging people a $159.99 fee for the debit cards without adequate disclosure, any disclosure and sometimes when they weren’t even applying for the prepaid card but a short-term loan.

These are very serious allegations and there are some indication it’s also been turned over to the FBI  (not surprising considering the allegations involved). If you have had any business dealings with EdebitPay, you probably want (or need) to stay abreast of this case.

It seems that companies like to wear many different hats these days in affiliate marketing. They are an affiliate network, an affiliate, a SEO company, an OPM company, etc. Sometimes, this situation can lead to a complimentary of services available through one company. It also opens the door to potential conflicts of interest. Of course not all companies will exploit those conflicts of interest. But there will also be those companies who are more than willing to take advantage for their own financial gain. When companies exploit conflicts of interest for their own financial gain, the picture can become quite ugly. Case in point….. (more…)