Adultfriendfinder gets the SMACKDOWN from the FTC

[SmokeyTheBear]

from ftc homepage

"bars the defendant from displaying sexually explicit ads to consumers unless the consumers are actively seeking out sexually explicit content or unless the consumers have consented to viewing sexually explicit content. It requires the defendant to take steps to ensure that its affiliates comply with the restriction, and end its relationship with any affiliates who do not comply. It also requires the defendant to establish an Internet-based mechanism for consumers to submit complaints. Finally, the settlement contains bookkeeping and record- keeping requirements to allow the Commission to monitor compliance."

[beemk]

thats good, im surprised they never got hit with something for bait and switch for displaying fake girls pics to get people to join. i know of a paysite that got shut down by ccbill for a few days just for having a video on the tour before they updated it in the member area.

[qxm]

reasonable demand...........

[TheSenator]

Would that mean more sales for affiliates who use more traditional advertising?

[cherrylula]

uhoh, is this at all related to the zango advertising? popups?

[BitchenBob]

Originally Posted by beemk

thats good, im surprised they never got hit with something for bait and switch for displaying fake girls pics to get people to join.

Word

[brand0n]

Interesting

[sortie]

Yeah, it's a wake call. The enforcers are closing the gap.

Shit you got away with yesterday will get you slammed tomorrow.

People building empires on copyright infringement etc... are in for big surprises in the comming years. All their profits are going to be wasted on legal fees including bail.

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by cherrylula

uhoh, is this at all related to the zango advertising? popups?

yup.. well it doesn't name zango , but its obvious they played a big role.

I remember warning aff before the whole zango debacle started that if you do biz with companies who have already been busted by the FTC, the chances of you being investigated skyrocket.

2 years later aff gets busted by the ftc..

wait till the torrent stuff hits..

no wonder they tried to get a quick sale in

[JD]

fucking OWNED

[Karma Kills]

Smackdown???

Not really. Very reasonable requests for them (and for any adult online company for that matter).

[thonglife]

Originally Posted by sortie

Yeah, it's a wake call. The enforcers are closing the gap.

Shit you got away with yesterday will get you slammed tomorrow.

People building empires on copyright infringement etc... are in for big surprises in the comming years. All their profits are going to be wasted on legal fees including bail.

Some of the more popular file sharing boards are in for a big surprise soon.

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by Karma Kills

Smackdown???

Not really. Very reasonable requests for them (and for any adult online company for that matter).

reasonable yes, but most of their traffic is from this type of ads i would assume as thats where i see it most.

so if most of your traffic you can no longer use , that is going to cost some bucks. that would be as close to a smackdown as you can get..

besides that , getting busted by the ftc doesnt look good for your cred.. it means anyone you do a relationship with will be looked at with a fine tooth comb, thats why aff is in this mess because they teamed up with zango who just finished getting busted by the ftc for the same types of things.

[DaddyHalbucks]

How do they define "sexually explicit?"

[Quickdraw]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

...besides that , getting busted by the ftc doesnt look good for your cred.. it means anyone you do a relationship with will be looked at with a fine tooth comb, thats why aff is in this mess because they teamed up with zango who just finished getting busted by the ftc for the same types of things.

They also teamed up with Smartbot several years ago and were one of a few known companies that were listed on the FTC site for funding that malware/advertising operation.

[Scootermuze]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

How do they define "sexually explicit?"

If you're doing a search for travel, or flowers... and adult content pops up on your monitor, does it really matter how the term is defined?

[Phil]

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by CAMOKAT

[Wiredoctor]

This good news thread deserves a bump.

[FightThisPatent]

coverage on the story:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/07...-porn-pop-ups/


it looks like the geo-ip type ads that affiliates run that pulls from their server and the pics they show can be sexually explicit....



Fight the googling!

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Would that mean more sales for affiliates who use more traditional advertising?

Ummm yeah thats what you will see.

Hmmmm.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by Karma Kills

Smackdown???

Not really. Very reasonable requests for them (and for any adult online company for that matter).

true.. the implications of this can affect all adult paysite programs.. where if affiliates are running graphic looking banneres on pages that aren't adult related, and people get all sqeemish... would FTC target the paysite, or the affiliate?

In this AFF case, they probably targetted AFF because the pic are pulled from their server.

So in the case of an affiliate hosting the graphic banner on their website and showing it on pages that aren't adult related, might come under the scrutiny of FTC...

this might have greater implications beyond AFF..


Fight the microscope!

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

true.. the implications of this can affect all adult paysite programs.. where if affiliates are running graphic looking banneres on pages that aren't adult related, and people get all sqeemish... would FTC target the paysite, or the affiliate?

In this AFF case, they probably targetted AFF because the pic are pulled from their server.

So in the case of an affiliate hosting the graphic banner on their website and showing it on pages that aren't adult related, might come under the scrutiny of FTC...

this might have greater implications beyond AFF..


Fight the microscope!

edit addition:

read a little bit slower.. its for use of popup ads.. looks like a zango thing.. but the implication might still extend to banner ads


Fight the reading the story slower and with glasses on!

[FightThisPatent]

i pulled my thoughts together for my xbiz Fight the Blog post:
http://www.xbiz.com/blogs/blog.php?b...id=87453#87453

FTC not liking AFF
Dec.7.2007

Posted on December 6th on FTC website as well as some media coverage here, AFF targeted by FTC.

Headline from FTC.gov home page: Adult-Oriented Online Social Networking Operation Settles FTC Charges; Unwitting Consumers Pelted With Sexually Graphic Pop-Ups An operation that foisted sexually explicit online pop-up ads on unwitting consumers has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the practice violated federal law.

It appears that the issue is the notorious zango popping up AFF pages when a surfer is browing for non-adult related items.

They cite:

According to the FTC, AdultFriendFinder.com, which touts itself as ?The World?s Largest Sex & Swingers Personal Community,? and its affiliates use pop-up ads to drive traffic to its Web sites. Some of the ads have included graphic depictions of sexual behavior, exposing consumers, including children, to sexually explicit images. Such ads were displayed to consumers who were searching online using terms such as ?flowers,? ?travel,? and ?vacations.? In some cases, defendant?s sexually explicit ads were distributed using spyware and adware.

The agency alleged that the practice of displaying graphic pop-up ads without consumer consent was unfair, and violated the FTC Act.

The FTC settlement terms:
The settlement bars the defendant from displaying sexually explicit ads to consumers unless the consumers are actively seeking out sexually explicit content or unless the consumers have consented to viewing sexually explicit content. It requires the defendant to take steps to ensure that its affiliates comply with the restriction, and end its relationship with any affiliates who do not comply. It also requires the defendant to establish an Internet-based mechanism for consumers to submit complaints. Finally, the settlement contains bookkeeping and record- keeping requirements to allow the Commission to monitor compliance.

This will be interesting to see how this affects zango.. because a rogue affiliate can cause these AFF popups to come up, and AFF gets the slam from the FTC again.

AFF provides the content, its the affiliate that chooses to pop those ads, whether as a link from their own website, or using services like zango/gator/etc.

In a way, its unfair to slap AFF because they can't control what affiliates do with their affiliate links. AFF can't control an affiliate to not use zango, other than terminating the account once they find out about it.. and for that.. who's going to be doing that reporting?

The FTC would just see it as AFF ads are popping and blame them.

An interesting delimma.

I see the implications of this scrutiny to go one step further. Sites like AFF allow affiliates to embed profiles of members, where the images are pulled from AFF servers, that could be sexually explicit.

Banners that are sexually graphic could be targetted next by FTC when affiliates run these banners on pages that aren't adult related.

Will adult paysite/cash program be responsible for that as well?

Fight the microscope!

[G-Rotica]

About damn time.

[FightThisPatent]

Followup thought:

FTC/AFF case to help against obscenity?
Dec.7.2007

A follow up thought to the FTC/AFF story.

From the FTC website, they wrote:
-----------------
The settlement bars the defendant from displaying sexually explicit ads to consumers unless the consumers are actively seeking out sexually explicit content or unless the consumers have consented to viewing sexually explicit content....
-----------------

So if a web surfer visits an adult website that has the warning labels that it is an adult site, and they enter the website as an adult to view adult material.. how can there be obscenity charges anymore?

If the adult content was in the open (like you see on some paysites, TGP, MGP, etc)... that's one issue where people who stumble upon those images, but in circumstances when an adult choose to view content...

Maybe the adult lawyers can use this case to help in obscenity issues.

Fight the Click if over 18!

[12clicks]

no fines, no real restraints, thats some smackdown.

[Kram]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

no fines, no real restraints, thats some smackdown.

Look its a bro, go suck some cock ...

[Far-L]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

no fines, no real restraints, thats some smackdown.

Yep - someone needs to ask Ron Levy what a real FTC smackdown is...

[SleazyDream]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

from ftc homepage

"bars the defendant from displaying sexually explicit ads to consumers unless the consumers are actively seeking out sexually explicit content or unless the consumers have consented to viewing sexually explicit content. It requires the defendant to take steps to ensure that its affiliates comply with the restriction, and end its relationship with any affiliates who do not comply. It also requires the defendant to establish an Internet-based mechanism for consumers to submit complaints. Finally, the settlement contains bookkeeping and record- keeping requirements to allow the Commission to monitor compliance."

wake the fuck up here you moronic AFF haters and realize just how fucked up a ruling that was for EVERYONE in adult.

so what I'm reading between the lines here isn't good for everyone.

from what I get is that this seems like anyone who displays an ad for ANYTHING sexually related - not just dating but ANYTHING sexually related cause AFF doesn't really sell sex - they are a DATING SITE - anyone selling their explicit adult site on another site that ISN'T sexually explicit in nature is in violation.

that is a SCARRY SCARRY ruling for EVERYONE.

probally the scariest ruling I've scene or heard of to date

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by SleazyDream

that is a SCARRY SCARRY ruling for EVERYONE.

exactly.. a rogue affiliate could use zango to pop ANY adult website (tgp, FHG, etc) that has sexually explicit material when someone is searching for "flowers", and apparently, the FTC thinks its the paysite's fault.

FTC should be targeting zango (AGAIN), because they are causing the popups to happen.

The surfer didn't ask for adult content to be shown, but because some affiliate purchased the keyword/domain, it would trigger a popup.


Fight the wrong guy!

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

no fines, no real restraints, thats some smackdown.

Actually, if I am not mistaken, AFF must pay the FTC for their costs associated with the case. Even if that is not so, there are a number of other costs that AFF is going to have to absorb as a result of the settlement.

The injunction is pretty broad, so compliance (including establishing new procedures for monitoring affiliate activities) may come at a substantial cost to AFF.

It appears that AFF will not be able to use the "rogue affiliate" defense in the future, since if I read it correctly, the court seems to be saying that AFF is responsible for the actions of its affiliates.

Their appear to be numerous ways for AFF to respond, such as using less explicit ads etc., but even these changes will likely have some cost associated with them.

Finally, AFF will have to open up their books and provide the government with detailed financials, which may expose AFF to other potential future actions, if the rest of their operation is managed similar to how they have handled pop-ups, and the litany of other complaints that have come against the company over the past few years (and before).

I guess that's why they pay the big bucks for their lawyers...

ADG

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by SleazyDream

that is a SCARRY SCARRY ruling for EVERYONE.

probally the scariest ruling I've scene or heard of to date

Except for that it is not a "ruling," it is an agreement stipulated to by two parties. It sets no precedent, and establishes no new law.

I know that many people will find the "no admission of guilt" thing to be laughable, but it is actually very significant, legally.

Don't take it from me, though; ask your attorney.

[D]

Whether or not a precedent is driven in stone, I agree that it doesn't bode well for everyone, because, if nothing else, it reaffirms that the regulatory spotlight needs to be shone on our industry.

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

exactly.. a rogue affiliate could use zango to pop ANY adult website (tgp, FHG, etc) that has sexually explicit material when someone is searching for "flowers", and apparently, the FTC thinks its the paysite's fault.

thats because they are saying a sponsor has some responsibility to terminate affiliates it knows are using illegal methods of promoting them.

basically what they are saying is "rogue affiliate " is bullshit. they are making them establish an online consumer complaint form so that they can longer say " we didnt know"

this will likely put an end to all the torrent sites using aff, as all it will take is a few content owners to use the form and state the illegal promotion of aff using their material.. they wont be able to simply "shuffle" its clients to another affiliate code. If aff ignores the problem the ftc will be up their ass.

now the ftc will know exactly who these rogue affiliates are. I'm sure the torrent groups won't be too happy to hear aff being reamed by the ftc , as aff have likely given the torrent companies payment details to the ftc. and i would guess a few of them paid in USA ( ouch ) might be looking at charges themselves.

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

FTC should be targeting zango (AGAIN), because they are causing the popups to happen.

them too , i wouldn't doubt its already in the works.

[digifan]

Originally Posted by CAMOKAT

[CyberHustler]

This only applies to AFF, or to other dating sites who use those geo-ip ads as well? Those ads convert like great for me damnit!

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by Kram

Look its a bro, go suck some cock ...

it so cute watching a noob try out his big boy voice.

[»Rob Content«]

Originally Posted by SleazyDream

wake the fuck up here you moronic AFF haters and realize just how fucked up a ruling that was for EVERYONE in adult.

so what I'm reading between the lines here isn't good for everyone.

from what I get is that this seems like anyone who displays an ad for ANYTHING sexually related - not just dating but ANYTHING sexually related cause AFF doesn't really sell sex - they are a DATING SITE - anyone selling their explicit adult site on another site that ISN'T sexually explicit in nature is in violation.

that is a SCARRY SCARRY ruling for EVERYONE.

probally the scariest ruling I've scene or heard of to date

Sleazy for someone who always brags about how intelligent they are you are coming across as a total failure of the brain with this post.

Did you actually read the decision that was made? OR are you just defending Lars and company blindly like you have for a long time?

There was no ruling made, the FTC gets involved when you are doing shady shit, nothing more then that.

There was no ruling made. The two sides came to a mutual agreement. This was most likely done because AFF knew they were in the wrong and if they let it go to a situation when a ruling could be made they would have been owned and had a heafty fine. Kind of like a plee agreement in court.

Did you ever stop to think that an agreement which you are saying is one of the scariest things you have ever saw would not have happened if AFF ran a clean ship? Maybe if they were not targeting sexually explict ads to people looking for flowers, or using spyware and adware, installs to get traffic this situation would not have happened...

Oh yeah, they also were placing ads in places that children were viewing them, yes it's true it's stated within the agreement.

When you say this ruling is scary to anyone selling sex.. That is part true. This ruling will be scary for anyone who uses these shady methods to generate that traffic. If you use something like zango to target people looking for a vacation spot, or buying flowers and send them to your adult sex site, then yes you are going to have a big issue. If you are using spyware, installs etc to get traffic to your site, then yes you are going to have a big issue.

This has nothing to do with being an AFF hater, and everything do with them fucking themselves with their shady tatics.

[boneprone]

AFF is done......

Safeway bought a lemon.

[will76]

Originally Posted by VG.Content

Sleazy for someone who always brags about how intelligent they are you are coming across as a total failure of the brain with this post.

Did you actually read the decision that was made? OR are you just defending Lars and company blindly like you have for a long time?

There was no ruling made, the FTC gets involved when you are doing shady shit, nothing more then that.

There was no ruling made. The two sides came to a mutual agreement. This was most likely done because AFF knew they were in the wrong and if they let it go to a situation when a ruling could be made they would have been owned and had a heafty fine. Kind of like a plee agreement in court.

Did you ever stop to think that an agreement which you are saying is one of the scariest things you have ever saw would not have happened if AFF ran a clean ship? Maybe if they were not targeting sexually explict ads to people looking for flowers, or using spyware and adware, installs to get traffic this situation would not have happened...

Oh yeah, they also were placing ads in places that children were viewing them, yes it's true it's stated within the agreement.

When you say this ruling is scary to anyone selling sex.. That is part true. This ruling will be scary for anyone who uses these shady methods to generate that traffic. If you use something like zango to target people looking for a vacation spot, or buying flowers and send them to your adult sex site, then yes you are going to have a big issue. If you are using spyware, installs etc to get traffic to your site, then yes you are going to have a big issue.

This has nothing to do with being an AFF hater, and everything do with them fucking themselves with their shady tatics.

Sleazy is a big pile of dong, nother more nothing less. Don't expect him to understand this.

It wasn't like one rouge affiliate did something bad for 24 hours and the FTC stepped in. This isn't scarry!! This is a direct result of the FTC getting complaints for weeks / months, probably years from people pissed off at what AFF was doing here, which was targeting very mainstream words with porn. Also notice the FTC said they have to provide a way for people to make complaints. Obviously people complained to AFF about this and CC'ed the FTC. The FTC could see that people were contacting AFF about this and nothing was being done to stop it (shocking AFF actually responding to shaddy shit and fixing it!!!)

Fucking dumb ass Sleazy makes it sound like this can happen to anyone at any time from just one occurrence. SCARRY!!!

Ever notice how the FTC only gets involved with shady companies that have been shady for years. How many innocent companies around here have gotten slapped by the FTC because they had a rouge affiliate signup the day before and do bad shit.... none.


People complain to the site when they see dirty shit. The site is made away of the problem. The site either fixes it or they don't. If they don't months later complaints pile up at the FTC, the FTC does an investigation. How to avoid this, don't do shaddy shit and fix problems that are reported to you.


SCARRY!!!

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by will76

SCARRY!!!

Translation: SCARY!!!

[Kram]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

it so cute watching a noob try out his big boy voice.

I might be new but I find it funny that the first thing I learn is that bro's are pieces of shit and suck each others cock

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by Kram

I might be new but I find it funny that the first thing I learn is that bro's are pieces of shit and suck each others cock

if thats what you took out of my post, you won't be here very long.

enjoy your visit

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

no fines, no real restraints, thats some smackdown.

opening your books to the ftc and having to build a consumer complaint form that the ftc actually follows up on will be an interesting hurdle as many of aff's affiliates advertise aff on sites that offer child porn or disseminate copyright material..

I dont think their affiliates will like knowing the ftc knows who they are and how much they are making alot more closer than they were.

and right before they were going to sell the company ? yah i would call that smackdown

you dont think getting investigated by the ftc might bring down the value of the company or scare off potential buyers ??

true though it would have been a much harder smackdown if they got some fines and restraints, either way i think they got a smackdown ..