Actually, I'm inclined to believe it's someone who is angry with the company over the update issue, and no registration. In their demented and counterproductive way they are trying to force the issue....
This person who keeps accusing posted of being employees, or trying to deflect the porn as a direct responsibility of the company is highly suspect of being the very same person posting the smut
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Now you have shown yourself to be illiterate in the process.
Case law (as related to a specific type of case) is relied on heavily by the court when determining outcomes. People are making many accusations yet not backing anything up. That's why they should research what the law has to say in similar cases.
How is the company committing fraud? How are it's business practices unethical? There is no proof. None. Just some people who the methods dont suit so they 'think' there is fraud. It isn't. Advertising boards set standards. Members comply voluntarily. The law only gets involved when there is harm to persons...either physically or financially. Neither apply in regards to a free game not providing free or otherwise weekly update. No one is harmed. No one is out money. That is why the legal threat is ridiculous.
Take this issue to court and the matter will fail. First, there is very little regulation regarding Internet companies and practices. Therefore, there is no hard and fast rules to apply. Even consumer protection legislation doesn't fully cover Internet consumer issues. Legislators are trying to play catch up, ineffectively thus far.
The best plaintiff or defendant in any case are educated ones. Too many people rely on lawyers, who truly are in it to make a living as well. Go to sites, there are many depending your country so just google for it. FIND case law that have dealt with Internet business transactions and you will see what I'm saying. You can't rely on consumer legislation because it just isn't there for this scenario. If you are not out money and if your person hasn't been harmed, and is not in danger of being harmed...you have nothing.
There are consumer advocacy groups. By all means, talk to them. But be sure that you advise them your issue is regarding FREE no cost no losses issues. Consumer protection groups evolved to help protect consumers MONEY. I highly doubt any of them will try and help consumers recover ...um...zero losses.
I'd hoped for someone to rise above the emotion, but instead it's still illogical feelings of thinking they've been wronged, and resorting to insults before posting more of their smut. Par for the course with this board. Accuse without merit, then when asked to leave the emotion aside in order to discuss, these ones begin their insults and smut.
Anyone else wonder why it usually appears when there have been neutral or counter negativity comments? It's not the company. It's one of these that can't explain without angry emotion as to why an ad that costs them nothing, and harms them naught, causes them such distress.
You can't say it's because you're trying to protect others. A reasonable person will simply delete the app if it doesn't live up to their expectations.
Allow me to help with your research
https://www.ftc.gov/bcp/menus/consumer/tech.shtm
You will note as you peruse. No lost money, no issue. I would be totally onside, and even take it on, if players were promised new weekly content that never materialized AND we all had to BUY/PAY to download the game initially. That, as we know, is not the case here.
For a 30% cut of course? Sorry...fee?
Lmao!!! Sigh... Did you not understand my response? I said you can't just say (paraphrasing) "past case law"... In order to cite case law, you have to actually site A CASE and it's ruling and blah blah... I'd love to see you explain to a senior partner "well past case law shows..." theyd look at you as if you were nuts!! You need to identify the case, ruling, etc... Clarify? I'd be really honestly interested in learning which you're referring to.
I disagree with you so I'm stupid now.. Lol. Me? Stanford University (un)educated indeed. Technically I think I was re-educated. Lmao!!!
And you're missing an alternate argument... Say you are new to teamlava (as many are) is it reasonable to deduce from the ONLY method available to acquire the app (via iTunes dl) that after shopping the rs store, then choosing to purchase gems...you'd be able to use said gems on future avail items that would be offered, as stated, weekly? Given that the gem packages are better discounts at larger amounts, would again their printed app description (which in essence would be the information printed on the box in brick and mortar shop) lead you to choose a larger package?
I'm not going to break this down or spend a bunch of time dissecting the atom, all I was saying is if you're going to present your opinion, thats all it is... Your opinion. If you're going to use legal speak, you should use it correctly... Yes, we use case law... (Previous rulings, courts opinions....on and on) but if you're going to refer to it as a reason someone is stupid... Be kind enough to cite the exact case. Educate them... No need to simply infer they are mistaken and wrong because, in your opinion, they are. Wow sorry that was an awful sentence.
I never suggested ANYONE SUE??? Herro???
I actually suggested folks contact a FREE consumer rights group for assistance. As you know, they are exactly the people who, without monetary output, can better explain and/or assist consumers with their complaints.
So there you go. You assumed things without actually reading the co tent of my post.... Ummm are you really attempting to infer that I'm the one mistaken? I know you're not an attorney, just curious what is it you do that you feel so free to express your (in your opinion) superior legal knowledge?
You can cast all the disparaging remarks at me as you see fit, I'll keep snickering and showing my other attorney friends. Clearly you not only didn't read the content of my post but you seem to have added to it? I never discussed fraud, etc.... I specifically stated the waters had been muddied? I also suggested that if people felt inclined they could contact an advocacy group.
I don't think lexisNexis nor Westlaw are avail to research online by the general public at large? Again, a working knowledge would be very helpful when attempting to do the research... It's not for the faint at heart.
And yes I agree... The thought of suing because they promised new content, but didn't deliver any when a person has never PURCHASED any gems, would be errrr ok, silly. Lol. But people have the right to call a consumer group to get assistance with understanding their rights, etc... With respect and adequate clarification. Many of these consumer groups are extremely well-funded machines, there's no reason a consumer should NOT contact them if they feel they have a valid issue.
Thanks for the links... But if I were intending to sue, would I be here discussing anything with an anonymous person, who for all I know is a well intentioned, but simply argumentative, well-spoken gas station attendant with no high school diploma? Just stretching it to show the lunacy! I'm happy to engage in meaninful debates, but you misread my post and then attacked. Your argument is based on your error, so I have nothing to debate. Lol.
Guess the likelihood you're re-reading my posts and realizing you misunderstood me is fairly slim. Lol.
By the way... By rising above... Did you mean: implying I'm somehow intellectually inferior and making disparaging and snide remarks?
I did not attack you, I suggested you be more thorough in your responses because, in fact... You, in essence, you were acting as a lawyer or legal advisor by basically telling people they have no legal recourse because they're wrong.
I never said they did/didnt have a legal argument. I did correct your misquote. The statements are vastly different and yea, i suggested you refrain from referring to people's discussions as stupid. I do not see how I was emotional or ummm beneath you.
Seriously... You made some valid points but you flubbed with me... It happens to me too. The better person admits their errors.
Hi
I'm not the one you're arguing with. You guys are almost saying similar things...I think. But it's not my thing. I scrolled back reading-trying to ignore porn because you two are interesting. If you think he misunderstood u, I think u misread him too eg
So I think they said the stuff they were saying wasn't to u? They did say To him, meaning his opinion. Well anyways I followed the link. Boring in some ways but did make me think to read more. Too bad u two argue because maybe u could help some of us make sense of why it's allowed to continue.
Lol thanks!! Ummm actually let me ask you a question.... If someone told you your idea was stupid.... Would you find it offensive? There was no need for him to post that msg or characterize it as stupid. Stupid is not a legal term. Lmao!!!!
Ummm he called me illiterate? Lmao!!! I don't think he has a law degree... He's informed, but he is behaving more as a defendant's attorney than a plaintiffs... In other words, in opposition to anyone wondering if they have a legal argument. His arguments are based on a couple people's concerns, but there are many others that he failed to correctly address yet looped in by using "fraud, etc...." it's a dangerous path... Each instance comes with it's own facts. It's the sum whole that you must address not the sum of the sums. Lmao!!
Bottom line... He posted that I somehow spoke to lawsuits etc. I didn't. I tried to help and ask him to be more informative and sensitive. I was called illiterate. Ummm that's irony, he misunderstands my post and I'm illiterate? I think he meant ignorant? HAHAHAHA!!!!
I'm happy to discuss issues in an objective manner, but understand.... His stance is not in any of the posters favors and he rather slyly suggested folks NOT speak to any consumer advocates, by suggesting youll be wasting your time.
Posting Permissions
