Fake "reviews" site from: CustomEssayWritingServices.com

Nice try, Ms. Clump. Lies are certainly nothing new for you.

These pathetic combacks of yours are always worth a couple of laughs.

Ha Ha. ^_^

Pity they're all you've got to defend your retarded idea with. :p

Hey, let's approach your dumb, meaningless assertion in another way. Let me play devil's advocate for a second and say that you're right about absolutely everything. AND? What have you accomplished? NOTHING. Who cares? NOBODY. Would that at all change how people believe and trust me? NOPE.

GOOD JOB!

LMAO!

ROFLMAO!!!! People "believe and trust" you to the extent that it does not affect their own livelihoods. They egg you on when you beat on other sites (whether such sites are scams or not) because all of those sites are their competitors. Your delusions of being trusted are both humorous and pitiful. In fact, I ALMOST feel sorry for you. ^___^

So, where are these legit members who have EVER suggested that they do not give me the benefit of the doubt (because I have unquestionably earned it) and trust the information and evidence that I type? Oh, that's right-there are none.

GOOD JOB, fatass!

Wow... there are no limits to your delusions. LOL!!! THIS VERY THREAD is an example that people DON'T give you the benefit of anything. Three members had responded to this thread but none of them showed even a sliver of blind support for your retarded idea.

PATHETIC.

Every one of them SCOLDED you for speaking for them. Shut up. You got embarrassed. Deal with it.

Did one of them agree with you or disagree with me? NOPE. They simply had not reviewed the lengthy legal documents (something on which you obviously depend). Now, do members generally trust what I type? YES. That's because my track record of posting FACTS and VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE speaks for itself. Deny that, and you will seal your deluded, propagandistic reputation.

Really? Speaking for them huh... who was that who said that...

"members that you reference already know what you're all about-" ^__^

and got "scolded" for it?

They brought up their respective positions on the matter which was precisely what I challenged them to do. If they WERE on your side and if they did give you the BENEFIT OF ANY DOUBT (HAHAHA!!!) They would have agreed with you and taken your word for it.

They didn't. Whether or not they agree with my position is irrelevant to the argument that you have people's "benefit of the doubt." That's just another lie from this forum's most delusional member.

HAHAHA, that is a FACT. Ask pheelyks or WRT what they have seen you do here for MONTHS. Ask them if them saw your direct statement that the ONLY reason why you are a member of this forum is to attack me. Ask them.

Actually, in regards to the essay industry, WB does have the benefit of the doubt from me. I don't think anyone on this forum is infallible, but when WB says that so-and-so owns a certain company, or that some company operates out of Uzbekistan, I generally believe her. This is because she usually has third-party info that I can (and on several occasions have) verified on my own.

I know and I am not questioning this. However, when it comes to matters such as the issue brought up in this thread, or others such as the C2C business model that was debated on months ago, which also concern the essay industry, WB's opinions are retarded, pretend-lawyer babblings.


Precisely. These aren't opinions, these are facts. Giving WB the benefit of the doubt over something that you can verify factually is one thing, siding with her on an opinion in an issue is another. If you want to go ahead and agree with her that actual sale needs to be proven to find a company guilty of false advertisement, then state that you do.

On this issue, you two are the only ones who care enough to have (presumable) read the legislation/case law, and so are the only two people that have commented on it. My understanding of most legal issues is that there are more grey areas than spaces of clear black-and-white, so the fact that you each think the other is wholly and entirely wrong means you're probably both in error to at least some degree.

and I find nothing wrong with this as well. I stand by my opinion that anyone who reads the Lanham Act would see things my way.

The Court Order and the Judge's Opinion are FACTS.


I have; EW_fraudster hasn't.


Your little quotes about the Lanham Act are utterly IRRELEVANT. The ONLY thing that matters in the real world (in which you obviously have no legal experience) is how a judge will interpret and adjudicate the Lanham Act. Anyone who reads the RULING and the OPINION will see that I am correct. Remember, you have admittedly not read the documents (because that gives you deniability). I have studied them quite closely since 2007. With those facts on the table, you expect people to believe YOU, the clueless blowhard? Keep dreaming, coward. Your uneducated "opinion" carries no weight.

Yes, and the Judge based on the decision that you posted adjudicated the case exactly as it should have been adjudicated. It was no landmark ruling. The interpretation of the Lanham Act is consistent with its original definition and prior interpretation which indicated that...


ficpi.org/library/montecarlo99/damages.html


No, they won't. I haven't read the actual text straight off the judge's table (and I suppose you have), but based on all of the information that you so graciously shared about the case, there can be NO DENYING that actual sale was not sought by the judge as part of evidence.

Oh, and before you ramble once again about "commerce" and "selling," these are elements of the Lanham Act. The advertisement in question must be targeting a product in the market. However, whether or not that product has actually been sold is not relevant to the case (contrary to your retarded opinion).

You're full of s-i*, as usual, liar. So, on what do you base this incredibly ignorant assertion about the judge's interpretation, considering that you have admittedly NOT read either the Ruling or the Opinion?


Show proof, or fu*- off.

Thanks for the evidence. ^____________^

Oh.. and if you want a grammar lesson on verb tenses, please look someplace else. I'm too busy to school you about it.

Nice try, c*nt. I won't play your stupid quoting game any longer. I could once again highlight the pertinent text that proves me correct, but you have absolutely no interest in ANYTHING other than attacking me, regardless of the proof that smacks you across your fat face.


Oh, really, w*0re? Enlighten me, if you have the guts (and no, not the beer guts that are currently hanging over all sides of your computer chair).

Ah yes.. the old "OH MY GAWD... I HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING THREATENING TO COVER UP THIS NEW DAMNABLE DEVELOPMENT!!!!" This never fails to amuse me.


I already did that, you ninny. ^_____^


Did the ruling say that the "misrepresentations and misleading warranties" HAVE mislead clients? No. The word is "WILL." The misrepresentations and misleading warranties WILL unquestionably victimize the average consumer. This is why Aact was found guilt which is consistent with the Lanham Act. A company can be found guilty of violating it whether or not the company gained financially from a false advertisement. The critical matter is the POTENTIAL to deceive rather than actual deception. Providing this potential is already sufficient for at least an injunction.

Gotcha! Hahaha ^___________^

Ah, so you think that the small snippet of text that I posted constitutes every word in the Ruling and Opinion? How stupid are you, exactly? Again, why are you too much of a coward to claim that you have read the documents?

Ohhhhh.. so now a "snippet" of text that you posted no longer accounts for anything? Hahahah!!! Feel free to post other "snippets" of text that disprove what is quite evident based on the text that you QUOTED and the explanation about the Lanham Act that I gave a link to.

You won't because YOU CAN'T. The ruling as you quoted it clearly shows that Aact was not penalized for any evidence of actual sale that the company was able to derive from its false advertisement. Aact was found GUILTY because of its ads' POTENTIAL to deceive clients, which is CONSISTENT with the tenets of the Lanham Act as explained in the page linked below.

ficpi.org/library/montecarlo99/damages.html

Yeah, keep posting your Swedish link from 1999. LMAO!


That is not the entire ruling, you fu**-n monkey. Again, until you claim to have read the entire Ruling and the entire Opinion, you have absolutely no credibility or audience.


COWARD.

AHahahahahaha!!! Ohhh.. watching you squirm is so sweeeet. ^__________^ Post the ruling then!!! Post the text from the judge that CONTRADICTS the simple logic that can be derived from the verb highlighted in the snippet below:

Ohohohoho!!! You're this desperate? ^________^

"That can't be a valid article on American law, the conference that it was presented in was held in Monte Carlo!!! That's not in the U.S. Plus!! The article was made available online through a SWEDISH website on law!!! Sweden isn't the United States! U.S. Law can only be discussed legitimately in American websites"

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ANY MORE STUPID IDEAS?!? ^__________^ KEEP EM' COMING!!!

COWARD.

End of story.

OH YOU WISH!!! Hahahaha!!! There you go again with the repetitive posts. I have admitted to reading everything about the case that you have posted on this thread. That is enough for me to fully substantiate my claim that the judge's decision was completely in line with the Lanham Act and DID NOT require proof of actual sale.

Now, UNLESS you can provide ACTUAL TEXT from the ruling that indicate otherwise, YOU ARE DONE! ^_____^

Sorry, that's not how debate works, Margaret "Super Wh". I made an assertion about the judge's interpretation and adjudication of the Lanham Act. You have ignorantly claimed that I am wrong. Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to read the legal documents and provide evidence that proves me wrong. Otherwise, you're just proving once again that you're a clueless, spineless big-mouth whose only purpose in the forum is to disagree with me. That's a truly pathetic existence.

Aact's misrepresentations and misleading warranties regarding the quality and originality of its products and services WILL unquestionably victimize the average consumer, and constitute an unconscionable commercial practice of deception, fraud, and unlawful conduct in connection with the sale of goods and the performance of services sought by consumers.


Did the ruling say that the "misrepresentations and misleading warranties" HAVE mislead clients? No. The word is "WILL." The misrepresentations and misleading warranties WILL unquestionably victimize the average consumer. This is why Aact was found guilt which is consistent with the Lanham Act. A company can be found guilty of violating it whether or not the company gained financially from a false advertisement. The critical matter is the POTENTIAL to deceive rather than actual deception. Providing this potential is already sufficient for at least an injunction.

Now that I have established using the text from the ruling that YOU PROVIDED that you are in fact, 100% WRONG. It is your turn to attempt a rebuttal. That's how a debate works. I can understand how you may not get this because you've never participated in the WUDC. I have, a**hole. So if you CAN'T launch ANY REASONABLE REBUTTAL against my argument..

You, my filthy, pathetic, sweeeeeet retard are DONE. :p

Now watch this, folks... instead of giving a rebuttal, WB will simply AVOID the argument presented above and just resort to throwing insults. ^_________^ Classic WB "strategy" of argumentation.

WRONG, moron. Can you not comprehend simple English? I quoted just a few lines from the Ruling, and NOTHING from the Opinion. YOU claim that I am wrong; therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU. Why don't you attack the documents like you would a baloney sandwich?

Good luck, c*nt.

Proof...


Explanation:

Did the ruling say that the "misrepresentations and misleading warranties" HAVE mislead clients? No. The word is "WILL." The misrepresentations and misleading warranties WILL unquestionably victimize the average consumer. This is why Aact was found guilt which is consistent with the Lanham Act. A company can be found guilty of violating it whether or not the company gained financially from a false advertisement. The critical matter is the POTENTIAL to deceive rather than actual deception. Providing this potential is already sufficient for at least an injunction.

Rebuttal?

None. You can't even bring yourself to post anything from the opinion to defend your retarded idea because YOU KNOW that there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING there that you can use.

You're done. ^_^

I will repeat that line over and over and over.

Hahaha! Because it's the only thing that's left for you to say. Don't you worry though, I don't need to repeat my statement after this post. It's so crystal clear that I'm VERY comfortable with this thread ending here. You can have your last say (I know that that's soooooooo important to you). ^_^ When readers see how much you've neglected answering a simple argument, they'll be able to tell quite unequivocally how RETARDED you and your argument are.

Here it is one last time (at least for this thread) Does actual proof of sale need to be provided to hold a company liable for false advertisement under the Lanham Act?

According to Judge Freda L. Wolfson, No, it does not.

Proof (quoted from actual ruling as provided by WritersBeware)
Aact's misrepresentations and misleading warranties regarding the quality and originality of its products and services WILLunquestionably victimize the average consumer, and constitute an unconscionable commercial practice of deception, fraud, and unlawful conduct in connection with the sale of goods and the performance of services sought by consumers.

Did the ruling say that the "misrepresentations and misleading warranties" HAVE mislead clients? No. The word is "WILL." The misrepresentations and misleading warranties WILL unquestionably victimize the average consumer. This is why Aact was found guilt which is consistent with the Lanham Act. A company can be found guilty of violating it whether or not the company gained financially from a false advertisement. The critical matter is the POTENTIAL to deceive rather than actual deception. Providing this potential is already sufficient for at least an injunction.

And now.. WB's last post on this thread. She will claim that I have the burden of proof, where in fact I have provided the proof above already (thanks to her). She will not make any reasonable rebuttals, nor will she quote anything from the "opinion" that she is so fervently brandishing. Why? Because there is simply nothing left for her to say except a few obscenities. Poor... sad... retarded WritersBeware. Tsk tsk tsk.... the floor and that sweetly pathetic final word that you are so desperate to have are yours. :p

Actually, no. It's because I'm tired of playing your immature game. Make believe that you're an adult and read the documents. Until then, you're wasting my time.

Regardless of the Lanham Act, the fact remains that the writing companies online still continue to hire other writes to write glowing reviews of their sites for various rating websites or even their own "testimonials" page. It is extremely difficult to prove that they paid for these services though as they pass the project through other channels or sister writing companies in order to get around the law. I used to be one of the writers who got paid to write glowing reviews for these sites posing as a "highly satisfied and returning client". I did not mind doing so as I considered it merely a paid writing gig.

Now I am wondering as to why nobody has bothered to bring these companies up on charges based on the law. Is it because it is hard to prove? Nobody cares? Or this is one case where the law exists but because people need to get something done, they opt to overlook the law and just hope to never get caught? Never mind that the company is actually located in India, which probably places the company outside of the U.S. jurisdiction in terms of laws as the crime needs to have been committed in the US in order to be accepted by a US based court. Just having a US based server or IP address , but no US business registration is probably what helps them circumvent the law.

Because those testimonials would probably be considered "puffery," which is often unethical, in my opinion, but legal. If everything that's unethical were illegal, the advertising industry would cease to exist, at least in its current form and size.

These paid for reviews are useless anyway. The students now prefer to get the reviews of the sites from the Likes and retweets that the company's social media account gets. So the focus of the companies have switched from fooling students using fake testimonies to fooling the students using the newest weapon in their arsenal, the social media accounts. The more popular their social media account, the more likely a student is to sign up with them. Think of it like, the more Instagrammable a restaurant is, the more clients it is likely to get among the millennial crowd. So fake reviews have been replaced by fake ratings, and the students are still none the wiser.

This is not the only fake writing review website around. These have actually proliferated in the past because of the competition between writing sites. They would go out of their way to leave bad reviews of each other on their specific flame sites, hoping that they could negative review one another out of business. While these companies still exist today, they are no longer listened to by the students, who have now come to understand that the review websites have a self serving purpose.