EW_writer 21 | 1981 ☆☆☆
Oct 21, 2010 | #41
Well, I know it's beating a dead horse but hey.. I promised so..
One of WritersBeware's MO is scaring writers out of working for sites like essaywriters.net and academic research by telling them that they can be held criminally liable for the false advertising committed by their employers.
I engaged her in this debate in the thread below, where I proved without a doubt that you cannot be an accomplice to false advertising if your actions do not contribute in any way to the advertisement.
As an utterly stupid, last ditch effort to hold on to her MO, WritersBeware declared that writers do provide critical assistance to their employer's false advertising because unless companies are able to sell a product to a client, they cannot be held accountable for false advertising.
essayscam.org/forum/gt/substantive-issues-essay-industry-1943/#msg35214
Substantive issues in the essay industry.
This gave me the perfect opportunity to bury her in the Lanham Act, the law which enumerates the only things that need to be proven for a false advertisement to hold.
To establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things:
(1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity;
(2) the statement either deceives or has the potential todeceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience;
(3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience;
(4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce;
and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff.
The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement'spotential to injure a customer.
Clearly, anyone who's NOT ON METH can see that proving that the offending company actually made a sale is not necessary (and I dare anyone else in this forum to say otherwise). However, WB just wouldn't let go (I don't blame her since she probably is on meth and her job is most likely everything she has). She kept on talking about how the law mentioned the word "commerce" and that that implies that the offending company should have made a sale and all that s-i*. Seriously, that's the most pathetic excuse I've ever heard. However, I haven't really constructed an example that undeniably ruins her "no sale, no crime" excuse.
Thanks to the mechanic example given by Pheelyks on this thread, I now have that perfect example.
Here it goes:
So let's say that shop A which normally charges $10/hour falsely advertises that its mechanic has a graduate degree when he doesn't. Across the street is shop B which charges customers $10/hour and has a mechanic who also does not have a graduate degree. However, shop B does not misrepresent their mechanic's qualifications. A couple of blocks away is shop C which actually has a mechanic with a graduate degree and charges $25/hour.
Now, let's say that shop A, despite its false advertisement, WAS NEVER ABLE to get a single customer. Customers were turned off by the shop's appearance, and really didn't like the manager's sleazy smile. Shop B on found out that shop A was advertising that its mechanic has a graduate degree. Can shop B prove a false advertising complaint against shop A? YES! Why?!? Shop A never completed a financial transaction? They never even mentioned shop B in their Ad. That's true but Shop A and Shop B charge the same rate. Customers who see that the two rates are the same would think twice about going to shop B, since shop A is able to charge $10/hr for a mechanic who allegedly has a graduate degree while shop B charges the same rate for a mechanic without a graduate degree. Shop B's business is getting negatively affected by shop A's advertisement. This shows without a doubt that a company can be held for false advertising regardless of whether or not that company was actually able to sell anything.
Now let's drive it home:
There are hundreds of online essay writing sites. Many of them are just out there to steal students' money. Some of them don't even have any writers. However, their advertisements and the prices at which they advertise their services affect the market. When a company with a well-constructed website advertises that they sell custom-made term papers written by people with PhDs at $7/page when they actually have no such writers, they are affecting the market and making people think that they can actually get PhD-level work at $7/page. Such a company can be held accountable by its competitors for its false advertising practices regardless of whether or not the offending company was actually able to sell anything. That's how the Lanham Act works. Thus, WRITERS HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR. They can work for whatever sites they want and need not worry of such sites' false advertising practices. It simply HAS NOTHING to do with them.
FIN. ^_________^
One of WritersBeware's MO is scaring writers out of working for sites like essaywriters.net and academic research by telling them that they can be held criminally liable for the false advertising committed by their employers.
I engaged her in this debate in the thread below, where I proved without a doubt that you cannot be an accomplice to false advertising if your actions do not contribute in any way to the advertisement.
As an utterly stupid, last ditch effort to hold on to her MO, WritersBeware declared that writers do provide critical assistance to their employer's false advertising because unless companies are able to sell a product to a client, they cannot be held accountable for false advertising.
essayscam.org/forum/gt/substantive-issues-essay-industry-1943/#msg35214
Substantive issues in the essay industry.
This gave me the perfect opportunity to bury her in the Lanham Act, the law which enumerates the only things that need to be proven for a false advertisement to hold.
To establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things:
(1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity;
(2) the statement either deceives or has the potential todeceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience;
(3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience;
(4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce;
and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff.
The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement'spotential to injure a customer.
Clearly, anyone who's NOT ON METH can see that proving that the offending company actually made a sale is not necessary (and I dare anyone else in this forum to say otherwise). However, WB just wouldn't let go (I don't blame her since she probably is on meth and her job is most likely everything she has). She kept on talking about how the law mentioned the word "commerce" and that that implies that the offending company should have made a sale and all that s-i*. Seriously, that's the most pathetic excuse I've ever heard. However, I haven't really constructed an example that undeniably ruins her "no sale, no crime" excuse.
Thanks to the mechanic example given by Pheelyks on this thread, I now have that perfect example.
Here it goes:
So let's say that shop A which normally charges $10/hour falsely advertises that its mechanic has a graduate degree when he doesn't. Across the street is shop B which charges customers $10/hour and has a mechanic who also does not have a graduate degree. However, shop B does not misrepresent their mechanic's qualifications. A couple of blocks away is shop C which actually has a mechanic with a graduate degree and charges $25/hour.
Now, let's say that shop A, despite its false advertisement, WAS NEVER ABLE to get a single customer. Customers were turned off by the shop's appearance, and really didn't like the manager's sleazy smile. Shop B on found out that shop A was advertising that its mechanic has a graduate degree. Can shop B prove a false advertising complaint against shop A? YES! Why?!? Shop A never completed a financial transaction? They never even mentioned shop B in their Ad. That's true but Shop A and Shop B charge the same rate. Customers who see that the two rates are the same would think twice about going to shop B, since shop A is able to charge $10/hr for a mechanic who allegedly has a graduate degree while shop B charges the same rate for a mechanic without a graduate degree. Shop B's business is getting negatively affected by shop A's advertisement. This shows without a doubt that a company can be held for false advertising regardless of whether or not that company was actually able to sell anything.
Now let's drive it home:
There are hundreds of online essay writing sites. Many of them are just out there to steal students' money. Some of them don't even have any writers. However, their advertisements and the prices at which they advertise their services affect the market. When a company with a well-constructed website advertises that they sell custom-made term papers written by people with PhDs at $7/page when they actually have no such writers, they are affecting the market and making people think that they can actually get PhD-level work at $7/page. Such a company can be held accountable by its competitors for its false advertising practices regardless of whether or not the offending company was actually able to sell anything. That's how the Lanham Act works. Thus, WRITERS HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR. They can work for whatever sites they want and need not worry of such sites' false advertising practices. It simply HAS NOTHING to do with them.
FIN. ^_________^