Related
Definitely another fraudster scammer
Note the horrible english and only an email address on hotmail for contact info.
These people pi$$ me off. Maybe I'll flood his email box from free anonymous email sites. 13,000 emails, coming right up!
See
http://www.419eater.com
http://www.419baiter.com/
Information quoted from the US Secret Service Web Site.
4-1-9 Schemes frequently use the following tactics:
An individual or company receives a letter or fax from an alleged "official" representing a foreign government or agency.
An offer is made to transfer millions of dollars in "over invoiced contract" funds into your personal bank account.
You are encouraged to travel overseas to complete the transaction.
You are requested to provide blank company letterhead forms, banking account information, telephone/fax numbers.
You receive numerous documents with official looking stamps, seals and logo testifying to the authenticity of the proposal.
Eventually you must provide up-front or advance fees for various taxes, attorney fees, transaction fees or bribes.
Other forms of 4-1-9 schemes include: c.o.d. of goods or services, real estate ventures, purchases of crude oil at reduced prices, beneficiary of a will, recipient of an award and paper currency conversion.
Nigerian Advance Fee Fraud Overview
The perpetrators of Advance Fee Fraud (AFF), known internationally as "4-1-9" fraud after the section of the Nigerian penal code which addresses fraud schemes, are often very creative and innovative.
Unfortunately, there is a perception that no one is prone to enter into such an obviously suspicious relationship. However, a large number of victims are enticed into believing they have been singled out from the masses to share in multi-million dollar windfall profits for doing absolutely nothing. It is also a misconception that the victim's bank account is requested so the culprit can plunder it -- this is not the primary reason for the account request -- merely a signal they have hooked another victim.
In almost every case there is a sense of urgency.
The victim is enticed to travel to Nigeria or a border country.
There are many forged official looking documents.
Most of the correspondence is handled by fax or through the mail.
Blank letterheads and invoices are requested from the victim along with the banking particulars.
Any number of Nigerian fees are requested for processing the transaction with each fee purported to be the last required.
The confidential nature of the transaction is emphasized.
There are usually claims of strong ties to Nigerian officials.
A Nigerian residing in the U.S., London or other foreign venue may claim to be a clearing house bank for the Central Bank of Nigeria.
Offices in legitimate government buildings appear to have been used by impostors posing as the real occupants or officials.
The most common forms of these fraudulent business proposals fall into the following main categories:
Disbursement of money from wills
Contract fraud (C.O.D. of goods or services)
Purchase of real estate
Conversion of hard currency
Transfer of funds from over invoiced contracts
Sale of crude oil at below market prices
The most prevalent and successful cases of Advance Fee Fraud is the fund transfer scam. In this scheme, a company or individual will typically receive an unsolicited letter by mail from a Nigerian claiming to be a senior civil servant. In the letter, the Nigerian will inform the recipient that he is seeking a reputable foreign company or individual into whose account he can deposit funds ranging from $10-$60 million that the Nigerian government overpaid on some procurement contract.
The criminals obtain the names of potential victims from a variety of sources including trade journals, professional directories, newspapers, and commercial libraries. They do not target a single company, but rather send out mailings en masse. The sender declares that he is a senior civil servant in one of the Nigerian Ministries, usually the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).
The letters refer to investigations of previous contracts awarded by prior regimes alleging that many contracts were over invoiced. Rather than return the money to the government, they desire to transfer the money to a foreign account. The sums to be transferred average between $10,000,000 to $60,000,000 and the recipient is usually offered a commission up to 30 percent for assisting in the transfer.
Initially, the intended victim is instructed to provide company letterheads and pro forma invoicing that will be used to show completion of the contract. One of the reasons is to use the victim's letterhead to forge letters of recommendation to other victim companies and to seek out a travel visa from the American Embassy in Lagos. The victim is told that the completed contracts will be submitted for approval to the Central Bank of Nigeria. Upon approval, the funds will be remitted to an account supplied by the intended victim.
The goal of the criminal is to delude the target into thinking that he is being drawn into a very lucrative, albeit questionable, arrangement. The intended victim must be reassured and confident of the potential success of the deal. He will become the primary supporter of the scheme and willingly contribute a large amount of money when the deal is threatened. The term "when" is used because the con-within-the-con is the scheme will be threatened in order to persuade the victim to provide a large sum of money to save the venture.
The letter, while appearing transparent and even ridiculous to most, unfortunately is growing in its effectiveness. It sets the stage and is the opening round of a two-layered scheme or scheme within a scheme. The fraudster will eventually reach someone who, while sceptical, desperately wants the deal to be genuine.
Victims are almost always requested to travel to Nigeria or a border country to complete a transaction. Individuals are often told that a visa will not be necessary to enter the country. The Nigerian con artists may then bribe airport officials to pass the victims through Immigration and Customs. Because it is a serious offence in Nigeria to enter without a valid visa, the victim's illegal entry may be used by the fraudsters as leverage to coerce the victims into releasing funds. Violence and threats of physical harm may be employed to further pressure victims. In June of 1995, an American was murdered in Lagos, Nigeria, while pursuing a 4-1-9 scam, and numerous other foreign nationals have been reported as missing.
Victims are often convinced of the authenticity of Advance Fee Fraud schemes by the forged or false documents bearing apparently official Nigerian government letterhead, seals, as well as false letters of credit, payment schedules and bank drafts. The fraudster may establish the credibility of his contacts, and thereby his influence, by arranging a meeting between the victim and "government officials" in real or fake government offices.
In the next stage some alleged problem concerning the "inside man" will suddenly arise. An official will demand an up-front bribe or an unforeseen tax or fee to the Nigerian government will have to be paid before the money can be transferred. These can include licensing fees, registration fees, and various forms of taxes and attorney fees. Normally each fee paid is described as the very last fee required. Invariably, oversights and errors in the deal are discovered by the Nigerians, necessitating additional payments and allowing the scheme to be stretched out over many months.
Several reasons have been submitted why Nigerian Advance Fee Fraud has undergone a dramatic increase in recent years. The explanations are as diverse as the types of schemes. The Nigerian Government blames the growing problem on mass unemployment, extended family systems, a get rich quick syndrome, and, especially, the greed of foreigners.
Indications are that Advance Fee Fraud grosses hundreds of millions of dollars annually and the losses are continuing to escalate. In all likelihood, there are victims who do not report their losses to authorities due to either fear or embarrassment.
Yup, these Nigerian spammers have flooded the PPCMag blog too...
My approach is just ignoring every offer / ad that has the word "Nigeria" in it
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Apple filed suit on Tuesday against HTC, maker of the Nexus One smartphone from Google, accusing the Taiwan company of infringing on 20 iPhone patents.
"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it," Apple chief executive Steve Jobs said in a brief statement.
"We've decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours," Jobs said.
Apple accused HTC of infringing on 20 Apple patents related to the "user interface, underlying architecture and hardware" of the iPhone, the popular touchscreen device introduced in 2007 by the company behind the iPod and the Macintosh computer.
Apple, which is based in Cupertino, California, said the lawsuit was filed in a US District Court in the state of Delaware and with the US International Trade Commission.
In the suit, Apple, which has sold more than 40 million iPhones worldwide, is asking for unspecified damages and an injunction to prevent HTC from making or selling products using the patents in dispute.
HTC, which stands for High Tech Computer Corp., is Taiwan's leading smartphone maker.
The company makes handsets for a number of leading US companies and is the manufacturer of the Nexus One unveiled by Apple rival Google in January.
Apple did not specifically name Google in the lawsuit but many of the HTC smartphones cited in its filing are powered by Google's open-source Android operating system.
Among the smartphones accused of violating Apple patents was the T-Mobile G1 made by HTC, which was launched in October 2008 and was the first phone to use the Android platform.
Among the HTC-made devices mentioned in the suit are the Nexus One, the T-Mobile G1, also known as the HTC Dream, the HTC Touch Diamond, the HTC Touch Pro, the HTC Tilt, the HTC Pure and the HTC myTouch.
Patent lawsuits are a fairly regular occurrence among technology giants and Apple is currently being sued by Nokia for patent infringement. Apple has fired back a countersuit against the Finnish mobile phone giant.
Canada's Research in Motion, maker of the Blackberry, has also had its share of patent woes and was accused of patent infringement by US mobile phone maker Motorola in suit filed in January.
Eastman Kodak Co. filed lawsuits against Apple and RIM that same month alleging they infringed Kodak digital imaging technology.
Apple shares lost 0.07 percent on Tuesday to close at 208.85 dollars.
what you guys think.
apple have any wind in its sails or just blowing wind?
Steve Jobs is going to take your Imagio. You'd better move to Canada.
I have secured a lawyer, and filed a class action lawsuit
against T-Mobile and Samsung
I explained all my issues with them, and they agree
that I have a very strong case.
http://edelson.com/
Samsung and T-Mobile have clearly violated the law concerning
Unfair and Deceptive Consumer Business Practices
they have continuously lied to us about the hardware,
and software reliability of this phone,
they promised us updates (to 2.2! Not the functionally dead JI6 2.1!)
over and over,
NOW they plan to release NEW galaxies
without updating the old ones they currently have
The GPS is clearly a hardware defect.
There are just too many issues with this phone
and the Customer service reps have been combative
even bullying and threatening customers!
a clear violation of US law
just let me know what your issues are,
and we can join together to fight this "TOO BIG TOO FAIL"
corporation
Anyone who has any issues whatsoever
please e mail me all your info and whatever issues you have had with this device
to my inbox
at: [email protected]
below I have attached the law which outlines what is constituted as unfair and deceptive consumer business practices
_________________________________________________
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/deceptive-trade-practices
Deceptive Trade Practices
Background
Federal legislation and statutes in every state prohibit employment of unfair or deceptive trade practices and UNFAIR COMPETITION in business. The Federal Trade Commission regulates federal laws designed to prohibit a series of specific practices prohibited in interstate commerce. Several states have established CONSUMER PROTECTION offices as part of the state attorney general offices.
The Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), originally passed in 1914 and amended several times thereafter, was the original STATUTE in the United States prohibiting "unfair or deceptive trade acts or practices." Development of the federal law was related to federal antitrust and trademark INFRINGEMENTlegislation. Prior to the enactment in the 1960s of state statutes prohibiting deceptive trade practices, the main focus of state law in this area was "unfair competition," which refers to the tort action for practices employed by businesses to confuse consumers as to the source of a product. The tort action for a business "passing off" its goods as those of another was based largely on the COMMON LAW tort action for trademark infringement.
Because the law governing deceptive trade practices was undefined and unclear, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1964 drafted the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The NCCUSL revised this uniform law in 1966. The law was originally "designed to bring state law up to date by removing undue restrictions on the common law action for deceptive trade practices." Only eleven states have adopted this act, but it has had a significant effect on other states. Most state deceptive or unfair trade practices statutes were originally enacted between the mid-1960s and mid-1970s.
Applicability of Deceptive Trade Practices Statutes
Deceptive trade practices statutes do not govern all situations where one party has deceived another party. Most states limit the scope of these statutes to commercial transactions involving a consumer purchasing or leasing goods or services for personal, household, or family purposes. The terms used in each statute to set forth the scope of the statute are often the subject of LITIGATION. The majority of states requires a liberal interpretation of the terms of the deceptive trade practices statutes, including those describing the applicability of the statutes.
Trade or Commerce
Several states limit the applicability of deceptive trade practices to transactions in trade or commerce. This requirement usually incorporates a broad range of profit-oriented transactions. But it generally excludes trade between non-merchants and similar transactions.
Consumer Transactions
The appropriate plaintiff under most deceptive trade practices acts is a consumer, commonly defined as a person who will use a good or service for personal, family, or household purposes. The determination of whether a plaintiff is a consumer often requires use of one of two types of analysis, a subjective test and an objective test. The subjective analysis typically considers the intended use of the good or service at the time of the transaction. Thus, if a buyer of a good intends at the time of a purchase to use to good for a personal, family, or household purpose, the buyer will likely be considered a consumer under the relevant statute. The objective analysis considers whether the type of good or service involved in the transaction is ordinarily used for a personal, family, or household purpose.
Goods or Services
Goods are defined under the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE as those items movable at the time of a purchase. Many deceptive trade practices statutes apply this definition to the requirement that goods are involved in a transaction for a deceptive trade practices statute to apply. Livestock are also usually included in the definition of a good. Statutes and courts usually define services broadly, including in the definition most activities conducted on behalf of another. Some states require that consumers seek to purchase merchandise, which incorporates goods, services, real property, commodities, and some intangibles.
Prohibited Acts and Practices
Most state deceptive trade practices statutes include broad restrictions on "deceptive" or "unfair" trade practices. These states often include prohibitions against FRAUDULENT practices and unconscionable practices. The Federal Trade Commission, when interpreting the FTCA, does not require that the person committing an act of deception have the intent to deceive. Moreover, the FTC does not require that actual deception occur. The FTC merely requires that a party have the capacity to deceive or commit an unfair trade practice. If a business or individual has this capacity or tendency to deceive, the FTC under the FTCA may order the company to cease and desist the deceptive or unfair practice. State statutes similarly do not require that a company specifically intends to deceive, nor must a company always have knowledge that a statement is false to be liable for misrepresentations made to a consumer.
A consumer who has been victimized by a potential deceptive or unfair trade practice should consult the deceptive trade practice statute in that state, plus consult CASE LAW applying this statute, to determine whether he or she has a cause of action. In addition to the broad prohibition against deception, most state statutes also include a list of practices that are defined as deceptive. Under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, if a business or person engages in the following, the action constitutes a deceptive trade practice:
Passes off goods or services as those of another
Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services
Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another
Uses deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services
Represents that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or qualities that they do not have or that a person has a sponsor-ship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that he does not have
Represents that goods are original or new if they are deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or second-hand
Represents that goods or services are of particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of particular style or model, if they are of another
Disparages the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading misrepresentation of fact
Advertises goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised
Advertises goods or services with intent not to supply reasonably expected public demand, unless advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity
Makes false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions
Engages in any other conduct which similarly creates the likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding
Most states include similar items in their lists of deceptive trade practices violations, even if those states have not adopted the uniform act. In addition, the FTC and many states prohibit other unfair practices, including the following:
Unfair provisions in contracts of adhesion
Coercive or high-pressure tactics in sales and collection efforts
Illegal conduct
Taking advantage of bargaining power of vulnerable groups
Taking advantage of emergency situations
Unconscionable activities, including outrageous and offensive conduct by a business in the sale of goods or services
Other Practices Deemed Deceptive or Unfair
Debt Collection
The Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state debt collection statutes govern most abuses by debt collectors in debt collection activities. Deceptive trade practices statutes may provide remedies in situations that are not covered by these debt collection statutes. For example, most debt collection statutes do not cover some forms of debt collection, such as foreclosures, repossessions, and evictions, but a deceptive trade practices statute may apply. Moreover, deceptive trade practices statutes may also permit a consumer to bring a cause of action against a CREDITOR for debt collection practices of an independent agency hired by the creditor. Several cases have dealt with issues regarding misrepresentations made by debt collectors or deceptive agreements proposed by debt collectors.
Breach of Warranties
Consumers have several means of enforcing a WARRANTY provided in a sales or service contract. If a business employs deceptive practices with respect to the advertisement or negotiation of a warranty, a deceptive trade practices statute may provide a consumer a remedy in addition to a breach of warranty claim.
Insurance
Most states have enacted legislation regarding deceptive practices of insurance companies, including those practices related to the sale of policies and the payment of claims. In some states, employment of a deceptive practice in insurance is also a deceptive trade practice. A deceptive trade practices statute may also provide a remedy in insurance cases where state insurance laws do not apply.
Pyramid Schemes and Similar Practices
Several states prohibit certain illegal business schemes through deceptive trace practices statutes. One such scheme is a "pyramid scheme," where investors make money by recruiting others to join and invest in a company rather than selling a product as claimed by the company. Other schemes include deceptive employment opportunity claims and misleading or deceptive game or contest promotions. Some states do not specifically include these schemes in the statute, but courts in those states may have applied provisions of the relevant deceptive trade practices statute in cases involving these schemes.
Remedies for Violations of Deceptive Trade Practices Statutes
A consumer who has been the victim of a deceptive trade practice has a variety of remedies. State deceptive trade practices statutes have been particularly successful due to the damages provisions included in the statutes. About half of the states provide minimum STATUTORY damages to a litigant who has proven a deceptive trade practice, even if the litigant has not proven actual damages. Many states also permit courts to award treble damages, which means the actual damages to a party injured by a deceptive trade practice are tripled. Several states also permit courts to impose PUNITIVE DAMAGES and/or attorney's fees for these practices.
In addition to monetary damages, several other options may exist for a person injured by a deceptive trade practice. When the FTC has JURISDICTION over a case, it may enjoin a deceptive trade practice of a company under the FTCA. Statutes in each of the states also permit government enforcement officials to seek cease and desist orders to prevent businesses from engaging in deceptive trade practices. These remedies may be available in addition to civil remedies sought by private litigants.
Really? Um........ok
Sent from my XDA app cuz I'm stalking your mom....
my head exploded 1/8 of the way trying to read that.
Sent from my SGH-I897 using XDA App
I figured this was only a matter of time. But hey, if it is enough of a kick in the butt to Sam and T-Mo, I'm in. My Vibrant is only awesome because of XDA and my own necessity of having the phone I paid for. The GPS on this phone when I got it was an utter joke. My G1 looked like a golden brick next to my Vibrant. Sure it was ugly compared to my Vibrant, but at least the hardware did what it was supposed to. I had terrible data reception and speeds, which were purely T-Mobile's fault, for releasing a handset that couldn't play nice with their Dallas-Ft. Worth infrastructure yet. It seems like everything I have accomplished on this phone has been an uphill battle, mainly because of the lack of cooperation on Samsung's part with 3rd party developers. And all the while, they were telling everyone who had purchased this hardware-capable phone that the comparable software was "on its way" all the time, yet the only updates seen had to be downloaded from their sam-firmwares site, which an average user will NEVER see. I had more hardware frustrations with my G1 than with my Vibrant, because I knew that it was going to fall behind eventually, which is why I upgraded to a 1ghz phone. But any changes I wanted to make to my G1 was simply butter because of HTC's cooperation with their source code.
Oh well, sometimes this is just the way life goes. Companies just plow on forward leaving one angry crowd for a new, naive crowd to repeat the process.
My email if you want to contact me regarding the C.A.: [email protected]
Just stop. You have no legal claim, your attorney is just taking easy money.
sent from my galaxy s
fearless1964 said:
Really? Um........ok
Sent from my XDA app cuz I'm stalking your mom....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ha, is your sig a reference to =3? If so, AWESOME.
OP- Good luck man, hope you got money to wipe your ass with, cause that's essentially what you're doing.
You will lose this lawsuit. Samsung does not have to release 2.2 ever if they do not want to. Nothing you have said will hold up in court. You bought a phone. It makes and receives calls.
I notice this in your posts on the T-Mobile forums too, but why do you hit enter after every 5 words or so?
Paragraphs are your friends.
Kinda reminds of the kid who sued nintendo because of their updates removed the homebrew channel and the kid whinned about ruining his right to have fun hahahaha grow up you obviously no about xda developers therefore you know you can root your phone and flash a custom rom to your phone with 2.2 and the gps fix instead of using the money to retain a LAWYER go get a new phone
Slashdot has picked up the story...
Slashdot has picked up the "Samsung hold back Froyo" story. This may get mainstream.
http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/01/13/2334213/Is-Samsung-Blocking-Updates-To-Froyo
raziel26 said:
Kinda reminds of the kid who sued nintendo because of their updates removed the homebrew channel and the kid whinned about ruining his right to have fun hahahaha grow up you obviously no about xda developers therefore you know you can root your phone and flash a custom rom to your phone with 2.2 and the gps fix instead of using the money to retain a LAWYER go get a new phone
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
he isn't trying to get a new phone...
he's trying to tell samsung that the update is WAY over-due, and we're being screwed over, hes just telling them in a more professional way rather than us spamming them on twitter and facebook, which even though i've done it, is pointless.
Good luck.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
dang, a little support guys. i dont think he will win a class action law suite, but it may just shed some light on the situation...
mad props to the OP
I say more power to you and I hope this turns into a class action lawsuit so we all can some type of discount on our next samsung phone if we buy one again. If it wasn't for devs I would be having a fit.
i'll settle for been able to trade in for the new vibrant 4g for free.
mr2t32 said:
i'll settle for been able to trade in for the new vibrant 4g for free.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll amen to that
Sent from my XDA app cuz I'm stalking your mom....
I think rhat tmobile will kick you off their service and charge you an early termination fee to boot. And rumor is sprint may merge with tmobile this year or next so I would not go to sprint. I would goto cricket wireless.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
dzuchowski said:
I think rhat tmobile will kick you off their service and charge you an early termination fee to boot. And rumor is sprint may merge with tmobile this year or next so I would not go to sprint. I would goto cricket wireless.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
cricket wireless... are you _______ kidding me
I thought Sprint was cdma and T mobile was GSM. Wouldn't make sense to merge I would think.
Sent from my SGH-I897 using Tapatalk
i dont think you have a case coz you didnt sign on anything that says samsung will send an update on a particular date or timeframe.. no documentation whatsoever..
I have secured a lawyer, and filed a class action lawsuit
against T-Mobile and Samsung
I explained all my issues with them, and they agree
that I have a very strong case.
http://edelson.com/
Samsung and T-Mobile have clearly violated the law concerning
Unfair and Deceptive Consumer Business Practices
they have continuously lied to us about the hardware,
and software reliability of this phone,
they promised us updates (to 2.2! Not the functionally dead JI6 2.1!)
over and over,
NOW they plan to release NEW galaxies
without updating the old ones they currently have
The GPS is clearly a hardware defect.
There are just too many issues with this phone
and the Customer service reps have been combative
even bullying and threatening customers!
a clear violation of US law
just let me know what your issues are,
and we can join together to fight this "TOO BIG TOO FAIL"
corporation
Anyone who has any issues whatsoever
please e mail me all your info and whatever issues you have had with this device
to my inbox
at: [email protected]
below I have attached the law which outlines what is constituted as unfair and deceptive consumer business practices
_________________________________________________
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/deceptive-trade-practices
Deceptive Trade Practices
Background
Federal legislation and statutes in every state prohibit employment of unfair or deceptive trade practices and UNFAIR COMPETITION in business. The Federal Trade Commission regulates federal laws designed to prohibit a series of specific practices prohibited in interstate commerce. Several states have established CONSUMER PROTECTION offices as part of the state attorney general offices.
The Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), originally passed in 1914 and amended several times thereafter, was the original STATUTE in the United States prohibiting "unfair or deceptive trade acts or practices." Development of the federal law was related to federal antitrust and trademark INFRINGEMENTlegislation. Prior to the enactment in the 1960s of state statutes prohibiting deceptive trade practices, the main focus of state law in this area was "unfair competition," which refers to the tort action for practices employed by businesses to confuse consumers as to the source of a product. The tort action for a business "passing off" its goods as those of another was based largely on the COMMON LAW tort action for trademark infringement.
Because the law governing deceptive trade practices was undefined and unclear, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1964 drafted the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The NCCUSL revised this uniform law in 1966. The law was originally "designed to bring state law up to date by removing undue restrictions on the common law action for deceptive trade practices." Only eleven states have adopted this act, but it has had a significant effect on other states. Most state deceptive or unfair trade practices statutes were originally enacted between the mid-1960s and mid-1970s.
Applicability of Deceptive Trade Practices Statutes
Deceptive trade practices statutes do not govern all situations where one party has deceived another party. Most states limit the scope of these statutes to commercial transactions involving a consumer purchasing or leasing goods or services for personal, household, or family purposes. The terms used in each statute to set forth the scope of the statute are often the subject of LITIGATION. The majority of states requires a liberal interpretation of the terms of the deceptive trade practices statutes, including those describing the applicability of the statutes.
Trade or Commerce
Several states limit the applicability of deceptive trade practices to transactions in trade or commerce. This requirement usually incorporates a broad range of profit-oriented transactions. But it generally excludes trade between non-merchants and similar transactions.
Consumer Transactions
The appropriate plaintiff under most deceptive trade practices acts is a consumer, commonly defined as a person who will use a good or service for personal, family, or household purposes. The determination of whether a plaintiff is a consumer often requires use of one of two types of analysis, a subjective test and an objective test. The subjective analysis typically considers the intended use of the good or service at the time of the transaction. Thus, if a buyer of a good intends at the time of a purchase to use to good for a personal, family, or household purpose, the buyer will likely be considered a consumer under the relevant statute. The objective analysis considers whether the type of good or service involved in the transaction is ordinarily used for a personal, family, or household purpose.
Goods or Services
Goods are defined under the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE as those items movable at the time of a purchase. Many deceptive trade practices statutes apply this definition to the requirement that goods are involved in a transaction for a deceptive trade practices statute to apply. Livestock are also usually included in the definition of a good. Statutes and courts usually define services broadly, including in the definition most activities conducted on behalf of another. Some states require that consumers seek to purchase merchandise, which incorporates goods, services, real property, commodities, and some intangibles.
Prohibited Acts and Practices
Most state deceptive trade practices statutes include broad restrictions on "deceptive" or "unfair" trade practices. These states often include prohibitions against FRAUDULENT practices and unconscionable practices. The Federal Trade Commission, when interpreting the FTCA, does not require that the person committing an act of deception have the intent to deceive. Moreover, the FTC does not require that actual deception occur. The FTC merely requires that a party have the capacity to deceive or commit an unfair trade practice. If a business or individual has this capacity or tendency to deceive, the FTC under the FTCA may order the company to cease and desist the deceptive or unfair practice. State statutes similarly do not require that a company specifically intends to deceive, nor must a company always have knowledge that a statement is false to be liable for misrepresentations made to a consumer.
A consumer who has been victimized by a potential deceptive or unfair trade practice should consult the deceptive trade practice statute in that state, plus consult CASE LAW applying this statute, to determine whether he or she has a cause of action. In addition to the broad prohibition against deception, most state statutes also include a list of practices that are defined as deceptive. Under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, if a business or person engages in the following, the action constitutes a deceptive trade practice:
Passes off goods or services as those of another
Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services
Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another
Uses deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services
Represents that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or qualities that they do not have or that a person has a sponsor-ship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that he does not have
Represents that goods are original or new if they are deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or second-hand
Represents that goods or services are of particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of particular style or model, if they are of another
Disparages the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading misrepresentation of fact
Advertises goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised
Advertises goods or services with intent not to supply reasonably expected public demand, unless advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity
Makes false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions
Engages in any other conduct which similarly creates the likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding
Most states include similar items in their lists of deceptive trade practices violations, even if those states have not adopted the uniform act. In addition, the FTC and many states prohibit other unfair practices, including the following:
Unfair provisions in contracts of adhesion
Coercive or high-pressure tactics in sales and collection efforts
Illegal conduct
Taking advantage of bargaining power of vulnerable groups
Taking advantage of emergency situations
Unconscionable activities, including outrageous and offensive conduct by a business in the sale of goods or services
Other Practices Deemed Deceptive or Unfair
Debt Collection
The Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state debt collection statutes govern most abuses by debt collectors in debt collection activities. Deceptive trade practices statutes may provide remedies in situations that are not covered by these debt collection statutes. For example, most debt collection statutes do not cover some forms of debt collection, such as foreclosures, repossessions, and evictions, but a deceptive trade practices statute may apply. Moreover, deceptive trade practices statutes may also permit a consumer to bring a cause of action against a CREDITOR for debt collection practices of an independent agency hired by the creditor. Several cases have dealt with issues regarding misrepresentations made by debt collectors or deceptive agreements proposed by debt collectors.
Breach of Warranties
Consumers have several means of enforcing a WARRANTY provided in a sales or service contract. If a business employs deceptive practices with respect to the advertisement or negotiation of a warranty, a deceptive trade practices statute may provide a consumer a remedy in addition to a breach of warranty claim.
Insurance
Most states have enacted legislation regarding deceptive practices of insurance companies, including those practices related to the sale of policies and the payment of claims. In some states, employment of a deceptive practice in insurance is also a deceptive trade practice. A deceptive trade practices statute may also provide a remedy in insurance cases where state insurance laws do not apply.
Pyramid Schemes and Similar Practices
Several states prohibit certain illegal business schemes through deceptive trace practices statutes. One such scheme is a "pyramid scheme," where investors make money by recruiting others to join and invest in a company rather than selling a product as claimed by the company. Other schemes include deceptive employment opportunity claims and misleading or deceptive game or contest promotions. Some states do not specifically include these schemes in the statute, but courts in those states may have applied provisions of the relevant deceptive trade practices statute in cases involving these schemes.
Remedies for Violations of Deceptive Trade Practices Statutes
A consumer who has been the victim of a deceptive trade practice has a variety of remedies. State deceptive trade practices statutes have been particularly successful due to the damages provisions included in the statutes. About half of the states provide minimum STATUTORY damages to a litigant who has proven a deceptive trade practice, even if the litigant has not proven actual damages. Many states also permit courts to award treble damages, which means the actual damages to a party injured by a deceptive trade practice are tripled. Several states also permit courts to impose PUNITIVE DAMAGES and/or attorney's fees for these practices.
In addition to monetary damages, several other options may exist for a person injured by a deceptive trade practice. When the FTC has JURISDICTION over a case, it may enjoin a deceptive trade practice of a company under the FTCA. Statutes in each of the states also permit government enforcement officials to seek cease and desist orders to prevent businesses from engaging in deceptive trade practices. These remedies may be available in addition to civil remedies sought by private litigants.
I think at this point you've got a strong case, as Edelson McGuire has stated. I too purchased both my wife and myself a Vibrant under the false promise that 2.2 would be arriving around the corner (back in August, this was), which would allow me to do the things that I wanted to do which was not available in 1.6, and 2.1 to some extent. Let me know how I can help, if I can that is.
This is moronic. You have zero proof that either party intentionally harmed a consumer. Your attorney is lucky to bilk hours against your retainer.
people, it's a blog post on androidspin! Not a sworn statement. Stop getting all worked up.
sent from my galaxy s
Yes I do find Samsung very unfair. Paying full price for a defective phone. Then getting tossed to the side, and forgotten about. They NEED to be held accountable!
I too wanna sue tmo and samsung
They haven't delivered, phones too pricey, constant irritation.
I'm excited by this news.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
I hope they are not terrorists.
Sammy was always careful in there language. They never said "The Vibrant will receive 2.2"... it was always "All the Galaxy S phones are capable of 2.2 and we are working with the phone companies to make this happen"
Nothing verbatim of course.
I was very hesitant on buying the Vibrant given my personal history with Samsung (crappy BluRay player) and the fact that they are slow at updating there phones. I knew it was a gamble buying it but i did it anyway.
I love my phone, but i am rooted and have been running 2.2 for a long time now.
ekeefe41 said:
Sammy was always careful in there language. They never said "The Vibrant will receive 2.2"... it was always "All the Galaxy S phones are capable of 2.2 and we are working with the phone companies to make this happen"
Nothing verbatim of course.
I was very hesitant on buying the Vibrant given my personal history with Samsung (crappy BluRay player) and the fact that they are slow at updating there phones. I knew it was a gamble buying it but i did it anyway.
I love my phone, but i am rooted and have been running 2.2 for a long time now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung actually said all carriers will receive froyo in september in the showcase of the galaxy s line.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
lol i hope not!!!
I agree,... a little premature.
Flash through ODIN?
How's the battery life?
Any Screenshots?
Thnx
howetechnical said:
I think at this point you've got a strong case, as Edelson McGuire has stated. I too purchased both my wife and myself a Vibrant under the false promise that 2.2 would be arriving around the corner (back in August, this was), which would allow me to do the things that I wanted to do which was not available in 1.6, and 2.1 to some extent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you have that promise in writing, I'm sure the OP would love a copy. If not, you have been delivered no such promise as far as the law's eye can see.
We are at the whim of Samsung, and they are not stupid. They may do the bare minimum with regard to customer support, but (atleast IMHO) they have broken no laws. The only thing wrong with this phone is a defective GPS on certain units, which has and continues to be replaced anytime the issue is brought to their attention.
The only way to hit them is to take your business elsewhere. No sense in paying hundreds or thousands of dollars to some local law firm who has no qualms about losing to a giant like Samsung as long as your retainer clears the bank. Especially not over some phone that you paid no more than $500 for, $200 in many cases.
/rant
fstathes said:
Flash through ODIN?
How's the battery life?
Any Screenshots?
Thnx
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wtf, omg, lol
fstathes said:
flash through odin?
How's the battery life?
Any screenshots?
Thnx
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lololololol!!!
If this will fix my crappy gps I'm down! Just tel me where to sign!
Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
here's the message from Sammy about the recent Vibrant 4G and Vibrant Froyo "hostage" situation...
CNET
We reached out to Samsung for comment and a company spokesperson sent CNET the following response:
Samsung Mobile does not comment on rumors or speculation. With regard to the Froyo update, we recently issued the following statement: "Samsung feels it is important to make the Android 2.2/Froyo upgrade available only after we feel that we can give the millions of U.S. Galaxy S owners a simple and reliable upgrade experience. Due to the complexity and unique functionality of each Galaxy S device, we are performing additional testing and are working to make the Android 2.2/Froyo upgrade available to all U.S. Galaxy S owners, including the Samsung Vibrant, as soon as possible.
never again
I will never buy another Samsung product!
samyvibrantuser said:
here's the message from Sammy about the recent Vibrant 4G and Vibrant Froyo "hostage" situation...
CNET
We reached out to Samsung for comment and a company spokesperson sent CNET the following response:
Samsung Mobile does not comment on rumors or speculation. With regard to the Froyo update, we recently issued the following statement: "Samsung feels it is important to make the Android 2.2/Froyo upgrade available only after we feel that we can give the millions of U.S. Galaxy S owners a simple and reliable upgrade experience. Due to the complexity and unique functionality of each Galaxy S device, we are performing additional testing and are working to make the Android 2.2/Froyo upgrade available to all U.S. Galaxy S owners, including the Samsung Vibrant, as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That just makes me think every bit of the rumor is true.
Not to be an ass but why is this in the development section? I see nothing in the for of development aside from a lawsuit.
Sent from my SGH-I897 using XDA App
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is the latest federal agency to drop BlackBerry smart phones for its employees, adding to the woes of maker Research in Motion (RIMM).
BlackBerry still remains the smart phone of choice for Capitol Hill, but cracks are appearing in RIM's stronghold among federal agencies.
The federal immigrations agency said last week it had bought $2.1 million Apple iPhones for its 17,676 users, saying that RIM's technology "can no longer meet" its needs.
Earlier this year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also announced they were switching from BlackBerrys to iPhones for their staffers.
It's bad news for RIM, which has already weathered a big drop in corporate users, a market it once dominated. In the past year, major corporations, ranging from Yahoo (YHOO, Fortune 500) to Halliburton (HAL, Fortune 500), have decided to stop using BlackBerrys for their staff.
RIM has come under a lot of criticism for being too slow in revamping its operating system. It is launching a new BlackBerry 10 next year.
RIM wouldn't talk about the effect of the fast-shrinking federal usage on its business. Rather, it pointed out that the company still has a million government customers in North America, some 400,000 of whom have upgraded their
BlackBerrys in the past year.
"Government organizations globally have relied on the security of the BlackBerry solution for over a decade," said Paul Lucier, vice president of RIM government solutions in a statement.
Carl Howe, a technology analyst with Yankee Group, said RIM can weather the losses because of its reputation of maintaining a highly secure system.
"For anyone who is really interested in high security systems, BlackBerry really remains the gold standard," Howe said.
Still, RIM appears to be hemorrhaging customers all around.
Federal contractor Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH, Fortune 500) also decided last week it would no longer use BlackBerry mobile devices, confirmed spokesman James Fisher. Most of Booz Allen's 25,000 employees use personal smart phones to check company mail. Those who have BlackBerrys will no longer be able to access company email, Fisher said.
Booz Allen advises the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Department of Homeland Security.