The Federal Trade Commission has asked the federal courts to temporarily halt what it calls “allegedly deceptive tactics” of 10 operations using fake news websites to market acai berry weight-loss products.
The FTC seeks to permanently stop this misleading practice and has asked courts to freeze the operations’ assets pending trial.
Last fall, I blogged about misleading ads in the Lawrence Journal World’s LJWorld.com online edition that appeared as legitimate news reports.
- Misleading LJWorld.com ad still appearing
- LJWorld.com pulls misleading ad
- Different face on Internet scam
Now the Federal Trade Commission has asked the federal courts to temporarily halt the allegedly deceptive tactics of the companies using using the fake news websites to market acai berry weight-loss products. The FTC seeks to permanently stop this misleading practice and has asked courts to freeze the operations’ assets pending trial.
Interestingly, when I checked today, I found at least one major daily newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times, is running another version of those fake news ads which make claims about hometown moms pulling down thousands of dollars a month working from home. Journalistically, this raises ethical questions so I called Sun-Times Managing Editor Andrew Herrmann today for comment. He referred me to Sun-Times General Counsel Jim McDonough who emailed saying: “We are aware of this matter and we are investigating.”
I responded to Mr. McDonough, asking when I might to get a response regarding the Sun-Times use of third-party advertising on its web site. This evening, I received this reply from the Sun-Times counsel: “We will not make any further comments on this matter.” (More on that in a minute.)
The Lawrence Journal World pulled similar third-party web ads last fall that touted the virtues of signing-up for a so-called “Internet Income System.” The misleading ads claimed it made one local mom $6,795 a month while working 10-13 hours a week from home.
I also found a similar advertisement masquerading as a report featuring the logos for the financial and business news cable network CNBC. I contacted CNBC about the fake CNBC report and was told-
“This company and its website have no affiliation with CNBC, and we are currently looking into this matter.”
Meanwhile in Chicago
The FTC announced legal action against third-party Internet marketers of acai berry weight-loss pills who may be using the same fake news websites to sell their products.
The acai berry comes from a species of palm native to Central and South America and has become a popular diet supplement in recent years.
According to the FTC, millions of consumers are being lured to websites that imitate reputable news organizations whose “reporters” have supposedly done independent evaluations of acai berry supplements. The web sites claim the products cause major weight loss in a short period of time with no diet or exercise.
“In reality,” says the FTC, “the websites are deceptive advertisements placed by third-party or “affiliate” marketers. The websites are aimed at enticing consumers to buy the featured acai berry weight-loss products. ”
More specifically, in a federal court filing in Seattle, Washington, the FTC wrote:
In fact, Defendant’s news reports are fake. The featured reporters on the sites are not
journalists and never conducted the research or experienced the results described in the report. The
“responses” and “comments” following the reports are simply additional advertising content, not
independent statements from ordinary consumers.
The influx of cases signals that the FTC views phony Web content as a serious problem, says Jeffrey Greenbaum, an expert in advertising law and a partner in Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz.
He adds that the FTC has a long history of criticizing deceptive formats in traditional media — such as infomercials that appear to be real news programs. A series of enforcement actions around 20 years ago resulted in consent decrees that require infomercials to include disclosures stating that they are paid ads.
“It’s even easier to create fake content online,” Greenbaum says, “and even harder for consumers to distinguish it.”
The news sites claimed to feature “objective investigative reports,” but the FTC states in its lawsuits that the reporters were “fictional” and never did any tests with acai berry products at all.
The sites had names like consumernewspicks.com and Channel9NewsReport.com, and featured attractive news “reporters” …claiming they had tested the products themselves. But everything about the sites—the news reports, the reporters giving them, even the comments—is bogus, according to FTC court documents.
The sites also allegedly use the names and logos of well-known broadcast and cable television networks, falsely representing that the reports on the sites have been seen on those networks, the FTC said.
I mentioned that the LJWorld.com website quickly pulled the misleading ads after I blogged about them last fall. “We agree that this ad is misleading and unacceptable, and it has been removed from our site,” Edwin Rothrock, director of marketing strategies for The World Company said in a reply.
That’s still not the case for one (I suspect there are many more) other newspaper who risks its news credibility and the incomes of unsuspecting readers by running the fake ads.
Case in point: Today’s Chicago Sun-Times. It featured a series of banner ads for at least two fake news sites at the bottom of Herb Gould’s sports story about the Chicago Bulls play-off victory over the Indiana Pacers.
Coincidentally, Chicago is where several of the FTC lawsuits have been filed against the third-party Internet marketers the government claims are using fake news ads to sell their products.
One of the Sun-Times ads clicks through to a website that masquerades as an investigative report by “Consumer Finance Reviews” into an out-of-work mom who turned $47 into
$6,795 by using an online work at home program.
The other Sun-Times ad takes you to what appears to be a report by an online news operation called World3NEWS.com. The so-called news report features a Lincoln, Neb. mom who also knocks down $6,795 a month by belonging to a paid survey club called Survey Revenue System.
I’ll be curious to see if the FTC’s action will shut down such misleading advertising for good. More realistically, the FTC’s action may slow down the ads pretending to dispense factual information produced by legitimate news organizations.
This is where I get preachy: Newspapers and other news organizations who run fake news online ads should pay closer attention. After all, they are paid by these unscrupulous merchants to run the ads; the same merchants post misleading ads on news organization websites knowing they drive customer traffic to their fake news sites. The fake news sites then link to the sites where the merchants sell their questionable products.
Newspapers and other news organizations have an ethical responsibility to their readers and viewers to make sure no misleading third-party advertising appear on their websites. The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics spells it out:
Journalists should — Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
False and/or misleading advertising is not good for news customers who depend on fact-based information. It’s not good for the news organization’s own legitimate news gathering reputation.
The FTC will ask the courts to permanently bar the allegedly deceptive claims, and to require the companies to provide money for refunds to consumers who purchased the supplements and other products. The FTC charges that the defendants:
- make false and unsupported claims that acai berry supplements will cause rapid and substantial weight loss;
- deceptively represent that:
- their websites are objective news reports;
- independent tests demonstrate the effectiveness of the product, and
- comments following the “articles” on their websites reflect the views of independent consumers; and
- fail to disclose their financial relationships to the merchants selling the products.
The Federal Trade Commission has a new consumer alert to help consumers recognize and avoid deceptive claims made by fake news sites that market acai berries for weight loss. It also has a new video detailing the risks of free trials, which often are used to market acai berry supplements and other products.
Thanks to PaidContent.org, the five lawsuits are listed and linked below. Except for the Vaughn suit, all were filed in Chicago federal court.
» FTC v. Ricardo Jose Labra. [PDF] The defendant is accused of running fake news sites like consumernewspick.com and theconsumerweeklydigest.com, which ran fake news reports and used the logos of major broadcast and TV networks. Labra is also accused of promoting products through fake blogs like kristingotskinny.com
» FTC v. Ambervine Marketing et al. [PDF] This lawsuit says that Ambervine and another company, Encastle, were run out of Minnesota by Zachary S. Graham, who ran fake news sites including usahealthnewstoday.com and usahealthreportstoday.com, which he called USA Health News.
» FTC v. Beony International LLC et al. [PDF] FTC lawyers state that Beony was run out of San Diego by Mario Milanovic, who ran sites like channel6reports.com, healthnews10.com, and consumertipsdaily6.com.
» FTC v. IMM Interactive, Inc. [PDF] IMM is located in Woodbury, New York, and hosted fake sites including channel2local.com, channel9healthbeat.com and news4daily.com. The sites used the logos of major TV networks and had names like “News 4 Daily.”
» FTC v. Tanner Garrett Vaughn [PDF] Filed in Seattle. Vaughn ran websites including BreakingNewsAt6.com and Channel9NewsReports.com.
What are your thoughts on these deceptive online ads? Give us your comments. We’d like to know if you think this form of advertising is fair and honest.
A few months ago I described how a company called Profit System Online (PSO) was using misleading ads in the Lawrence Journal World’s online edition that appeared as legitimate news reports.
The fake news reports touted the virtues of signing-up for PSO’s so-called “Internet Income System.” The misleading ads claim it made one local mom $6,795 a month while working 10-13 hours a week from home.
Now it appears a company that markets a Home Income Profit Kit is using a similar advertisement that masquerades as a report for the financial and business news cable network CNBC. The phony CNBC report is about a non-existent Lincoln, Nebraska mom who makes $6,487 a month working from her home. She did it, according to the report, by only working 15-18 hours a week.
I contacted CNBC to get its response to the company that carries the phony CNBC report. Here is a CNBC spokesperson’s response:
“This company and its website have no affiliation with CNBC, and we are currently looking into this matter.”
The website didn’t say it was an advertisement. It gave readers the impression that it was an investigative report produced by CNBC journalists.
Here is what the Reviewopedia website says about the Home Income Profit System:
“The Home Income Profit System (recently renamed The Home Income Wealth System) is a now notorious internet scheme that claims to help you make money from home. Their make money kit is often promoted through the use of fake newspaper articles and other unscrupulous means.”
When I checked today, the fake CNBC website and story had been “suspended,” but a look alike ad is still alive on this Google link:
and here are a few other fake links:
There are dozens of other ads like these that continue to float around the Internet.
In case you’re curious about whether these “stay at home income” claims work you should read the small print at the bottom of the PSO corporate website:
*INCOME CLAIM WARNING: Testimonials are not typical of most results. Photographs or images are a depiction of individuals and payment methods. These income examples are representative of some of the most successful participants in the program. Some individuals purchasing the program may make little or NO MONEY AT ALL. These claims are not a guarantee of your income, nor are they typical of average participants. Individual results will vary greatly and in accordance to your input, determination, hard work, and ability to follow directions. No person or company can guarantee profits or freedom from loss. Any and all use of this website certifies you are agreeing to our Earnings and Income Disclaimers.
Or read what Reviewopedia has to say about the Home Income Profit Kit:
“The reason why there’re so many complaints against these types of kits is because the companies running them use very shady billing practices. They offer the program as a Free Trial, charging you only several dollars for S&H, but as soon as they get your credit card details they quickly hit you with a much larger charge.
Take a look at their terms and conditions:
When you submit your order, you agree to pay the shipping and handling fee of $2.97 for your Road Map to Success; please allow up to two weeks for delivery. After your 3-day trial period, you will be charged a ONE TIME fee of $139.95 for the product that will not be billed again for access to all of the features above. Thereafter, a $4.95 fee will serve as a monthly website hosting and maintenance fee until canceled.
They say that it can take up to two weeks to receive your materials, yet they charge you after just 3 days! So basically there’s no chance of you having enough time to review the materials and decide if it’s worth the $139.95 + $4.95 a month. Some people have even reported being charged the $139.95 fee the same day as their order.
The other problem with this type of billing is that many people don’t even read the terms and only find out about the true costs when it’s already too late. In addition, lots of people have reported difficulties reaching customer support in order to cancel the trial or get a refund.”