Comments on: Easy to Kill Your Competition in California

By: Peter Hamilton

Peter Hamilton — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:59:00 +0000

In reply to Aa. Which companies are you referring to?

By: Aa

Aa — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:47:00 +0000

The sooner all these companies go under the better we’ll all be. They do nothing of virtue, they lie, cheat and misrepresent and then run all the way to the bank.

SCUM

By: AM Affiliate: California Makes It Easy For Affiliate Marketers to Kill Competition + More | Blue Phoenix Network - CPA Affiliate Marketing - Lead Generation

Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:00:10 +0000

[…] – New laws in California may make it easier for email marketers to kill their competition. [HasOffers] […]

By: Easy to Kill Your Competition in California | HasOffers | CaliforniaPrimer.info

Wed, 02 Feb 2011 21:33:43 +0000

[…] See the article here: Easy to Kill Your Competition in California | HasOffers […]

By: HasOffers

HasOffers — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 01:20:00 +0000

In reply to Hassoffers Com. That was regarding how HasOffers works with networks, not the State of California. (re: Fines comments)

By: Hassoffers Com

Hassoffers Com — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 01:06:00 +0000

Give me a break. Have you actually looked at the law? Have you looked at Cal. B&P Coe 17529.5(b)(1) that it is reduced if you took action to prevent it?

I had one spammer’s attorney claim, “it was an anti-spammer trying to make my guy look bad.” He is due to be released from Federal prison in just over a year, for spamming.

By: Peter Hamilton

Peter Hamilton — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 00:58:00 +0000

Additional Clarification: If a network uses their own custom SSL certificate, HasOffers does not receive spam complaints and therefore we are not liable and cannot fine customers. However, we do charge additional fees for installing custom SSL certificates. Obviously if you are sharing our SSL certificate and receive complaints, we must take action to protect ourselves.

By: HasOffers

HasOffers — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 22:03:00 +0000

In reply to Fines. As with any legal document, we have to make it expressly clear so that we are actually able to take action when necessary.

By: Fines

Fines — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 22:01:00 +0000

In reply to HasOffers. "within reason" is not what your TOS says.

By: Fines

Fines — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 21:47:00 +0000

In reply to Peter Hamilton. As I appreciate your openness as to how many people that you have fined and such, the fact remains that you have punish network owners for the actions of their affiliates.

By: HasOffers

HasOffers — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 21:39:00 +0000

In reply to Peter Hamilton. You are correct that we hold HasOffers customers accountable for the actions of their publishers, but within reason. Networks that are working to eliminate non-compliant affiliate activity are one thing, but those that do not respond to spam complaints are another. There must be repercussions.

By: Peter Hamilton

Peter Hamilton — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 21:32:00 +0000

Though we have only fined one HasOffers customer (minimum fine) for their publisher’s spam, we do have to take the necessary precautions to protect our technology from non-compliant activity that could leave us liable in the event of government investigation. This is definitely a steep fine, and hopefully one that helps our customers understand how serious we are about compliance.