SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the who-knew-Office-Depot-was-still-around? dept.
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
Office Depot and a partner company tricked customers into buying unneeded tech support services by offering PC scans that gave fake results, according to the Federal Trade Commission. Consumers paid up to $300 each for unnecessary services.
The FTC yesterday announced that Office Depot and its software supplier, Support.com, have agreed to pay a total of $35 million in settlements with the agency. Office Depot agreed to pay $25 million while Support.com will pay the other $10 million. The FTC said it intends to use the money to provide refunds to wronged consumers.
Between 2009 and 2016, Office Depot and OfficeMax offered computer scans inside their stores using a "PC Health Check" software application created and licensed by Support.com.
"Defendants bilked unsuspecting consumers out of tens of millions of dollars from their use of the PC Health Check program to sell costly diagnostic and repair services," the FTC alleged in a complaint that accuses both companies of violating the FTC Act's prohibition against deceptive practices. As part of the settlements, neither company admitted or denied the FTC's allegations.
The FTC filed its complaint against the companies in US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, while at the same time unveiling the settlements with each company.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 29 2019, @05:42PM (5 children)
Make the fines hurt instead of being a drop in the bucket that is their balance sheet:
1. Forfeit all revenue earned from the scam, this is used to pay restitution
2. A fine of all of last year's profit or 10 percent of revenue, whichever is larger
3. A list of names from the C-suite that are responsible (whether in practice or through the reporting hierarchy, it is thswe people's job to know what is going on and therefore either they know and are responsible or they don't and they are incompetent) and will be fired and sent to jail for this scam
4. 5 years (at minimum) of supervision to prevent these shenanigans in the future
5. You are not allowed to deduct any of this from your taxes
If these companies really want to be called job creators, let's see them project these jobs with ethical behavior
Fuck you, fuck you with a big, rubber dick... in the asshole!
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday March 29 2019, @06:05PM (2 children)
Two points:
1. Why rubber, rather than glass shards ?
2. Are you expecting effective enforcement of corporate punishment from this administration ?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday March 29 2019, @06:26PM (1 child)
2. seems a joke question, in view of the fact that no previous administration has effectively enforced laws, rules, or regulations against corporation. At best, we've seen semi-effective hodge-podge enforcement of a few high profile issues. Clinton admin started monopoly enforcement against Microsoft, but failed to move quickly, or effectively, then that law suit was dropped by his replacement. No - effective enforcement has always been a joke.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 29 2019, @07:18PM
You need to double check your timeline. The suit was filed on May 18, 1998 and the trial began on October 19, 1998. Then, January 13, 1999: The defense phase of the trial begins; followed by the second round of factual trial on redirect on June 1, 1999.
On November 5, 1999, Judge Jackson issues his initial findings of fact, which gives each side one more go at trial. But the official findings weren't issued until April 3, two days after settlement talks collapse. That is when the judge gives his official ruling. Microsoft appealed the same day, but was denied their interlocutory appeal all the way up to SCOTUS.
Judge Jackson orders the break up of Microsoft into two companies on June 7, 2000, which is obviously appealed. The court heard the appeal on February 27, 2001. This sent the case back down to the trial court. This would mean that there would probably be another year or two of trial by a new judge, plus additional discovery.
On November 1, 2002, Judge Kollar-Kotelly released a judgment accepting most of the proposed settlement. Because different majorities of plaintiffs objected to different parts of the settlement, there was a mess of appeals and cross-appeals. On June 30, 2004, the U.S. Appeals Court unanimously approved the settlement with the Justice Department, which finally ended the monopoly suit.
If you know anything about the law, that timeline is actually relatively fast for a case with as many different parties and issues as this. In addition, you'll also note that presidents from both sides of the aisle were involved for years. Even if Bush had kept trying to push the issue, given everything involved the trial, appeals, and everything may have lasted until Obama was president. The only real problem was the pressure from Congress and state elected officials to drop the suit, as Microsoft increased their lobbying efforts.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday March 29 2019, @06:51PM (1 child)
I wonder if the EU could be tougher on this if the company ever defrauded any EU citizens during the years, or if the company had any physical EU presence. They could prevent C-suite people from setting foot in the EU under threat of jail time once they stepped off the plane.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 29 2019, @09:33PM
Your ideas are interesting to and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter