FTC Rules Operators of Jerk.com Deceived Consumers, Violated FTC Act

From the March 25th press release--FTC Rules Jerk, LLC and John Fanning Deceived Consumers, Violated FTC Act | Federal Trade Commission:

"The Federal Trade Commission has granted summary decision against the operators of Jerk.com, a website that billed itself as “the anti-social network,” for deceiving users about the source of content on the website. The Commission found that the operators – Jerk, LLC (“Jerk”) and John Fanning – misled consumers by claiming that content on the website was posted by other users. Instead, most of the content came from Facebook profiles mined by the operators.

"The Commission also found that the company and Fanning misrepresented the benefits of a paid membership which, for $30, purportedly allowed consumers to update information in their Jerk.com profiles. In fact, consumers who paid for the membership were unable to correct information about them on the site, and did not receive anything of value for their “membership.”

"The final order and an accompanying opinion resulted from an administrative complaint the FTC staff filed in 2014 against Jerk and Fanning. The summary decision was requested by FTC staff trying the case.

"The order requires the company and Fanning to delete all personal and customer information collected during the operation of the now-defunct website within 30 days, and prohibits them from selling or disclosing any of that information. The order also prohibits them from misrepresenting the source of any content on a website, including personal information, and from misrepresenting the benefits of joining any service.

"The Commission vote to issue the opinion granting summary decision and the final order was 5-0.

"The company or Fanning may file a petition for review of the Commission Opinion and Final Order with a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals within 60 days after service of the Final Order."

"The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad."  (source: FTC)

See also: FTC Charges Operators of “Jerk.com” Website With Deceiving Consumers and

Jerk, LLC, d/b/a Jerk.com, In the Matter of


Follow @DomainMondo

ICANN Hates Fairness and Predictability? So What's New?

Domain Mondo has watched in amusement as ICANN Insiders and Outsiders have both recently bemoaned the unfairness, and utter unpredictability of ICANN policies and processes--

Exhibit 1: ICANN's New gTLDs program--see the Booking.com case of an unfortunate new gTLD applicant caught up in ICANN and its new gTLD program's policies and processes--just one comment out of many (and this one is by a trademark attorney)--"... the results flabbergasted many people. Somehow it seemed to mutate into a "bad eyesight similarity review," since the only two "positives" were one where "i" gets confused with "l" and one where "rn" gets confused with "m." Meanwhile, singulars were not similar to plurals. So "hotels" is a similar string to "hoteis" but not to "hotel"..."

Exhibit 2: ICANN's UDRP policy--see the case of easyGroup Limited v. Easy Group Holdings Limited, D2014-2128 (WIPO February 19, 2015) wherein a 3-Member Panel split, with the majority denying the complaint and finding reverse domain name hijacking and the dissent finding lack of rights or legitimate interests and abusive registration--

Getting it Wrong: Split Decision for - IP Legal Corner: "The dissent’s view raises anew an old problem that panelists recognized early on about the UDRP, namely that appointment of the wrong Panel could in fact be a roulette wheel. See Time Inc. v. Chip Cooper, D2000-1342 (WIPO February 13, 2001) (“The majority believes that potential users of the UDRP are entitled to some degree of predictability. Counseling one who is considering filing a Complaint should consist of more than, ‘It depends what panelist you draw.’”)" (emphasis added)

That's right, ICANN knew "early on" (UDRP policy was adopted by ICANN in 1999) that a UDRP outcome was more dependent upon the panelist(s) one drew--i.e.,a roulette wheel--than the facts and merits of the case. ICANN apparently loves arbitrary, capricious, and unfair outcomes resulting from ICANN policies and processes, because it has done nothing to correct this in over 15 years! ICANN operates in the public interest? Apparently it doesn't matter to ICANN that an end result is wrong, just as long as ICANN's complex and inherently flawed policies and processes were followed. Form over Substance! should be ICANN's official motto.

Exhibit 3: ICANN's policy allowing "sky is the limit" annual registration renewal fees for New gTLD domain names--official ICANN policy allows new gTLD registries to increase registration and renewal fees on domain name registrants without any caps or limitations--

Surprise! Surprise! How much will it cost you dear new gTLD domain name registrants to renew that new gTLD domain name next year? And the year(s) after that? How about building your online business on a new gTLD domain name will cost you $30,000 per year to renew, 3 years from now? LOL! I guess the joke is on all of you new gTLD domain name registrants--and the Joker is ICANN! Domain Mondo warned you--Caveat Emptor!

And Larry Strickling and the NTIA really think ICANN is ready for prime time? Who is being played for a fool?


Follow @DomainMondo