4 ms·

> The FTC is being very heavy-handed here. Are you kidding me? A quick Google search turned up revenue of $24 million in 2013. 2014 and 2015 numbers did not co

by ebbv 11y ago

> The FTC is being very heavy-handed here. Are you kidding me? A quick Google search turned up revenue of $24 million in 2013. 2014 and 2015 numbers did not come up on my quick search, but I'd imagine based on the amount of advertising they do it's at least held steady. And then there's the many millions of investment dollars they received before that. $2 million is not even a slap on the wrist. It's like blowing in their ear gently. As far as Lumosity believing their own claims, first this is not a mom and pop store. They have the resources to know for sure whether or not it's true, and they have a duty to find that out before making claims. Second, I don't buy it. Anybody with half a brain knows it's baloney. Lastly, as far as I can see they're not being forced to make amends to the customers they ripped off, nor to make public apologies for false claims AND if they can gin up some bullshit study to support their claims (shouldn't be hard with their resources), they can continue making them. Also the whole time this lawsuit has been going on, I've been hearing claims that don't differ much from the ones in violation on NPR constantly. Just enough to skirt the law. Heavy handed my left foot.

kazinator 11y ago
$24 million revenue isn't net income after all the expenses and taxes. 2/24 is 8%. How would you like to be fined 8% of your yearly salary? Make $100k as a developer? $8k please! Good thing I'm not blowing gently in your other ear; that would be 16 thou.
- ebbv 11y ago
  > Make $100k as a developer? $8k please! If my career was based on a bunch of lies I would expect a lot worse. That's kind of my whole point. If I sold a website to somebody based on claims that it would do something it doesn't do, I would expect them to sue me for 100% of their money back plus damages, not just 8%. And keep in mind with Lumosity, $24 mil is the revenue for 2013 that I could find, who knows what they actually made in 2014 and 2015. If we assume it was just flat that's $72 mil, which makes the $2 mil fine 2.7%.
  - elbigbad 11y ago
    And one would have to assume that a company operating in this gray area would have some inclination that they would eventually be fined/sued and set up a fund of some sort to cover it. It would be like making $100k as a developer, but using some shady quasi-legal loopholes on your taxes to save a bunch of money. Presumably you would set some aside in case it ever turned out that what you were doing was not considered proper by the IRS. My point is that the eventuality of this couldn't have come as a surprise to the company.
  - kazinator 11y ago
    > If my career was based on a bunch of lies I would expect a lot worse. That is irrelevant to the question whether or not 8% of your yearly income is significant. I was only countering the opinion that that $2m is nothing to a company with a $24m yearly revenue (regardless of why it is taken away).
- biot 11y ago
  I'm sure people who drive after a night of heavy drinking don't like having their vehicle impounded, their license taken away, and being thrown in jail. But what do percentages or likability have to do with the application of law?

by ebbv 11y ago

kazinator 11y ago

$24 million revenue isn't net income after all the expenses and taxes. 2/24 is 8%. How would you like to be fined 8% of your yearly salary? Make $100k as a developer? $8k please! Good thing I'm not blowing gently in your other ear; that would be 16 thou.

ebbv 11y ago
> Make $100k as a developer? $8k please! If my career was based on a bunch of lies I would expect a lot worse. That's kind of my whole point. If I sold a website to somebody based on claims that it would do something it doesn't do, I would expect them to sue me for 100% of their money back plus damages, not just 8%. And keep in mind with Lumosity, $24 mil is the revenue for 2013 that I could find, who knows what they actually made in 2014 and 2015. If we assume it was just flat that's $72 mil, which makes the $2 mil fine 2.7%.
- elbigbad 11y ago
  And one would have to assume that a company operating in this gray area would have some inclination that they would eventually be fined/sued and set up a fund of some sort to cover it. It would be like making $100k as a developer, but using some shady quasi-legal loopholes on your taxes to save a bunch of money. Presumably you would set some aside in case it ever turned out that what you were doing was not considered proper by the IRS. My point is that the eventuality of this couldn't have come as a surprise to the company.
- kazinator 11y ago
  > If my career was based on a bunch of lies I would expect a lot worse. That is irrelevant to the question whether or not 8% of your yearly income is significant. I was only countering the opinion that that $2m is nothing to a company with a $24m yearly revenue (regardless of why it is taken away).
biot 11y ago
I'm sure people who drive after a night of heavy drinking don't like having their vehicle impounded, their license taken away, and being thrown in jail. But what do percentages or likability have to do with the application of law?