This is not an "accidental tactic", after the first time. After the first time, when it was done with intention, it was deliberate. It was also a deceptive mark

This is not an "accidental tactic", after the first time. After the first time, when it was done with intention, it was deliberate. It was also a deceptive marketing practice and there's really no argument against that. Deceptive marketing practices are frowned upon in most legal jurisdictions. One may or may not choose to go forward once realizing this, and can not complain if they later feel they were defrauded when the initial contact was so intentionally and deliberately fraudulent. Caveat Emptor. In any case the article goes on to describe the intentionally deceptive campaign then badgered their mailing list with multiple deceptive follow on mailings designed to get them to initiate a telephone chat with a telemarketer at the company who would be acting under false pretenses. Of course this is all clever, it's very clever. It's very similar in design and method to the Nigerian 419 promotions which intentionally use misspellings and obvious falsehoods in order to filter out any potential marks who are not extremely naive. This is valuable as it increases the chances the mark who does respond will be receptive to the game being offered, and as such doesn't waste the time of the marketing artist promoting the scheme talking to savvy or intelligent targets who ultimately won't be receptive to the promotional offering.