3 ms·
A precedent that a publisher is responsible for ads that it publishes? I expect that it already exists. They may as well plead guilty and promise at the sentenc
by incompatible 5y ago
A precedent that a publisher is responsible for ads that it publishes? I expect that it already exists. They may as well plead guilty and promise at the sentencing that they are improving their systems so that it won't happen (much) ever again.
Edit: in this case, the charges seem to be a bit more involved, such as money laundering. I suppose publishing misleading ads has been happening for a long time, and I don't know exactly what laws apply. Plenty of people may have been scammed buying dodgy used cars in classified ads, for example.
- bobthepanda 5y agoOnce one firm has established how to do it and win it basically becomes open season for anyone to follow the exact same playbook. Even if you don't necessarily lose the other ones, simply spending money on lawyers to get dozens or hundreds or thousands of copycat lawsuits dismissed is a huge hassle. There's a reason why personal injury and mesothelioma ads get placed on the radio and TV so often in the US; "you may be entitled to financial compensation" and all that.
- zdragnar 5y agoA used car is a used car. Caveat emptor beyond that. Apple support line must be a support line for Apple. Using someone's likeness means they have approved to have their likeness used. Even if these things are already illegal, and even if the publishers are nominally responsible for not allowing illegal advertisements, at least there will be a precedent of these kinds of scams actually getting prosecuted. There needs to be an actual injunction against further fraud, meaning every instance is a liability, rather than what is most likely going to be a slap on the wrist. One can dream, I guess.