5 ms·

Seems to me to be perfectly legal, if not morally right. Did I miss something? Perhaps not being morally right is something to have outrage about.

polotics 4y ago
How is it legal? If you mislead a customer by assuming an identity that is not yours, how is this not identity theft? (not legal) The fraudsters' website says "Kiin Thai eatery - Official Website". Anyways that is for a judge to decide.
- SillyUsername 4y ago
  Aside from "Official website" they are offering the product from the company that sells it, not a knock off. I could sell Armani, and buy from their site, I'd be an unofficial reseller. The point in general (slight change of position here) is that had they not stated "official", reselling is perfectly fine. As you point out trademark infringing (representing yourself as them by saying official) is not.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    "Besides from the identity fraud, how is this illegal?" The identity fraud is core to the product. Had they not registered a domain that made them sound official and said that they were the other company, nobody would get confused and think they're ordering from the actual company. Armani will tear you up if you set up "armani-losangeles.com" and pretend that you're Armani, even if you don't mention "Official Website".
  - pjc50 4y ago
    > I could sell Armani, and buy from their site, I'd be an unofficial reseller. Poor example, I'm fairly sure that the designer brands are most likely to sue parallel importers and grey marketers.
- darreninthenet 4y ago
  Representing yourself as something you aren't for an advantage is literally one of the legal definitions of fraud in the UK.
  - mcv 4y ago
    Specifically trademark infringement. They're trading under someone else's name. This is exactly what trademarks are supposed to prevent.
loup-vaillant 4y ago
I'm pretty sure the scammers are engaging in trademark infringement.
- greenyoda 4y ago
  Can the restaurant ask Google to take down the ad based on trademark infringement?
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    Even if "yes" - it's a Whac-a-Mole dystopia.
friend_and_foe 4y ago
Who cares if it's legal or illegal. We don't have these discussions to let the law be the arbiter of morality, we have these discussions to get to the bottom of what the law ought to be, or at the very least, how we as individuals are going to respond to this kind of stuff. Personally I'm going to continue to block ads on the advice of the FBI regardless what some other people say about it, I'm going to continue to refuse to use third party delivery services, and I'm going to continue to refuse to use any third party rating or aggregator service for local businesses. And also I'm going to continue aggressively avoiding Google products and services.
- BLKNSLVR 4y ago
  Respect! I've just recently migrated to a daily driver android phone without any Google services sitting in the background. Stay strong, follow the path!
xg15 4y ago
> Perhaps not being morally right is something to have outrage about. Well, evidently, it doesn't outrage you. But my impression was the rage was more directed at Google and Amex, who were in a position to easily prevent the fraud but instead choose to benefit from it. The one party who cannot do anything about it (except cancelling orders and calling their customers until the fraud stops) is the original restaurant.
maxk42 4y ago
It is not legal to represent yourself as being a business when you are not in fact a representative of that business.

polotics 4y ago

How is it legal? If you mislead a customer by assuming an identity that is not yours, how is this not identity theft? (not legal) The fraudsters' website says "Kiin Thai eatery - Official Website". Anyways that is for a judge to decide.

SillyUsername 4y ago
Aside from "Official website" they are offering the product from the company that sells it, not a knock off. I could sell Armani, and buy from their site, I'd be an unofficial reseller. The point in general (slight change of position here) is that had they not stated "official", reselling is perfectly fine. As you point out trademark infringing (representing yourself as them by saying official) is not.
- luckylion 4y ago
  "Besides from the identity fraud, how is this illegal?" The identity fraud is core to the product. Had they not registered a domain that made them sound official and said that they were the other company, nobody would get confused and think they're ordering from the actual company. Armani will tear you up if you set up "armani-losangeles.com" and pretend that you're Armani, even if you don't mention "Official Website".
- pjc50 4y ago
  > I could sell Armani, and buy from their site, I'd be an unofficial reseller. Poor example, I'm fairly sure that the designer brands are most likely to sue parallel importers and grey marketers.
darreninthenet 4y ago
Representing yourself as something you aren't for an advantage is literally one of the legal definitions of fraud in the UK.
- mcv 4y ago
  Specifically trademark infringement. They're trading under someone else's name. This is exactly what trademarks are supposed to prevent.

loup-vaillant 4y ago

I'm pretty sure the scammers are engaging in trademark infringement.

greenyoda 4y ago
Can the restaurant ask Google to take down the ad based on trademark infringement?
- bell-cot 4y ago
  Even if "yes" - it's a Whac-a-Mole dystopia.

friend_and_foe 4y ago

Who cares if it's legal or illegal. We don't have these discussions to let the law be the arbiter of morality, we have these discussions to get to the bottom of what the law ought to be, or at the very least, how we as individuals are going to respond to this kind of stuff. Personally I'm going to continue to block ads on the advice of the FBI regardless what some other people say about it, I'm going to continue to refuse to use third party delivery services, and I'm going to continue to refuse to use any third party rating or aggregator service for local businesses. And also I'm going to continue aggressively avoiding Google products and services.

BLKNSLVR 4y ago
Respect! I've just recently migrated to a daily driver android phone without any Google services sitting in the background. Stay strong, follow the path!

xg15 4y ago

> Perhaps not being morally right is something to have outrage about. Well, evidently, it doesn't outrage you. But my impression was the rage was more directed at Google and Amex, who were in a position to easily prevent the fraud but instead choose to benefit from it. The one party who cannot do anything about it (except cancelling orders and calling their customers until the fraud stops) is the original restaurant.

maxk42 4y ago

It is not legal to represent yourself as being a business when you are not in fact a representative of that business.