3 ms·
This feels very light on any actual information? First it says one of the five companies given in the press release, so does that mean that 4 out of the 5 are
by nerdjon 3y ago
This feels very light on any actual information?
First it says one of the five companies given in the press release, so does that mean that 4 out of the 5 are actually going to be paying exactly what the FTC said in their press release? Where do the fines for the other 4 relate to what they claimed for this one? As in if the other fines are still higher than the claimed for this one, it still seems like a success and not "Do Not Take Illegal Telemarketing Serious".
Why exactly is there such a discrepancy? I don't see any explanation for why this is the case.
- refulgentis 3y agoSelective complaining, there was a press round on the $300M fine so they’re counteracting by complaining histrionically about a smaller one and not mentioning larger ones. I don’t quite get the motivation either but it beggars belief they got into the weeds on this fine and don’t know the other happened, given they’re right next to eachother in press releases and documentation
- jdmichal 3y agoEven the 1 out of 5 that was selected, the press release was very clear that it's a partially-suspended fine. I understand that the language is a bit weaselly -- 99% suspended feels like a stretch for the word "partial". But it's also just suspended, which means that the company and owner have a $13.6m axe hanging over them to behave properly into the future. Also, this settlement did not include Vision Solar, the actual beneficiary of the marketing. My guess would be that most of the profits went to Vision Solar, and so the result will be proportionately larger.