3 ms·
It's not the first time- The Federal Trade Commission said the retailer violated a 2020 order it settled that made the same allegations. Here is the 2020 order
by randycupertino 3y ago
It's not the first time- The Federal Trade Commission said the retailer violated a 2020 order it settled that made the same allegations.
Here is the 2020 order it got in trouble over originally: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2020/07/ftc-approves-final-order-settling-charges-williams-sonoma-inc-made-overly-broad-misleading-made-usa https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2020/07/...
- hinkley 3y agoHopefully they multiply the fines by pi every time they repeat the violation. “You want to make it 10M?” in angry dad voice.
- sahila 3y agoWhat’s special about pi? That’s just a 3x multiplier, seems more appropriate it should be an exponential fine increase to strongly deter repeat fines.
- valleyer 3y agoMultiplying by pi (or any number greater than one) repeatedly is exponential increase.
- hinkley 3y agoIf you read the article this is their second offense and they settled the first for 1 million. It's just around pi, and the square root of ten is just a hair above pi. "pi" is funnier to say than "3.1 something"
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- heyoni 3y agoFunny, I just reported them to the FTC for not allowing me to unsubscribe from their mailing lists despite never opting in.
- blackeyeblitzar 3y agoThis is one of the problems with current legislation (CAN SPAM). My understanding is that individuals don’t have standing to sue, but instead all they can do is report issues to the government and hope they do something about it.
- lldb 3y agoYep. And even worse states aren’t allowed to give individuals standing to sue either under the preemption clause (expect for in cases of deceptive advertising via email).