Bait and switch - written vs oral obligation A company is advertising a sale stating that I will receive a discount site wide for 50% off. A hyperlink to the sale clearly shows the sale applies to all available products, further in each one of those products available durations (ex. 1,3 and annual). Finally, by clicking on a link I can take advantage of that sale as advertised (vs having to call and talk to someone). After the purchase, I have access to the product, I receive a receipt and other information clearly showing the sale is valid and final. That being said... I call the same company prior to purchasing the product via the advertised sale link. A representative from that company verbally states the sale is really only available annually and not any other time frame (I'm not sure if it matters but he did not ask me to not purchase because of the error). The call ends, and I go ahead and purchase the product using the sale price (I took screenshots of the advertisement and the company's website showing the sale). He calls me the next day and said that the purchase was done behind his back and that he told me it was only available annually. Therefore the advertised terms are not valid and his statement is. Am I wrong or is what he saying will hold water? Can they just change their mind (I can't find any disclaimers) From what I've described is all of this bordering on false advertising? I'm doing research to find a case as well. If someone has a case similar please let me know. PS We are in different states.
Do you have a contract? It depends on the website’s terms but almost certainly not. It is standard practice in e-commerce terms and conditions that your selecting “buy” and giving the vendor money does not create a contract; you are merely making an offer that the vendor can accept or reject. For example, Amazon’s terms are clear that the contract only comes into existence when they dispatch the goods, until then they are free to cancel your order and return your money. Here the vendor rejected the offer. Is this false advertising? Maybe. It would depend on the specifics of the ad and whether, overall, a reasonable person would be mislead or deceived. It’s possible you misunderstood but that doesn’t necessarily make it misleading or deceptive. I misunderstand a lot of things; that doesn’t mean they were objectively misleading or deceptive. Notwithstanding, a business does not have to make good on false advertising. An incorrect advertised price does not force the business to anccept offers of that price. It may force a correction and may require the item to not be sold until the price is corrected and it may expose the business to fines, but it does not give anyone the right to buy at that price.
I very much suspect she is in right to 1) no receive promotion emails anymore, 2) Have them close the account again and 3) have them delete her pictures. No, she does not have those rights. She agreed to a legally binding contract when she signed up for the service when she clicked "OK" to open the account. That contract outlines her "rights," as you call them, and they can be very different from what you assume to be ethical and moral bounds to a business relationship. What you imagine to be fair business practices could be generally regarded as fair and normal consumer relations; but that's not necessarily what may be in the contract. What she agreed to in the Terms of Service (TOS) could be some form of long term licensing of her photos to the service, and that could be why they won't delete the photos and why she can't delete them in bulk. The TOS states the terms of the promo emails she agreed to receive. Read the TOS; everything will be outlined. The company is in no way obligated to make life easy for her or change the contract to appeal to her; she agreed to everything, including downloading all her photos. If she didn't read the TOS and feels they copied all her photos "without her knowing", that's her fault. It's possible that the company is breaking consumer protection laws with some of their practices, but you'll need to read Canada consumer laws and see if they require ease of use, permanent op-out of emails, etc. I doubt the company would be flagrantly violating consumer law.
Is that extortion? false advertising? or in any way illegal? Not at all. The owner of the site is simply exercising his right as outlined in the terms and conditions from when the user signed up. And giving users an option for continued use of the site (that is, for him not to exercise a right of which they were always aware) does not constitute extortion.
Fair use is always a fact-driven issue, and the details matter. That said, copying a single ad in order to criticism the ad, or comment on it, is very likely to be found to be fair use. If only a section of the ad were shown, to illuminate the point being made, that would make a fair use holding more likely. Or if the entire ad was shown in low resolution's for context, and a detail shown in higher resolution, that would also help. Such an ad is largely factual, not creative in the way that a work of fiction or fine art is, which leans toward fair use. Such a reproduction of the ad will not serve as a replacement, nor harm the market for the ad, which leans toward fair use. The use seems to be transformative, which leans significantly toward fair use. If the whole ad is shown that leans somewhat against fair use, but that does not prevent the use being held to be fair use. As for trademark protection, that is not likely to be an issue. Trademarks are protected against being used in trade (also known as &quot;in commerce&quot;) without permission. This means using the mark to label, identify, or advertise a product or service of the same general type as the product the mark is properly associated with. Using the mark, or a similar mark, in such a way that people are likely to be confused into thinking that a product or service came from the same source as the mark, or approved, endorsed or sponsored by the mark owner, is usually infringement. Using the mark to discuss the product or service, and in particular using it as the name of the product or service, is nominative use. Nominative use is not infringement. Using an ad that includes trademarks to discuss the associated product is a form of nominative use.
...due to the international registration of multiple domains to generate ad revenue by recycling stories across sock puppet networks, giving the impression of multiple, independent companies. None of that is illegal on its face. Internet domains are freely registerable by anyone, anywhere (with the exception of some laws in some nations that restrict such Internet-related activity), and registered privately or publicly, and websites can be hosted anywhere. Writing articles and "spinning" and copying articles (even if that writing is sales gibberish in broken English) among the same copyright owner is legal, and using the same design and layout for a network of sites is legal. The formation of multiple, related companies and shell companies to give the impression that companies are separate and independent is legal (again, with the exception of some business and corporate laws in some nations that restrict such activity). These are all common business practices. Some business practices may appear to be unethical - trying to fool customers in order to make money and get clicks and sell ads. And what you may be feeling is that such activity is unethical. And that's OK. But feeling that they are unethical doesn't make the practices illegal. Many common activities that are considered to be unethical are illegal; but not all. Buyer beware. One way some of that activity may be illegal is if those articles are factually incorrect and promote quack medical treatments, are financial scams requiring payments, are gambling sites or promote other clearly illegal things. But then you get into the complexity of exactly how they are illegal, which jurisdictions are involved, and on and on.
In such a case the person who bypasses the terms knows that use of the site is conditioned on agreement to the terms, and has taken an explicit action to continue past the terms and use the site. I suspect that if a dispute were to arise where this is relevant, it would be held that taking such action was legally equivalent to clicking "I agree". But I don't know of any court case on this point, and i can't be sure what a court would do. If having intentionally bypassed the terms, such a person tried to raise his or her lack of consent to the terms as a defense to some obligation imposed by those terms, such equitable concepts as "unclean hands" and estoppel might be raised, since such a person, in effect, leads the other party, the site owner, to believe that s/he has accepted the terms, I suspect that such a person will be treated as having accepted them. If this becomes at all common, I suppose that the designers of such sites will in future store a record of such consent being given, and not allow the user to proceed unless it has been.
Written promise pre-purchase vs signed agreement, what's stronger? The signed agreement is decisive because it &quot;states that it supersedes any previous agreements&quot;. The language portrays that the customer no longer considers the refund option a requirement for moving forward with the transaction. Signing that contract without the right to a refund releases the supplier from having to do good on his previous promise. what about false advertising? There is no false advertising. False advertisement is the supplier's act, whereas the subsequent waiver --by signing the agreement-- is the customer's act. The fact that the customer's informed decision benefits the supplier has nothing to do with false advertising.
As described, this may be a form of illegal bait-and-switch advertising, but not breach of contract. The contract states the specific vehicle to be sold, which does not match the test-driven car. If the dealer had listed the better car's VIN in the contract but supplied a different car, that would be breach of contract. Whether it is illegal advertisement depends on the representations and disclaimers made by the dealer. To the extent that the dealer supplied indications that there was a difference between the test model and the purchase model, or to the extent that the customer should have known that the test car had features not found in the specific model that the customer believed he was buying and paying for, the dealer was being non-deceptive. To the extent that the dealer holds that selling model X instead of model Y is an &quot;honest mistake&quot; on their part, the dealer was being deceptive (or, was plainly in breach of contract). It's hard to see what &quot;honest mistake&quot; the dealer might have made, but perhaps the mistake was &quot;not being clearer to the customer that they had test-driven a fancier model, not the one that they were actually buying&quot;. The customer's attorney could pursue this matter and either get the better car, or get a better financial deal, but it really hinges on who said / wrote what (and has a more believable story about what was said).