There is absolutely no doubt that ideogram promises a chance to win the car in exchange for the registration.
I might have just dreamt all that up though because I can't find anything online.
Interestingly, the family that started Toyota is named "Toyoda" (with a d, or rather a だ).
I just have to enter the car? Hold my beer!
While a naive person may make that inference, a rational person may understand that 'ideogram' does not constitute an assertion that the picture depicts the prize to be won.
I sure don't mean to defend such predatory scammers, but I'm pretty sure they are legally safe on that part.
I had a friend last year who got very excited when she "won a car" and I had to talk her down when she said all she had to do was make an inconveniently long drive to a shopping mall to claim it / have her prize "verified."
The law isn't based on a "rational" person, but a "reasonable" one, that is the judgement of an ordinary person with typical life experiences. That's why you're tried by a jury of your peers, not of logicians, lawyers or ethicists.
Yes, in hindsight, it may seem that only "naive" people could believe this, and that "rational" people see through it. But this strategy probably represents something like the endpoint of a search strategy that found a successful meme, precisely because it mimics authentic, regulated contests.
I'm sorry to see you were downvoted for presenting the other side even if you don't support these schemes.
But I have to ask, what constitutes "an assertion" after all? Written text is just one form of fixing and transmitting ideas; alphabets usually originate in actual ideograms with original meanings that were long lost and were reduced to a sound or syllable.
Transmitting an idea with a text-image combo is just as valid for a contract as any other medium as long as the meaning is clear and unambiguous. And there is no debate here that it's exactly the intention of the organizers to transmit the idea "you can win a car" - and in fact that's what most people understand, with a tiny exception of an educated and naturally suspicious minority. The only debate is if it's legal for the organizers to claim an ideogram that literally reads "Enter to win A CAR" does not imply the car is a prize.
I don't know how a judge would rule, but from a political preference - philosophical point of view I would strongly incline to deny them that right; we get a much nicer society with less scammers, without losing anything of substance.
But thanks for shoehorning your political views into an unrelated conversation.
Of a warhead I don't know, but North Korea is rumored to have bought critical nuclear expertise from Iran.
Litigation, not prosecution. This is probably too low a priority for public prosecution, particularly criminal prosecution. But civil litigation? Would appear to be low-hanging fruit, particularly if one can entangle the timeshare promoter’s assets.
Hundereds of formal complaints by people from the gym to the ombudsman and consumer affairs over more than five years amounted to literally nothing. They still do everything they used to.
Even more seriously, they didn't pay their employees superannuation, and it took years to even start the process of sorting that out.
As these car competitions are run by private businesses and not the car manufacturers my guess is they are simply too small of a fish to go after.
Now, just last week that same gym was implicated in a drug trafficking ring. But that's a different department of law enforcement...
Totally agree! The few times I compare ads on television from Netherlands vs England the difference is huge. There's a huge amount of gambling advertisement in England. Advertising regarding something that's addicting is often quickly restricted in The Netherlands. Secondly the loan advertisements. In Netherlands the advertisements have to mention that it costs money (seems super obvious) plus there are restrictions on the interest rate. Seems in England companies can do whatever they want.
If a lot of people get into money problems it'll affect everyone (stealing might go up, or they'll not pay back loans, etc). It is so strange that this is allowed.
This is called "negative externality". Another example is junk food. It does affect everyone when people are unhealthy (health care costs for instance).
> It is so strange that this is allowed.
I think the US have ruled that advertisement is protected by freedom of speech. Actually some people get extremely defensive when talking about restricting advertisement (nanny state argument...).
Are you sure it's the same scam? A car sweepstake is a real thing outside of the particular scam mentioned.
But the car manufacturers logo was all over it, which makes me think it's legit.. but it is always there.. which is suspect.
Anyone in the US have tips on how to get involved to help oversee and direct them? I’m pretty naive and don’t have much time, but I do have motivation, at least. I have tried calling them in the past to get a better understanding of what they do, but it was difficult to find the right person to talk to. I’ve considered doing independent research and reporting (via FOIA), but I also fear repercussions.
It's not just the police. It's the DA and judges too. Also, weirdly enough, the defense attorneys and public have a very large burden of fault here.
A court clerk I know realized while filing records that our county had been in violation of state law for over 7 years in handling one type of case. Hundreds, if not thousands of cases have been prosecuted in that time. Yet, there was exactly 0 formal complaints about the counties violation of the statutes.
The clerk in question had to point that out to an attorney quietly, who then finally made a complaint on a case they were handling. After that the country dropped a few hundred pending cases on its books. But why did it take 7 years? Why hasn't anyone went "wow, the county violated people's rights for years, should someone be prosecuted"
Nope, just more revenue collection for all involved.
Is anyone seriously complaining? This is the first I've heard about this scam in years.
This is the market sorting itself out.
Lets say I get ripped off by a restaurant, store, or local company (and I find out later after looking at my CC bill), what recourse do I have? Call the police? What are they going to do? Do they even handle financial fraud? File with the attorney general of California? Is his office really going to look into my issue? Do we just assume all companies are law-abiding? This doesn't make sense to me.
(I know you can call your CC company and dispute the charge, but that doesn't punish the company doing it, except maybe not crediting them that one charge, that is not a deterrent to overcharge your customers, there should be some form of punishment by a government authority)
They can't mock-award it to someone of their own?
You can win a car but you have to be able to pay taxes and insurance for it, too.
I've heard of lots of companies that have booths at conferences where they scan your badge for a """chance""" to win some prize. Then they look up each person's credentials, and if someone is high up in a company that they wish to establish communications with, they give that person a prize to get their foot in the door.
The story about the Tesla took place at Four Winds Casino New Buffalo, which is in Michigan, not Las Vegas. Legally speaking, it is a sovereign nation so I would not put much trust in "local authorities" to protect consumers. Further, although Nevada does have a gaming commission, there are still plenty of "scams" and questionable promotional tactics used by companies both inside and outside of the casinos. Time-share sales, for example, are big business in Las Vegas.
The real contests are generally run by a third party firm that has no interest in the winners. They are payed to pick someone at random and deliver the prize and paperwork.
If your already investing that much money, can't the company also cover the taxes, or do most states have laws forbidding that? It seems like bad publicity if your "winners" have to pay several thousand in sales tax to get their "prize car."
Income taxes are progressive, of course, and then there are a mess of deductions. But they could still make an estimate by just assuming the person is in the $37K to $92K bracket. So that's 25% [1].
> It seems like bad publicity if your "winners" have to pay several thousand in sales tax to get their "prize car."
I think they make the judgement that offering a prize that is 3/4ths as expensive would be less good publicity vs. the largely unknown bad publicity that is mostly oriented towards the government anyway.
[1] ... and yeah, there's 25% on that, and 25% on that, etc.; for tax rates < 1 it's convergent, if the tax_paid = rate * (original_value + tax_paid), just solve for tax_paid.
Think about them why? Gambling income is in a completely different category from a prize you won for free. There's no reason they have to be taxed the same.
The only difference is that as a professional, you're filing your taxes as a business. It's still "income"[1], it's just the entity filing is a business rather than a specific person.
Regardless, a prize you win is not taxed as a sale.
> There's no reason they have to be taxed the same.
To the extent they're treated inconsistently, people will use the discrepancy to game the system. Politicians do that deliberately, of course, since it's an opportunity for graft.
In gambling, you're putting money into the system, possibly applying skill, and getting money back out.
With free prizes, you're just being given things with nothing in return.
That's a big difference. And not one that you can effectively game. It's very clear whether you're inputting money or not.
It never covered income tax though; thats on you.
A classic!
- "The exact nature and approximate value of the prizes must be disclosed clearly and conspicuously when they are offered."
- "The law prohibits the company from misrepresenting the odds of receiving any item offered."
- Prohibited: "Failing to award and distribute all prizes of the value and type represented."
Online complaint form here.[2]
[1] http://consumerwiki.dca.ca.gov/wiki/index.php/CONTESTS/SWEEP... [2] https://oag.ca.gov/contact/consumer-complaint-against-busine...