Where the GIT's are going Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Where the GIT's are going

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (142576)	5/4/2007 7:14:12 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (4) of 225578

I was happy to see this case today. I bet I'm not the only one who was victimized by a similar scam. I remember buying a laptop from Dell or Gateway a few years ago that came with a "free" six month MSN ISP trial. They required your credit card info to initiate the "free" trial. I never really used it, but just try to cancel when the "free" period draws to a close. They make sure they collect at least 2 months from you via credit card before you finally get them to stop the account. Imagine the amount of money made when multiplied by all the people so duped! I think that is the only time I have practically screamed at telephone answerers for a company....<g> Antitrust and Trade Regulation- For purposes of liability under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, an associated-in-fact enterprise is not required to have any particular organizational structure, separate or otherwise, beyond that necessary to carry out its pattern of illegal racketeering activities. Plaintiffs established that associated-in-fact enterprise existed between software company and retail computer goods store where complaint alleged the entities had common purpose of increasing number of people using company’s Internet service, which was furthered by store distributing company’s trial CDs and conveying store customers’ debit and credit card information to company; entities’ scheme allowed company to bill store customers improperly over period of three years, and entities had a cross-marketing contract; and entities over course of two years used similar methods of fraudulently charging store customers for company’s Internet services. Where alleged wire fraud involved a retail transaction whose full consequences were realized only months later, plaintiffs’ allegations of the factual circumstances of the wire fraud were sufficiently particularized to satisfy pleading requirements even though they did not name the specific store employee involved in the transaction. Odom v. Microsoft Corporation - filed May 4, 2007 Cite as No. 0435468 Full text metnews.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next