Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Brokerage-Chat Site Securities Fraud: A Lawsuit -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave O. who wrote (1255)	6/25/2003 12:40:56 AM
From: Jon Tara	Respond to of 3143

It's an interesting conundrum. During the dot-com boom (and perhaps today as well, but I suspect less so) there were a LOT of arrangements made between merchants (of various kinds, not just brokers) and web sites whereby the web site would get an ongoing small percentage of sales generated by accounts that were initially referred by the web site. What is the responsibility of the web site, if the web site encouraged the purchase in some way? I don't have an opinion at this point. But I'll bet a lot of the web sites never thought of this angle. What if you buy a bunch of worthless books from Amazon, based on recommendations of a website? That is, not just a web site that has an Amazon banner, but one that, say, provides reviews? What if they recommend one lousey book after another. (And you kept on buying?) And what about that Ginsu knife that really won't cut through old shoe leather and then slice a tomato perfectly? What if it was recommended at a cooking site, and they got a kickback on every Ginsu knife sold? Where does the responsibility lie? Does responsibility shift at any point when the consumer repeatedly engages in transactions that damage him? And does it make a difference whether it is stocks or ginsu knives?