kokonutz

I heard some folks are threatening to sue Ben for promoting that match dot com thing.

JonNYC

Sounds like what's commonly know in the legal community as "idiots."

Adam1222

Although one of these days a blogger might get sued for conspiracy for fraud based on promoting travel "hacking." (Not saying this particular situation would qualify as fraud, but we've all seen blog posts that are closer to the line or cross it.) That wouldn't be a reader, of course, but one of the businesses Ben and other bloggers manipulate to fund their "business"/lifestyle.

Raffles

Ben didn't make any money off that so tricky to see any liability. The initial headline was, admittedly, 'I just earned x Avios for $y' which was untrue as they hadn't tracked but the rest of the article was pretty clear.

Would be more interesting if someone sued over failure to mention Amex's 'one bonus per lifetime' policy or similar ....

oliver2002

The amount of links he placed all over his blog posts does indicate there was some promo involved...

baccarat_king

And the lawsuit would be for?
What claim? Damages?

FWIW, I do believe there are a number of credit card disclaimers. That would fall under the "rules of the credit card company" type disclaimer. But, I seriously am not sure how you would even structure such a lawsuit.

Though, perhaps, Raffles, you are being tongue-in-cheek.

84fiero

Adam1222

Deceptive trade practices laws often have liquidated damages provisions, I.e., you get a set amount of money even if your injury was small or unquantifiable (often $1000).

As has been explained other times, Ben's vague disclaimer is probably not sufficient to insulate him from liability. It's basically a generic "sometimes I make money off of links". It doesn't say which links, it doesn't disclose that the information provided as fact is incomplete and motivated by profit. Again, not saying any particular practice qualifies as unlawful, but it's a common misconception that simply having a disclaimer allows you to violate the law. One example is a supermarket who has a sign "we accept no responsibility for damage to cars" in a parking lot. If their employee loses control of a line of shopping carts and slams them into your car, the fact they put up the sign isn't going to save them from liability.

Raffles

My licence to promote credit cards (because in the UK you must be licenced as a credit broker to even link to a credit card website, irrespective of whether you earn commission) could be withdrawn if I purposely did not tell people that an Amex bonus was 'once per lifetime' - although we don't have that rule here anyway. But if we did ....

Raffles

But how? All the commission goes to Avios to pay for the points. Avios has no affiliate scheme because they don't sell anything so it isn't even 'cookie planting'.

You can argue that Ben played fast and loose with his readers - because he knew what would happen, he's been around the block - but it was purely for page views rather than money. Not sure if that makes it better or worse. I refused to cover the deal.

gpeso8

I saw a few threats in the comment section of his posts but i'm sure they were trolls, however maybe a lawsuit (even an unsuccessful one) would maybe stop some of these sensational blog headlines. Who knows, maybe a crappy lawyer will attempt to certify a class.

baccarat_king

Yes, but USA Credit Card Compliance (Chase-AMEX-Citi) is as draconian as UK compliance (perhaps, even more so). And AFAIK, compliance (or lack there of) is a huge deal.

So, he would be dropped already, if he was not complaint. (or, at least, a three strikes your out). So, your only argument Raffles is that their is lax compliance effort. And, I know that is not the case with the large credit card issuers in the States.

baccarat_king

This makes me laugh. I'm one who has filed (and won) lawsuits on principal. It's usually cost me a minimum of $5,000. In the land of FlyerTalk and "travel hacking" and "opportunistic" folks around here (and reading the blogs) they are loathe to pay an extra $50 for a "premium experience." I hardly see anyone "shelling over" big cash. And, yes, the case I won was dramatic, stressful and a lot of fun. Alas, had settled along with a non-disclosure.

Not meaning to be critical, but the "just sue" argument requires deep pockets. Pockets of which I do not see presenting themselves in the said blog comments or on FlyerTalk.

(and it requires RISK, risk that you might "sue" and LOSE... Heck, I can hardly convince FlyerTalkers that they are missing 100s (many gone now) of opportunities in casino loyalty and advantage play.. that is a far more worthwhile effort than chasing hotel and airline status and perks.. but, it requires RISK... I know very few on FlyerTalk who are particularly good with understanding "risk." Which is fine, but with "risk" comes reward, in the big picture... and it's all about the big picture....)

kokonutz

$5k is 'deep pockets!?'

I mean, I get that Ben attracts the fat wallet crowd, but still.

And many lawyers make $100 to $200 per client on contingency doing things like car accidents and worker comp claims.

Anyway, yes, likely idle threats. But if I were Ben I would be far more careful. Defending even frivolous lawsuits is expensive, time consuming and stressful. Far cheaper and easier to settle. Which only invites more lawsuits. I'm speaking from experience too.

baccarat_king

How is a personal injury/workers comp lawsuit (legal practice) comparable? How about this, call a popular personal injury lawyer. Explain the case, "lawsuit of a blogger for misleading readers..." If he accepts it (on contingency), I'll pay you $100. Just show me the agreement. Deal?