Sandy Hutchens Ripoff Reporting

Tagged.com sent us the following comment:

We at Tagged would like to clarify, for you and your readers, that this matter has been resolved with the New York Attorney General and there will be no lawsuit.

Tagged regrets the confusion some experienced with our email invitation campaign in early June of 2009, that resulted in some complaints. We immediately addressed the issue and cooperated fully with the NYAG office.

Tagged has completely revamped our invitation process, used by all social networks, to make it the clearest in the industry. Everyday millions of people around the world enjoy interacting with our site and we are committed to ensuring people have a positive experience with Tagged.

If you would like to read more about the situation and our settlement please visit The Tagged Blog and this post: http://blog.tagged.com/?p=193. Thank you

We direct your attention to the analysis at Snopes.com!

NOTE THAT THE TAGGED BLOG POST IS DATED NOVEMBER 9, 2009. THE SNOPES ARTICLE WAS LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 14, 2009 WHICH IS FIVE DAYS LATER!!!

Snopes says that YES there was deceptiveness by Tagged.com or Tagged.

Tagged.com is a social networking site which has been around since 2004.

Its current registration process asks applicants to supply an e-mail address and a password for accessing the corresponding e-mail account so Tagged can “match you up with your friends,” information which the company apparently uses to traverse address books (or other e-mail contacts) and send e-mailed invitations to the addresses found there — invitations like the ones noted above, which deceptively appear to have been sent by the Tagged members themselves and claim that the recipients have been “added as a friend,” “sent photos” or “sent a private message” on Tagged (even though no deliberate “adding” has taken place, nor have any photos or private messages for the recipients been posted for viewing).

An April 2007 eWeek article describes and verifies Tagged’s disingenuous e-mail generation process, and McAfee SiteAdvisor entry for Tagged.com has logged numerous complaints about the practice.

Tagged.com’s current terms of service (TOS) now include the following disclaimer acknowledging that its members’ personal information may be used for the purpose of “initiating commercial e-mail messages” (i.e. sending spam):

E) Notice Regarding Commercial Email

MEMBERS CONSENT TO RECEIVE COMMERCIAL E-MAIL MESSAGES FROM TAGGED, AND ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THEIR EMAIL ADDRESSES AND OTHER PERSONAL INFORMATION MAY BE USED BY TAGGED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INITIATING COMMERCIAL E-MAIL MESSAGES.

In November 2009, tagged.com was ordered to pay $500,000 in penalties and costs to the state of New York and $250,000 in penalties and costs to Texas.

Tagged CEO Greg Tseng said the 5-year-old company had voluntarily proposed reforms and overhauled its registration process. It also planned to add more privacy features. However, the company has failed to admit any wrongdoing.

Last updated: 14 November 2009

Evidence of….?

Social Network Tagged.com Being Sued for Identity Theft (video)

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has charged that social-networking service Tagged.com stole the identities of more than 60 million Internet users by sending e-mails that raided their private accounts. Cuomo says he plans to sue the site for deceptive marketing and invasion of privacy.

New York’s attorney general says that Tagged.com stole the identities of more than 60 million internet users by sending emails that raided their private accounts.

Many are now planing to sue the social networking website for deceptive marketing and invasion of privacy.
Consumers had their privacy invaded and were forced into the embarrassing position of having to apologise to all their email contacts for Tagged illegal behaviour.

Started in 2004 by Harvard math students Greg Tseng and Johann Schleier-Smith, Tagged calls itself a “premier social-networking destination.” The California-based company claims to be the third-largest social networking site after Facebook and MySpace, with 80 million registered users.

Tagged may have acquired many of them fraudulently, sending unsuspecting recipients emails that urged them to view private photos posted by friends.The message read: “(name of friend) sent you photos on Tagged.”
When recipients tried to access the photos, they could in effect become new members of the site

The system was set up so that a user was asked whether the sender of the photos was a friend, then suggesting that if the recipient didn’t respond, the friend “may think you said no” (accompanied by a sad face icon). Every person on a user’s contact list received an email that again read, “(name of user) sent you photos on Tagged.” The site then released a flood of offers for everything from sweepstakes to other services.

The attorney general said a lawsuit would seek to stop Tagged from engaging in “fraudulent practices” and to seek fines. Plans to sue the social networking website for deceptive marketing and invasion of privacy are definitely in the works.

If you or anyone you Know have more information on this scam please leave us a comment on Sandy Hutchens Ripoff Repoting.

Banks will be able to keep £10billion from rip-off overdraft charges after the Office of Fair Trading abandoned a legal challenge yesterday.

Millions of customers have been hit by the charges, with some forced to pay hundreds of pounds just for going a few pence into the red.

But the watchdog has decided it can no longer pursue its claim that the fees are unfair after a surprise Supreme Court ruling last month that sided with the banks.

The court said that the OFT had no jurisdiction over the charges and no right to reach a ruling that would have paved the way for customers to claim a refund.

Some estimates had suggested that the banks would have faced repaying more than £10billion if they had lost. The OFT’s decision was described as a ‘huge blow’ for consumers yesterday.

Philip Cullum, of the official customer body, Consumer Focus, said: ‘Consumer trust in banks is at an all-time low. This decision will add to the public frustration towards the banking sector.’

Conservative Shadow Treasury minister Mark Hoban added: ‘This is a huge blow. Given the uncertainty-about the fairness of charges for unauthorised overdrafts, we urge the OFT to use other avenues to ensure a fair deal for consumers.’

The Tories have pledged to set up a Consumer Protection Agency to represent ordinary people against the might of large organisations if they win the General Election.

LibDem leader Nick Clegg described the move as ‘extremely disappointing’. He added: ‘We will continue the fight for fair bank charges in Parliament and push for a change in the law if necessary so that High Street banks cannot keep ripping off their customers.’

The OFT said it would change its focus to winning a voluntary agreement from banks to adopt a fairer and more open system of overdraft charges.

Chief executive John Fingleton said: ‘We remain deeply concerned that the market for personal current accounts is not working well for consumers and does not give banks sufficient incentives to compete.

‘We are committed to securing significant changes to unarranged overdraft charges going forward, whether through voluntary agreement with the banks or by other means.’

Some consumer campaigners, including Which?, believe there is still scope to mount a legal challenge.

But it is unlikely any change could happen before next year’s General Election. The Daily Mail has campaigned for customers to be given refunds of unfair charges since February 2006.

Anger was fuelled by reports of students and pensioners being forced to pay huge amounts of money. Banks have been raking in more than £2.6billion a year – £5,000 a minute – from the charges.

One-off charges have included up to £39 for bouncing a cheque or exceeding an overdraft limit.

Even the banks themselves were doubtful that the charges were legal, with many offering refunds to customers who threatened to take them to court even before the OFT launched its legal challenge.

It is believed banks paid out more than £500million to those who complained and asked for refunds.

But once the OFT tried to cap the charges, the banks poured millions into a legal case and repeated appeals to block it.