To anybody complaining - have you emailed Internet Brands yet? If not, get to it!

 

wow -- gone for 2 days, and there's plenty to catch up on.

i think a dangerous area for NAM to step into would be to require that Mark do "simple tax research" to verify the truth of vendor claims. Great -- so now when someone gets misled by some vendor they can turn to Mark and say he contributed by authorizing or silently acquiesing to incorrect tax advice.

Having said that -- there is no question that, in my opinion, PU relies on fraud to do business.
As someone noted fraud requires intent -- but legal intent can merely be a reckless disregard for the truth (i.e. giving someone tax advice you pulled out of your . . . boot).
Additionally, trademark law (federal and state) expressly prohibits misleading misrepresentations as to the geographic source of the product (part of the reason you can't label a product as "Made in USA" when it's made in China) -- is there any doubt that PU is in the business of representing that their product is manufactured in England?

 

No, but that new user would be pissed and rightly so if they learned that the vendor in question had a history of pulling questionable crap and that NAM profited off them for years via ad sales. Oh yeah, and facilitated the bad business via banner ads that pop up over and over and over.

I keep coming back to the question:

If these practices were being perpatrated by a NON-PAYING FORUM MEMBER would they be tolerated? Would the site moderators just say "Sorry, but we can't police the members?"

Of course they wouldn't - I know they wouldn't, because when I was new and posted up a few threads asking about making custom shirts, the admins deleted the threads in about 10 minutes and told me that they'd take more drastic steps if I didn't enter into an advertising agreement with them. They claimed that they policed members selling stuff this way to keep the qiality of items sold in NAM high. Hmmmm... Seeing as how I was looking to sell a few dozen shirts, tops, at about $2 profit, it didn't make sense to pay the ad fees, so I desisted as per instructions.

If a non-paying member tried what PU doees every day, the admins would ban the questionable member in a heartbeat. It still seems to me that the factthat PU pays their advertiser dues is giving them special status in this issue.

Sorry to say it, but I guess money talks and BS walks... I calls 'em like I sees 'em. That's dissapointing for a site that claims to be in existance to serve the community. It's just my perception of course, but since I have no data to deny it... (sigh).

PS - I did write the "Corporate Masters" - I'll post my email if you want. So far I've got NO response, not even an auto-confirm that they got it.

 

that the last time I read any posts here, I get the PU banner add up top!

Some things are just ironic.

Matt

 

^ Did you buy anything?

 

Perhaps a simple inquiry to the IRS with PU's "charity" scheme, and contact info, would help to assuage concerns of the legality of it.

 

I appreciate the fact that all members need to be responsible for doing their own research, but it would sure go a long way to know that all vendors here are reputable. Or in the instance they do something wrong, they do what they can to rectify the situation. A negative triple digit rating is reserved for those that don't even try!!!

It took almost a year of being a NAM member before finding out it was possible to rate the vendors. Luckily, I never made a smelly, pardon, a PU mistake. Because of this, I posted in another thread that NAM should consider giving the boot to vendors that do cannot maintain a 6? or better rating. Although PU broke the mold with an obscene -100 rating.

I have said before that I wouldn't mind seeing PU leave NAM, BUT, I take it back. How does the saying go?....Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. If they stick around, they will always be on our radar, and we will always have something to biatch about ! PLUS, if they do leave, they can always REBADGE themselves, like their products! If that were to happen, newbie or not, someone will fall victim.

So PU, stick around, have a seat, BIG BROTHER is watching!!!

 

There ya go...

 

Just e-mailed Internet Brands my thoughts...

 

I think a few have already identified that this is in fact NOT legitimate. The overriding issue is that you must reduce any donation you make by the value of the goods or services received in return (i.e., whatever you pay over the market value of the goods or services is a donation, if it goes directly to a IRC § 501(c)(3) organization). I suppose one could take the position that PU's merchandise is crap and has no value, but this would probably be deemed a frivolous argument, at least by a judge who didn't know about PU. IMHO, what PU was doing was at the VERY LEAST reckless and at the extreme it could be deemed the outright enabling of tax fraud.

 

Sadly (for Mark) I tend to agree with the points made here. Maybe from Mark's POV he doesn't make enough off this site to police the vendors in the way clamored for above (whatever his earnings were or are from NAM before or after the apparent sale I learned about here to - what is it? - Internet Brands). Well, sorry, I do not think it is a viable excuse if some serious actionable damage were ever done. I'm not an attorney, but I think one would have a field day with the concept that a proprietor has a duty to his customers to a reasonable degree, regardless of profit. I think what is asked above about vetting ads and repeat offender vendors is certainly reasonable. If the profits are insufficient to allow reasonable protection of the consumers, then find another way or close up shop. Just my opinion.

 

Seems like a reasonable response, but my prior comments on Matt's points I think trumps this position. Again, just my opinion.

 

I keep hearing the slippery slope phrase used when we are speaking about banning PU from NAM. Maybe I do not have enough experience with other vendors, but are there ANY other vendors who even come close to the level of distrust and disgust engendered by PU? If not, how slippery is that slope in actuality?

 

As soon as I am done catching up with the remaining un-read threads here, I will.

 

Please, go ahead. However, you have had two CPAs and a few folks who know enough from their own research or doing their own taxes for years who have told you it is NOT legit. I publicly dare PU to offer up the identity of their expert, so I can speak with them and find out what question was actually asked and what advice was actually given. We will find out either that 1) PU never asked, 2) PU asked the wrong question, 3) PU posted the wrong answer, 4) the expert is no expert (a fraud in their own right; takes one to use one sort of deal), or 5) their expert needs their license revoked.

 

Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 1:39 AM
AutoAdvertiser@InternetBrands.com
To whom it may concern:

This is a request for a review by your company regarding one of the regular advertisers/vendors on North American Motoring (NAM), a website I understand you recently acquired. The offender's name is Palo Uber (PU) and it is hoped that your investigation into the practices of PU will result in a banning of the party as a vendor on NAM.

NAM is littered with voluminous complaints regarding the products of the vendor. However, the most egregious offenses may be the vendor's lack of commitment to adequately address the complaints made by and the problems suffered by their customers.

All the more troublesome is the very high cost of the products that are the subject of the many complaints; I would suspect that PU has some of the highest priced products on NAM. Additionally, there are many posts to NAM asking why is PU still allowed to advertise on the site given the unscrupulous reputation they appear to have developed.

NAM members were instructed by Mark Ferguson in a recent thread to contact you with this sort of request. In the interest of full disclosure, I started the thread in question in response to a recent PU ad wherein PU made a product offer that hinged upon an erroneous income tax incentive; please note my professional credentials are identified in the signature block below and a visit to my firm website will reveal I am a published author on tax matters.

Hopefully, others have read the advice given by Mr. Ferguson and have written or will write to you. Again, many members have questioned why after so many complaints about PU they remain a site vendor.

While it should be relatively easy for you to use the NAM search engine to locate the many threads on PU, provided below is the link to the thread that I started about the current offensive ad. From reading it you will note references to some of the problems members have encountered with PU and that will point you towards which other threads to read. However, if locating the various complaints about PU is a problem, I can certainly point them out to you; just let me know.

I trust you will give me the courtesy of a reply that identifies what your investigation and evaluation produces. I look forward to your response.

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...d.php?t=136311

Yours sincerely,

 

^ -- Blackie, you trying to make 6th gear in one day again?

 

LMAO. When has PU ever offered up any proof about anything they have claimed?????

 

Since Blackie posted his email:

----------------------

As per Mark's suggestion, I'm taking time from my busy day to make you aware of an issue with one of your advertising partners: Paulo Uber.

This vendor has a long and infamous track record for misrepresenting their products, making false claims about the "originality" of their designs and, most recently, actively advertising false "charity" schemes in order to get people to buy their shoddy products. Please see this thread for comments from CPA's on the very possible illegality of their latest schemes, and how NAM may be illegally participating in a scheme to commit tax fraud:

https://www.northamericanmotoring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136311

I have never purchased from this vendor - the 200+ pages or so of anti-PU messages (most with extremely well-documented email exchanges) have convinced me that this vendor is bad, bad news. In the past, Mark was hesitant to bar them from advertising on the site despite the pleas of many long-time members, but now he's passing the buck to you, the new owners of the site. Quite frankly, PU's continued presence and the profiting from NAM on their often false advertising has been one of the barriers that has kept me from becoming a NAM Alliance member - and I'm a contributor to the E-zine and a very active thread participant!

All that said, I hope that you will take the time from your busy schedule, as I am now, to do a little research on tis vendor and re-evaluate their NAM Advertiser status. You can find many, many threads on their shenanigans in the "Interior/Exterior MODs" section, or by speaking with users like Blackie. Bottom line is that 99 out of 100 NAM advertisers seem like upright and honest merchants, committed to the community and to making things right when mistakes occur, but PU really is a rotten apple in the NAM barrel. It makes me sad to see them tarnish what is otherwise the best online community I've ever been a part of.

Thank you, and I wish you all the best in you continued business endeavors.

Happy Motoring!



-Matt Cook
ImagoX on NAM.

 

PU is a serious outlier, very extreme in thier offences. Some other vendors sometimes slip into "extreme prose" but none come close to the BS that PU spews. The slippery slope arguement has no teeth.

The volume of vendor adds/posts arguement holds no water as well. It's a small percentage of site volume, and the member posts are moderated. To say that "it's too much work" to vet the vendor content just doesn't make sense. Have the mods read thier posts/adds too! Just like they were members.

The "it's up to the membership" doesn't hold water either. This would be an arguement to let the boards self-moderate. After all, if we can figure out what is BS from a vendor, why can't we figure out what is BS from a member?

The lack of consistancy is obvious to anyone who cares to think about it. The only difference is that vendor status buys the ability to post without moderation. This is an implicit endorsement of the content, no matter what the site moderators or owners choose to say.

But on the scale of societal harms, it is truley a small one. Sad to see but there are much worse harms that we run into in our day to day lives. But that doesn't make it right....

Matt

 

email sent

 

Not to mention the "tangled web we weave" argument.

 

How can he if he doesn't exist .

 

Now let's see what kind of response we get.

Hopefully better than what Mark has been able to cough up.

 

Not really expecting these cowards to show themselves, but you have to put the challenge out there if for no other reason than to show anyone who is still not getting it (what PU is all about, deception) that there is NO wiggle room for these jokers on what they did with this misrepresentation. Often the tax code (any tax code, US, state, foreign) can have interpretations that fall into a wide range of grey, but this one is pretty much black and white.