Get exclusive CAP network offers from top brands

View CAP Offers

Update on the California lawsuit

[bsa_pro_ad_space id=2]
  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #588872
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I can’t believe a judge would do this?
    A little politically motivated maybe…..?
    One good thing is that It looks like noise to investors their stocks were up for the day
    Brad

    Source:
    http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/gaming/2005/jun/07/518869088.html

    Yahoo! Inc., Google Inc., and other Internet search engines lost a bid to dismiss a lawsuit filed by two gamblers over advertisements promoting online casinos.
    California state Judge Richard Kramer in San Francisco ruled that the suit, filed against Google, Yahoo, Ask Jeeves Inc. and 10 other search engines and Web sites, can proceed with the evidence gathering process in the case.
    The suits target ads that appear alongside Internet search results, an industry that is expected to grow by 34 percent to $5.16 billion in the United States this year, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. The suit highlights the regulatory issues search engine companies face when displaying certain types of advertising, such as online casinos or company trademarks.
    “The court gave us a green light to move forward,” said Ira Rothken, a lawyer for two online gamblers who brought the case on behalf of the California public. “Unless the case is settled it’s extremely likely we’ll go to trial.”
    The two gamblers, Mario Cisneros and Michael Voight, used sponsored links at search engines or Web sites to find online casinos where they lost money, Rothken said. Under California law, any money recovered must go to charities, he said.
    Yahoo made as much as $12.97 for each person who clicked on ads directing them to illegal Internet gambling Web sites, said Rothken. Most of the companies have stopped the placement of the advertisements since the lawsuit was filed, he said.
    Steve Langdon, a spokesman for Mountain View, Calif.-based Google, said the company doesn’t permit advertising for online casinos, citing company guidelines in place before the lawsuit was filed that prohibit ads “with the primary purpose of driving traffic to online gambling sites.” He said the case is “without merit.”
    Ask Jeeves spokeswoman Colby Zintl said the Oakland, Calif.-based company doesn’t comment on pending litigation. Yahoo spokeswoman Joanna Stevens didn’t immediately return calls seeking comment.
    Google shares Monday climbed $10.68, or 3.8 percent, to a record $290.94 in Nasdaq Stock Market composite trading.
    Yahoo shares rose 60 cents to $38.52. Ask Jeeves shares rose 23 cents to $31.33.

    #666809
    Anonymous
    Guest

    thanks Brad for taking the time …

    Important stuff IMHO.

    on a side note:

    Google shares $290.94
    Yahoo shares $38.52.
    Ask Jeeves shares $31.33.

    damn, that google is sure getting their share, pun intended :)

    wow. I just am very surprised to see that much difference between yahoo and google.

    Does anybody know off-hand what yahoo’s story is?

    Were they at one time selling for anywhere near what google is getting now?

    Just curious.

    thanks in advance for your reply

    #666810
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    A better way of looking at the company’s valuation would be to compare the market cap’s rather than the per share price, because they may not have the same number of shares outstanding.

    Yahoo’s Market Cap is $52 billion.

    Google’s Market Cap is $81 billion.

    That means that Google is currently valued at about 1.5 or 1.6 times as much as Yahoo.

    #666812
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Yep Steve Yahoo did well

    Before the dot com bubble YAHOO did some serious ass kicking remember the commercials (Do you Yahoo do you Yahoooooo….)

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=my&s=YHOO&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=goog

    Randy you are right about the market cap but that didn’t apply back in the bubble as the chart shows. But now it does

    What about my original subject?
    Brad

    #666815
    Anonymous
    Guest

    you’re original subject scares me too much to consider lol.

    I know one thing, this is a case of a couple of scumbags spotting what they hope is a loophole to scam the SEs out of major bucks.

    Nothing more. I hope it is recognized for what it is too. And dealt with appropriately.

    #666816
    Anonymous
    Guest

    btw, thanks Randy for the lesson in stocks.

    Nope, didn’t know there was such a thing as market cap.

    Still not certain how it works, but your excellent comparison of stating one is worth about 1.6 times the other, …. I understand that math.

    :)

    #666817
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    A market cap is the value of the company based on the price of each share times the number of shares out there. Not all companies issue the same number of shares, so per share price isn’t comparing apples to apples.

    As far as Brad’s original subject goes, this is scary indeed. Of course, the first thing that occures to me is that the plaintiff who lost $100k was, by the logic of his lawsuit, committing a crime when he lost the $100k. But looks like he’s not facing any heat for that. It’s unfortunate that in the good old USA no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions anymore.

    As far as what this means for affiliates, I don’t think it’s a good thing at all. If anyone’s actually read the court document, they’ll notice that a couple of affiliate websites are actually named in the document, although they’re not defendants in the suit. I think it’s wise at this point to look at a little diversification into some other industries, if you haven’t already done so. (And honestly I think most folks around here have looked into that already.)

    #666822
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Hey Brad,
    Thank you for updating us on this issue. As Randy stated this is not a good thing. I have felt for a long time that are days may be numbered in this business unless something positive comes our way in the future. If Google and the other search engines lose this case it will open up the posibilty of US affiliates being sued or worst. I would not be surprized if the DOJ started sending out threating letters to several US webmasters in the near future. As stated in another news article the DOJ is currently investigating many other online gambling websites. With the current state of affairs it amazes me that some affiliate programs are changing their terms/conditions for affiliates that are taking in my opinion great risks at this time.

    Hey Randy,
    Who were the affiliate websites mention in the court documents?

    #666827
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I’m going to post a link to the actual court document:

    http://www.techfirm.com/yahoocomplaint.pdf

    (Rather than name names. Cap, sent you a PM.)

    #666831
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Thank you Randy!

    #666834
    vladcizsol
    Member

    🙁 :hitthefan 🙁

    #666835
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    A lot of this complaint will be thrown out of court for making determinations which are not consistent with the law, and drawing conclusions which have not been proven.

    Also, to clarify one point in case someone asks, poker is NOT included in this complaint. Poker is not illegal in California, so long as it is not stud poker, and thus they are unable to take any action against this form of “gambling”.

    Once all of the BS is thrown out (ie. senior citizens being milked out of their money) and certain determinations corrected (ie. a particular well-known casino, in fact probably many of those named, being called “illegal” when in fact they reside in legal jurisdictions and operate legally), what’s left is that these are two sore losers looking to get some money back and using the residents of the State of California as pawns whether or not they actually agree to the action being taken.

    I’m not going to speculate on the outcome because I really don’t have the tools to do so – I do know that there is a lot of stuff in there which is present solely for the purpose of influencing the court, not because it is actually correct.

    I do believe, however, that at least some of the defendants will get off scot-free.

    I actually came within an inch of becoming part of this, at least after reading the complaint, for one of the publications named is one I wrote for, and my writings deal directly with the things which they are complaining about LOL. Thank GOODNESS these guys are building a case for show and clearly NOT thorough enough to build a STRONG case.

    #666839
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    Spearmaster wrote:
    ….certain determinations corrected (ie. a particular well-known casino, in fact probably many of those named, being called “illegal” when in fact they reside in legal jurisdictions and operate legally),….

    ……..

    I do know that there is a lot of stuff in there which is present solely for the purpose of influencing the court, not because it is actually correct.Agreed. I couldn’t believe how many times I saw the phrase “illegal website” or “illegal casino.” Sorry guys, but repeating something over and over again doesn’t make it a fact. Hopefully the court won’t be influenced by the abundance of false statements.

    #666840
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Don’t forget, this is California.

    It is against places that targeted California.

    That, too, is a matter of dispute unless geo targeting was used.

    #666855
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    The suit makes the claim that all search engines can use geotargeting. It does not point out whether or not these facilities were in place at the time, or were even technically feasible at the time the complainants took part in alleged illegal activity.

    Geotargeting by state is not only not that accurate at present, it has actually not been available for that long. The claims they are making that California could be blocked are unsound. All it would require is a statement from a big provider like Earthlink or AOL to explain why blocking a state would be almost impossible, and these would have to be removed from the complaint.

    For example – an AOL user in California is seen by most geotargeting solutions as coming from Virginia. For that matter, all AOL users will be seen this way, even international users, by many geotargeting solutions.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)