Quote:
Originally Posted by palpha3clearance
I agree with the op... Some state attorney general is going to that legal precedent on things like this, it may not be spelled out with in the law, but it falls with in the spirit of the law. Thus leading to a class action suit, further more prohibiting such marketing / sales by penalty of law. It will happen eventually.
This being said I would predict California or Arizona to look at first due to consumer complaints as intent to defraud consumers. Usually it takes only the consumers feeling of being defrauded, because it is the Sellers to spell out the terms and conditions of the sale to expressly advise consumers as to what and how they are buying, without such terms spelled out to be easily interpreted up on sale the seller may be held liable for any confusion or misunderstanding of terms of sale.
Just saying....
|
Here we go again....
No State Attorney General is going to touch this. Know why? Because unlike you, they are actual attorneys and know how to read and interpret laws.
Let me break a few things down for you (again) because you still seem to not understand how lockboxes work and why they are perfectly legal.
1.) Courts don't decide cases based on the "spirit of the law." they decide cases based on the law as written and the facts presented to them.
2.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by palpha3clearance
Usually it takes only the consumers feeling of being defrauded, because it is the Sellers to spell out the terms and conditions of the sale to expressly advise consumers as to what and how they are buying, without such terms spelled out to be easily interpreted up on sale the seller may be held liable for any confusion or misunderstanding of terms of sale.
|
Not even close to reality. Consumer protection laws in most states require the consumer to demonstrate actual harm from a fradulent sale, not some vague feeling of being defrauded. If some vague feeling of being defrauded was the determinant, Starbucks would have been sued out of existence years ago because hey - $7 for a cup of coffee sure
feels like a rip-off to me.
3.) You buy a key to unlock the box and you know exactly what the contents of the box are going to be before you open it: The box will contain at least X and Y, and also a very small chance that it will contain bonus Z.
Since you are gauranteed X and Y, then you got exactly what you paid for. If you are super lucky and also get Z, well - great. But you were told you were only gauranteed to get X and Y. You buying the key and then opening the box was your decision, based on your own economic analysis. No defrauding took place. No one made you purchase a key based on the promise of getting Z.
In every single lockbox thread you bring these crazy legal arguments up that have no basis in reality. Forum lawyers are hillarious.