It’s possible for a client to request partial responses from a server. For
example, a client might only want the first 5 minutes of a video, or the last
100 lines of a log file.
HTTP clients and servers can do this with range requests.
For example, this request asks for the first 100 bytes:
GET/foo.mdHTTP/1.1Range:bytes=1-100
If a server doesn’t support range requests, it will return 200 OK and
returns the entire resource. If it did support range requests, it can use
206 Partial Content and return just what the client asked for.
However, if a client requested a range that didn’t make sense, it can use
416 Range Not Satisfiable to indicate this. For example, maybe a file
was 1024 bytes, and the client asked for bytes 2000-3000.
HTTP/1.1416Range Not SatisfiableContent-Range:bytes */1000
Documentation improvements (@fanjiapeng, @alexander-schranz, @hmc, Pavlo Yatsukhnenko, Michael Grunder)
swoole 4.3.1
Enhancement
---
* After `Server` enabled `ssl_verify_peer`, the client without the certificate will be forcibly disconnected (31a038f) (@shiguangqi)
* `MySQLStatement::execute` can accept null arguments (0207ebc) (@twose)
* Now part of the fatal error message caused by illegal code will show the call stack trace, the warning will be more friendly (such as calling the coroutine method outside the coroutine) (@twose)
Fixed
FixedswSignalfd_set unexpected result (#2397) (@junwei-qu)
Fixed Socks5proxy memory error (9dd0b7c) (@twose)
FixedRedis backward compatibility (connect timeou configuration does not work) (21f34cc) (@twose)
Fixed Server reload BUG (31a038f) (@shiguangqi)
Fixed CoHttpClient with defer mode and call recv with the timeout agrument but timeout does not work (2c1cd83) (@twose)
Fixed call the coroutine method out side the coroutine core dump (2bf6b09) (@twose)
Fixed Swoole + PHP73 with pcre.jit on MacOS core dump (17ccaf3) (@twose)
Fixed build failed on 32-bit env (#2411) (@twose)
Fixed CoSocket construct failed (@twose)
FixedProcessPool system msg queue not work (#2424) (@matyhtf)
Fixed user and group configurations not work in Server with BASE mode (#2402) (@matyhtf)
Fixed CoMySQL connect timeout coredump on low version of Linux (d6736e4) (@twose)
Look no further than your email list. Cultivating a thriving email list has been shown to help you build your:
business;
personal brand;
or eCommerce store.
On a basic level, building your email list will help you to acquire new clientele and keep them coming back: These lists enable you to send out emails with valuable information, coupons, exclusive links, and much more. After sending out these blasts, you should see subscribers stampeding to your site!
Of course, you’ll need to collect some email addresses before you can start sending these emails out.
The good news is that cultivating a rapidly expanding email list may be even easier than you think. All you need is the right email list plugin to help your visitors subscribe to your list quickly and effortlessly.
Here are a few of our favorite email list building plugins for WordPress:
Many call Thrive Leads the best WordPress list building plugin out there. If you’re willing to pay annually, Thrive Leads offers memberships of $19/month for individuals and entrepreneurs (for the use of all of their plugins and themes on 25 of your websites) or pay $49 per month for an agency membership. For as low as $67, you can buy a license for just one site.
If you like choices, Thrive Leads will be the perfect fit for you! This WordPress plugin has 10 opt-in types to choose from including popovers, slide-ins scroll boxes, “sticky” ribbons and more…
What’s more: After you’ve selected your opt-in form type, you can choose from one of the many templates and then select which pages or categories of tags you’d like to display them on.
Features:
Stunning designs and templates
Over 20 animations to use in your opt-in box
Ability to target specific user types (like new visitor, returning visitor, and customer)
Gain access to OptinMonster for $19/month (only $9 if you opt to pay annually). You can unlock more features by paying an additional fee.
One of OptinMonster’s most popular features is their 2-Step Opt-in option (they report it boosts conversions by over 785%). When visitors click on a link or photo, a popup comes up and asks them to buy a particular product or subscribe to your email list. This type of popup is effective because your visitor has now started a process they’ll have to finish, and the pop-up makes it easy as pie to sign-up (as opposed to taking them to another site, and having them sign up from there).
This plugin is also appealing because it includes an easy-to-use drag-and-drop builder, plenty of templates, and is perfect for the user who runs more than one website.
Features in the Basic Plan:
Lightbox Popups
Page Level Targeting
List Segmentation
Subscriber Recognition
Success Messages
Lightweight
3. Bloom
Bloom comes as a package deal (which includes The Divi Builder and Monarch) for $89 per year. You could also opt for the Lifetime Access at $249.
Bloom’s dashboard is user-friendly. Keep an eye on how your opt-in forms are converting by customizing a panel on your WordPress dashboard. On the dashboard, you can create and manage email accounts, see opt-in statistics and conversion rates.
Features:
Over 100 templates
Integrates with 16 of the most popular email marketing services such as AWeber, MailChimp and Campaign Monitor
6 different display types (including Automatic Opt-in Pop-Ups, Inline Opt-in Forms and Widget Area Opt-in Forms)
SumoMe has the best price tag ever: It’s free! And the set up is easy. SumoMe has a page of ‘Sumo Examples’ so you can see its capabilities for yourself.
A few of the features in the free version include the SumoMe Scroll Box (where you can set how far your visitor scrolls down before they encounter a pop-up box), SumoMe Smart Bar (a small bar at the top of your page requesting an email address), and the SumoMe Welcome Mat (takes over your screen with a request for an email address – there’s a neat feature here where you can embed a video, too).
Features:
Integrates with HubSpot, Constant Contact, mailjet, MailChimp, AWeber, and more
Heat Maps & Content Analytics
SumoMe Highlighter
Also includes social sharing buttons and analytics
This plugin is a pop-up free zone. With Optin Forms, you can place your forms above, below, or in the middle of your content. For all 5 form designs, you can customize texts, fonts, font sizes and the color of any element.
Reviewers often praise Optin Forms for its simplicity and ease of use.
Open Source Software (with Contributions from WPKube and FancyThemes)
Translations
6. Popup Domination
You can try Popup Domination for free for 14 days, pay $9/month for the Starter Package, and $19/month for the Standard. If you’re not happy with your experience, contact them within 60 days to get your money back.
If you want your popups to stand out, Popup Domination is a match for you. Their template library is constantly growing. Popup Domination also has slew of features, including the option to create mobile-only popups.
Popup Domination’s versatility doesn’t end there: It also works with every website and email provider.
Features:
Integrates with Constant Contact, MailChimp, iContact, mailer lite, GetResponse, and more
Countdown Themes
Exit Popups
GDPR Friendly PopUps
A/B Testing
OnClick PopUps
Redirect Themes
Email Themes
Geographical Targeting
Super Fast
Customizable Designs
7. WP Subscribe
WP Subscribe is another free email list plugin for WordPress. Snatch up the Pro version for $29 (which includes 24/7 lifetime support and updates). This is a real bargain when you consider the fact that, with most other premium plugins, the updates and support are valid for one year only.
WP Subscribe is the only free all-in-one plugin offering Aweber, MailChimp and FeedBurner. If you want to launch your email list quickly and easily, you may have met your match: WP Subscribe’s has design customization options and simple popup actions.
Features:
Fully responsive
Easily customized using custom CSS
Compatible with caching and SEO plugins
Can be used more than once in different sidebars
Popup animations
Super Lightweight
Which WordPress Email List Plugin is Best For You?
Since every site owner has different needs, we’ve narrowed it down a bit here to help you choose the right fit.
Thrive Leads is widely considered the best list building plugin for WordPress users. It gives you all the necessary features at your fingertips, best value for your money and has regular updates. Moreover, if you’re not sure yet what you want to do with popups or forms for your site, Thrive Leads is best, because it is so comprehensive.
Bloom is a great deal because you get so much value for your money (they include other plugins and themes in the package in the price). Another advantage with Bloom is that you have access to some cutting edge features (for instance, you can set Bloom up so that popups are triggered at specific moments, including after a purchase, or after a visitor makes a comment).
If you’re interested in unique features, OptinMonster could be right for you. For example, you can set up a popup to come up based on how someone has interacted with a product or service you’re offering. OptinMonster is also ideal if you have more than one website to manage, or if you’re looking for a lightweight plugin.
If you’re looking for something quick, simple and easy, download the free version of WP Subscribe.
Last Words on WordPress Email List Plugins
Before we leave you to your decision, here’s one word of advice:
Each of these plugins provides you with plenty of options for your popups and/or forms (no hurting for choice here!). All you need to do is experiment to figure out which type of popup produces the best conversion rates for you. Then, you can stick with what works best.
Remember not to underestimate the power of tiny changes as well (small changes may have new visitors swarming to your email list!) such as changing the color, theme, font, or text of your form.
On that note, you may want to look for a plugin that allows for split testing if you’re springing for the premium version of a plugin. This way, you’ll be able to easily compare your conversion rates. There’s no more time to waste: You’re never going to know what converts best until you try it.
As per the latest study by Persistence Market Research (PMR), the global weight loss dietary supplements market is anticipated to witness healthy growth. The market is likely to register 6.0% CAGR throughout the forecast period 2017-2026. The global weight loss dietary supplements market is also estimated to bring in US$ 37,177.6 million revenue by 2026 end.
With obesity becoming a global health concern, weight loss continues to be one of the most focused areas. Hence, increasing number of companies are coming up with the new products in weight loss supplements. The increasing consumption and demand for weight loss dietary supplements, regulations on the production of these supplements along with ingredients used are also gaining traction in various countries. The government in various countries are also focusing on the quality and quantity of ingredients used and if any of these ingredients can have severe side-effects, affecting the health of the consumers negatively.
Increasing use of Natural and Organic Ingredients in the Weight Loss Dietary Supplements
The negative effects of being obese and overweight are resulting in the increasing use of weight management products. Consumers are also adopting weight loss supplements in forms of pill, liquid, and powder. Hence, with the increase in the use of these supplements, manufacturers are also trying to produce safer products, thereby using organic and natural ingredients and plant-based ingredients. Among various ingredients, green tea extract is considered as one of the most popular and safest ingredients in the weight loss dietary supplements. Similarly, Garcinia cambogia is also being considered as an ingredient in the weight loss supplements. However, these ingredients have been reported to have adverse effects like a headache, constipation, UTI. Hence, there has been an increase in the investment in the research on other organic ingredients that can be used to produce weight loss supplements.
Global Weight Loss Dietary Supplements Market: Segmental Insights
The global weight loss dietary supplements market includes various segments such as end-user, form, ingredients, distribution channel, and region. Based on the form, the market is categorized into powder, liquid, and soft gell/pills. Soft gell/pills are expected to dominate the market during the forecast period. By the end of 2026, soft gell/pills are expected to exceed US$ 18,500 million revenue.
Based on the end-user, the segment consists of men, women and senior citizen. Among these, women are expected to be the largest users of weight loss dietary supplements. Women segment as the end-user is estimated to create an incremental opportunity of more than US$ 7,900 million between 2017 and 2026.
By Distribution Channel, pharmacies drug store is expected to emerge as the largest distribution channel for the weight loss dietary supplements. Pharmacies drug store is estimated to account for more than one-third of the revenue share by the end of 2017.
Based on the ingredients, the segment consists of amino acids, vitamins minerals, botanical supplements, and others. Vitamins minerals are expected to emerge as one of the largest used ingredients in the weight loss dietary supplements. By the end of 2026, vitamins minerals are estimated to exceed US$ 16,900 million revenue.
Region-wise, the market is categorized into Europe, North America, Asia Pacific Excluding Japan (APEJ), Latin America, Japan, and the Middle East and Africa (MEA). Among the given regions, North America is expected to dominate the global weight loss dietary supplements market throughout the forecast period 2017-2026.
Global Weight Loss Dietary Supplements Market: Competitive Assessment
Key players in the global weight loss dietary supplements market are Amway (Nutrilite), Abott Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, Glanbia, Herbalife International, Pfizer, American Health, Stepan, Nature’s Sunshine Products, and FANCL.
New York-based company Cure Encapsulations, Inc. and its owner Naftula Jacobowitz, settled Federal Trade Commission charges that the company paid a third-party website to write and post fake reviews for a weight-loss supplement on an independent retail website and made false and unsubstantiated claims in those fake reviews.
What Happened?
Cure Encapsulations advertised and sold “Quality Encapsulations Garcinia Cambogia Extract with HCA” capsules as an appetite-suppressing and carb- and fat-blocking weight-loss supplement through an independent retail website. The website allows consumers who have purchased products to leave reviews and provide a one- to five-star rating for the product. Cure Encapsulations paid a third-party website to post a series of positive, five-star reviews in order to boost the supplement’s rating and maintain a high rating. The company misleadingly represented that these reviews, which make unsubstantiated claims, including that the supplements were a “powerful appetite suppressant” and cause weight loss of up to 20 pounds, were posted by consumers who had actually purchased and used the product. In its first case against fake paid review, the FTC charged Cure Encapsulations with unfair and deceptive business practices as well as false and misleading advertising.
Consumers rely heavily on reviews from other consumers when they shop online. A significant number of positive reviews can have the effect of convincing a consumer who is on the fence about a product to make a purchase. As the FTC’s Director of Consumer Protection stated, “it hurts both shoppers and companies that play by the rules” when a company uses fake reviews to attract customers.
Under the proposed order settling the FTC’s complaint, Cure Encapsulations is prohibited from making misrepresentations that an endorsement is truthful or made by an bonafide consumer, and from making any health benefit or efficacy claims for any dietary supplement, food, or drug unless such claims are supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence. The company is also required to notify consumers who bought the supplements about the FTC’s allegations and attaching a National Institute of Health fact sheet that explains how Garcinia Combogia has “little to no effect on weight loss.” To top it all off, the order imposes a $12.8 million judgment, with $50,000 due now and the remainder as a means to enforce the order and in the event Cure Encapsulations misrepresented its financial condition to the FTC.
Practical Tips
This action sets a strong precedent that the FTC is willing to target companies that abuse online markets in this way. To avoid a situation such as this, we recommend abiding by the following rules:
When using endorsements, remember that all endorsements must reflect the honest opinion of the person making the endorsement, and all material connections between the endorser and the advertiser must be clearly disclosed;
An endorsement cannot make representations that would be deceptive if made directly by the advertiser. Advertisers are liable for unsubstantiated claims made in endorsements;
All advertising claims must be appropriately substantiated. Health-related claims must be supported by competent and reliable scientific testing, such as clinical trials; and
Do not rely on a trusted platform to mask false advertising!
FTC Files Complaint for Alleged Skin Care Negative Option Scheme
Complaint alleges hidden transactions, auto pay programs
Occupational Therapy?
If the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has got its details right, one of the named defendants in a recent complaint, Gopalkrishna Pai (Pai), was very active in establishing and running more than 100 companies as part of a skin care products online scheme.
The FTC filed a complaint against Pai and several of his companies in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on Feb. 21, 2019, for the defendants’ practices relating to negative option marketing. The complaint alleged that the defendants used more than 100 shell companies with straw owners to obtain merchant processing accounts needed to accept and process consumers’ credit and debit card payments. These interrelated companies had addresses around the continent, including in Puerto Rico and Wyoming.
The Takeaway
According to the FTC, Pai used this mass of business entities to carry out an elaborate negative option marketing scheme which ultimately brought in tens of millions of dollars through their “deceptive trial offers and payment processing scheme.”
The alleged front for the negative option scheme was a suite of skin care products that were advertised as “risk-free” online, with only nominal shipping and handling costs. Once a consumer signed up, the FTC says, Pai and his companies would charge them $90 for failing to cancel the offer within 14 or 15 days; simultaneously, the consumer would be enrolled in an auto-ship program that charged $90 monthly. These arrangements were disclosed – but only under a small “terms and conditions” hyperlink in the ads that was light gray font and appeared away from the prominent text and graphics on the page that urged consumers to complete the checkout process. In addition, Pai is accused of making cancellations difficult or impossible, and evading detection by using his 100-plus companies to conceal credit card transactions.
Pai and his companies were sued by the FTC in the District Court of Puerto Rico for violations of the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act’s (ROSCA) illegal negative option provisions. The FTC sought an award to redress the injury to consumers resulting from the defendants’ ROSCA violations, a permanent injunction to prevent future ROSCA violations by the defendants, and an award for the costs of bringing the legal action. As of early March 2019, there was no word of a settlement.
This case is another example of the FTC aggressively monitoring and regulating companies which deploy negative option marketing to sell their products. Although companies may legally market to consumers for trial periods and “risk-free” purchases, they must do so in compliance with the technical notice and consumer cancellation rights provisions of state and federal laws. The FTC has continued to crack down on those entities which fail to adequately disclose the full terms of these subscription agreements and fail to provide adequate notice to the consumer.
Army of Fake Reviews Pumped Product Ratings, Says Commish
Weight-loss supplement maker must pay for false claims and fake reviews
Wincing the Weight Away
When the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Brooklyn, NY-based Cure Encapsulations Inc. and its owner, Naftula Jacobowitz, it hit the defendants with two separate issues related to its “Quality Encapsulations Garcinia Cambogia Extract with HCA” product, which is considered a diet supplement.
First, the FTC maintains that Jacobowitz’s claims that the supplement acts as a “carb-blocker,” an appetite suppressant and a weight-loss supplement are false and unsubstantiated. Notably, there has also been discussion among laypersons online about the plant in question, garcinia cambogia, and the effects that the plant’s extract can have on weight loss for consumers. Second, the FTC alleged Jacobowitz purchased fake reviews for the product being sold on Amazon.
Love for Sale
Importantly, this February 2019 complaint is the FTC’s first suit brought against a company for buying fake reviews.
Specifically, the FTC produced an email that Jacobowitz allegedly sent to the website amazonverifiedreviews.com: “As I told you yesterday, I need 30 reviews 3 per day… The goal of my competition is to bring me down to a 4.2 overall rating, and I need to be at 4.3 overall in order to have the sales.”
Shortly thereafter, he allegedly wrote again, “Please make sure my product should stay a five star.”
The FTC has provided transcripts of the alleged fake ads, which were mailed from amazon-verifiedreviews to Jacobowitz.
The Takeaway
In addition to the false and unsubstantiated efficacy claims regarding weight loss, the FTC hit Jacobowitz with false endorsement claims, and is seeking a permanent injunction against future unsubstantiated claims and fake reviews.
As is common in these cases, the defendants settled quickly. In addition to a $12.8 million judgment and the standard prohibitions against the illegal behavior, Jacobowitz is required to “notify Amazon, Inc. that Defendants or their agents purchased reviews of Quality Encapsulations Garcinia Cambogia Extract with HCA sold by Defendants and appearing on the www.amazon.com website.”
Moreover, Jacobowitz is also required to email a detailed summary of the FTC’s critique of its weight-loss-related claims to consumers who bought the supplements. As businesses will continue to sell and market their products to online customers, customers can be expected to continue to put value in online reviews and ratings that appear to be from other customers for these products. Accordingly, the FTC can be expected to police reviews and take action with respect to unsubstantiated health claims and fake reviews for the products on these online platforms.
Mahindra Tractor’s Appeal of NAD Decision Put Out to Pasture
NARB panel affirms Division’s changes to sales, warranty and product superlatives
Tractorstruck
John Deere isn’t just a brand. In some parts of the United States, it’s a culture.
Given the widespread prevalence of John Deere products as part of a culture, the arrival of India’s Mahindra tractors in the United States back in 1994 sparked a serious rivalry between the brands. Given Mahindra’s overseas origin, it’s unlikely that the same cultural references in the United States will ever build up around the import brand, but the new arrival is still gaining attention as a popular competitor to John Deere.
Marketing and Warranty Claims
Unsurprisingly, John Deere pays close attention to Mahindra’s advertising. Back in June 2018, the company took exception to several of Mahindra’s marketing claims before the National Advertising Division (NAD). Mahindra appealed NAD’s findings before the National Advertising Review Board (NARB), which reached its own conclusions this February.
The claims under consideration included Mahindra’s boast that the brand was the “World’s #1 Selling Tractor” and the “#1 Selling Tractor in the World.” Additionally, John Deere objected to the Mahindra warranty claims, including the tags “#1 in protecting your back … with the industry’s best 5-year warranty” and “Best and industry’s leading limited powertrain warranties.”
NAD’s original ruling held that Mahindra “provided a reasonable basis” for its sales claims – the company relied on the Agricultural Equipment Statistics Committee of the Association of Equipment Manufacturers’ standard definition of “tractor.” But NAD requested that Mahindra disclose this definition when making its claim, along with the information that the claim was based on Mahindra tractor sales worldwide when combined with the sale of its Swaraj-branded tractors in India.
As for the warranty claims, NAD recommended that they be discontinued, although Mahindra was not precluded “from making truthful claims regarding any specific attribute in which Mahindra’s warranty is superior over its competitors, including the length of the warranty.” Finally, claims that Mahindra’s oil provided “Superior Protection” should be discontinued based on the lack of supporting evidence.
The Takeaway
NARB agreed with NAD’s recommendations regarding its sales figures and requested that Mahindra’s claim that “over [2.1] million Mahindra tractors sold worldwide to date” should specify the time period for the sales.
Mahindra had argued before NAD that its “best warranty” claims were puffery, but the NARB agreed with the original decision recommending that the claims be discontinued because certain types of tractors were not covered by the warranty provisions in question. Truthful claims about parts of the warranty could still be made in the future.
Finally, NARB rejected Mahindra’s argument that its oil claims were puffery, finding “these were objectively provable claims requiring substantiation,” and letting NAD’s original finding stand.
This case is a good example of how a brand can use the self-regulatory process to police its competitors, protect its brand and avoid the expense of litigation.
Will Nectar Sleep Wake from a Recurring Dream?
Bedding manufacturer doesn’t respond to NAD over limited time offer, gets FTC attention
SFW, but Still
There is an ad circulating online from Nectar Sleep, a mattress maker that markets its “bed of your dreams” with snappy, fast-talking, absurdist ads. The online video includes CGI caricatures of Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un with their disembodied brains hitting each other on a dance floor. The two-and-a-half-minute marketing piece is titled “Make America Sleep Again,” and has been watched on YouTube over 13 million times.
As absurd as this marketing piece between CGI caricatures of Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un is, the legal issue more specifically relates to Nectar Sleep’s recurring offer on their website. On their website and with their online product mentions, Nectar Sleep includes a recurring offer: “LIMITED OFFER: $125 Off + 2 Free Pillows.”
Tuft Needle, one of Nectar Sleep’s competitors in the bedding industry (see here, here and here), took the tag line before the National Advertising Division (NAD), alleging that the tag “misrepresents the price at which the Nectar mattress is sold because (1) it is not, in fact, offered for a limited time because this price point is always available to the purchaser, and (2) the pillows are never offered for sale by Nectar, therefore they are misleadingly offered as ‘free.’”
NAD claims that it never received a “substantive response” from Nectar Sleep addressing Tuft Needle’s claims and asserting any of Nectar Sleep’s defenses. Based on Nectar Sleep’s lack of response, NAD will likely kick the matter upstairs to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for review.
The Takeaway
What calculus does a company engage in when it decides to risk FTC review? Is it because an offer or an ad is so successful, it’s more cost-effective to let the ad round up business until a complaint is filed? Or is it something else?
This is not the first time that Nectar Sleep has been confronted with the FTC’s enforcement powers. Nectar Sleep settled a made-in-the-USA complaint before the FTC about a year ago. Therefore, Nectar Sleep is reasonably aware of the FTC’s broad enforcement for misleading marketing claims that may reasonably deceive consumers and the penalties that follow. It will be interesting to see how the FTC responds to this case, as Nectar Sleep has elected to not respond to the NAD complaint and Nectar Sleep has already been ostensibly warned that the FTC will take sweeping action against misleading businesses practices when needed.
Epic Games Sued by Minor Over Llama-Shaped Cash Cow
Fortnite publisher accused of addicting children to escalating microtransactions
Primer
We would wager that you know all about Fortnite, a game that has become very popular for children, teens and even adults (albeit immature ones) across the country. The game seems inescapable – constantly referred to in the mainstream media as a cultural monster that has swallowed the nation’s children whole. If you have (or even just know) children of a certain age, you’ve heard about it or seen them endlessly playing it.
At AD-ttorneys@law, we strive to provide a benefit to all our readers, so for the three or four of you who don’t know about the game, here’s the skinny:
Fortnite is an insanely popular game that grew out of a simple insight: combining the first-person shooter genre with the construction game genre (think Minecraft, the last cultural monster that seemed to have captured children’s attention nationwide). The original release of Fortnite spawned a “Battle Royale” version of the game, which blew the doors off the genre: an unheard of 3.4 million players logging in concurrently to fight in 100-player arena battles. This second version of the game, which was released only in late 2017, is estimated to have raked in $2.4 billion in 2018.
Any endeavor that rakes in that much money that quickly is a lawsuit magnet, and deservedly or not, Epic has mined its share from the Fortnite game line.
Llama Drama
The most recent is a suit brought by a guardian on behalf of his young charge, named in the suit as “R.A.,” in the United States District Court in the Central District of California. The suit asserts that the very structure of the original Fortnite’s payment-and-reward system implies unjust enrichment and violates California’s Consumer Legal Remedies, Unfair Competition and False Advertising Laws.
Epic, like many other gaming companies, has recently forgone the traditional payment model for games: Instead of purchasing a complete game, users download a free version that is immediately playable. The trick is that the free games reward microtransactions – small in-game purchases – that offer cooler looks for the player’s persona, or make the game easier to play, or unlock features and levels that free players would otherwise miss. From these small in-game purchases, Epic has made billions of dollars.
In Fortnite the moneymaker is a so-called Llama, a loot box shaped like its animal namesake, which can be purchased with in-game currency. The boxes, when opened (you bash them with a stick, like a piñata), offer items that better the users’ odds of dominating in the game.
The intricacies of the in-game payment system are deep, but R.A.’s central complaint equates the Llamas with gambling on several different levels.
First, the suit claims that the online currency used to purchase Fortnite Llamas, earned by spending real-world currency or amassing hours of playtime, creates confusion among minors who play the game and have difficulty conceptualizing how much real-world money they’re actually spending. Moreover, it claims that the ratio between the value of in-game currency and the price of the loot is intentionally mismatched, leading to a cycle of escalating earning and purchasing – what the suit calls the “10 hotdogs, 8 buns” trick. Finally, the company allegedly makes ongoing charges very easy and provides no payment history – which the complaint alleges are a perfect match for minors who are at a developmental disadvantage when it comes to self-control.
The suit claims that each Llama offers a random set of loot, with the chance of a big payoff of special, highly valuable items. But despite tiered pricing models that suggest a player is purchasing better odds for good loot by spending more money, the chances of receiving the special loot are “extremely unlikely.” False upgrade schemes allegedly milk more money from players hoping to increase their chances for good loot.
R.A. claims that Epic has received numerous complaints about these schemes, and quotes a number of them, including this passage: [I]t feels like I am gambling to get good gear they’ve made it really hard to make this game fun due to this unrewarding llama system . . . it makes you spend a ton of money for llamas that you’ve no good way of telling if you’re going to get something good. This is almost unacceptable[.]
That “almost” is chilling in the context of R.A.’s larger claim: that Epic’s reward system is a form of gambling that children find hard to resist.
The Takeaway
Epic hasn’t replied to the complaint yet – we’ll be sure to give equal time to their counterarguments. This complaint is one of an increasing number of suits filed by parents on behalf of their children for deceptive and/or illegal marketing practices by companies that market and deliver products to youth consumers. Based on the popularity of this children’s game, it will be interesting to see what type of fallout or corrective actions Epic takes in response to the complaint and allegations, as this type of legal action will undoubtedly shine a light on the online game industries’ marketing and business practices, especially as they relate to children.
We refer businesses that target children to the Self-Regulatory Program for Children’s Advertising (known as CARU) and its guidance for advertising and sales activities directed to children. The guidance prohibits techniques that take advantage of the susceptibility of children to advertising and sales and children’s lack of developmental maturity. As we penned a couple of years ago here, we have long wondered when state attorneys general or CARU would take on children’s game publishers for “funpain,” “freemium” and other in-game purchase schemes that go too far in order to extract more than pocket change from children.
Updates on California’s Consumer Privacy Law
The California attorney general (AG) has kicked off its process of promulgating regulations to interpret and implement California’s sweeping new privacy law. After a series of public hearings across the state, which we covered here and here, the AG closed the initial public comment period on March 8. Our clients have mostly sought to convey their comments through their respective trade organizations. About a dozen of our clients asked us to supplement those efforts with a set of aggregate comments, which we filed and are available here. To follow CCPA and other state and federal privacy legislative and regulatory developments, visit our U.S. Consumer Privacy resource. Legislation is pending in approximately 15 states and at the federal level. For more information, contact the author.
Notably, California Republican lawmakers have introduced another California privacy law titled “Your Data, Your Way,” which would expand and strengthen consumer privacy rights beyond what is required by the CCPA. For more information about the Your Data, Your Way legislation, please visit here.
Speaker Spotlight
Association of National Advertisers’ 2019 Advertising Law Public Policy Conference, Washington, DC
Amy Ralph Mudge, co-leader of BakerHostetler’s Advertising, Marketing and Digital Media team, will participate in a dynamic discussion on diversity in advertising at the ANA’s Advertising Law Public Policy Conference in Washington, D.C., on March 19-20. Alongside panelists Eugenia Blackmon, director, U.S. Commercial Compliance, Project Moonwalker, Allergan, Inc.; Shantel Smart, senior corporate counsel, global contracts, Subway; and Deidre Richardson, senior director, corporate counsel, Chico’s FAS, Amy will explore the role of legal practitioners in matters of diversity and inclusion. To register, click here.
International Trademark Association’s ‘The Business of Brands’ Conference, New York, New York
INTA has invited Linda Goldstein, co-leader of BakerHostetler’s Advertising, Marketing and Digital Media team, to serve on the faculty of its conference, The Business of Brands, in New York on March 28-29. Linda will participate in a panel discussion of the legal requirements for responsible advertising. For additional information, click here.
Today I've released the revised edition of my latest book "Style Guide for Object Design". Over the past few weeks I've fixed many issues, smaller and larger ones. Ross Tuck and Laura Cody have read the manuscript and provided me with excellent feedback, which has helped me a lot to get the book in a better shape. I added many sections, asides, and even an extra chapter, because some topics deserve more detail and background than just a few paragraphs. Oh, and Ross wrote the kindest of forewords to kick off the book. It's available in the free sample of the book.
The book will be available at the initial "preview release" price of 20 dollars (with a suggested price of 29 dollars) but only until April 15th. Use this link to apply the discount: https://leanpub.com/object-design/c/PREVIEW_RELEASE.
What happens on April 15th?
Over the past few weeks I've been talking with some fine people from Manning, publisher of tech books. This resulted in a contract with them. They will republish the "Style Guide for Object Design". There will be an e-book, but also a printed version, which is great.
The book currently has code samples in PHP and contains some PHP-specific suggestions, but the Manning edition will have Java code samples, and no programming language or ecosystem-specific advice, hopefully making the book useful and appealing to a larger group of object-oriented programmers. This is an exciting thing for me as a book author, because I may be able to reach more people in this way.
I know that some readers prefer to read the PHP version, so that's why the version as it is now will be available until April 15th. From that moment on, you won't be able to buy it anymore. However, if you've bought the e-book from Leanpub, you will be granted access to the Manning Early Access Program (MEAP) for the book, meaning that you will eventually be able to read the Manning/Java edition too. Once this is possible, I'll send out an email to existing readers, and update the Leanpub page with instructions for joining the program.
Changelog
If you already read (part of) the book, here's a summary of the most important changes, so you can decide if it'll be useful to download and read the new version. The full change log is in the back of the book and it includes linkes to the chapters and sections that have been updated.
Foreword
Added the foreword by Ross Tuck.
The lifecycle of an object
Rewrote the explanation about the two types of objects. What really defines these types is how they are related to each other. The first type uses the second type (services versus materials).
Creating services
Added a subsection: "Keeping together configuration values that belong together", which introduces a way to keep together configuration values that belong together.
Added an aside: "What if I need the service and the service I retrieve from it?", which answers a common question that was asked by the technical reviewer.
Creating other objects
Added a new section: "Don't use custom exception classes for invalid argument exceptions", explaining why you don't usually need custom exception classes for invalid argument exceptions.
Added an aside: "Adding more object types also leads to more typing, is that really necessary?", explaining some of the benefits of using object types instead of primitive types, just in case people are wondering if all that extra typing is really necessary.
Added another example to the section "Don't inject dependencies, optionally pass them as method arguments", explaining how you could rewrite the currency conversion logic using a simple services. Added a comment about the design trade-offs you have to make in this type of situation.
Added an aside about PHP's class-based scoping, explaining how it's possible that a named constructor can manipulate private properties directly.
Added a subsection "Optionally use the private constructor to enforce constraints" with an example showing how you can use the private constructor when you have multiple named constructors.
Finish the chapter with a new section: "The exception to the rule: Data transfer objects" about Data transfer objects, a type of object with less strict rules, which was not yet discussed in detail.
Manipulating objects
Added a new introductio
Truncated by Planet PHP, read more at the original (another 828 bytes)
FTC Files Complaint for Alleged Skin Care Negative Option Scheme
Complaint alleges hidden transactions, auto pay programs
Occupational Therapy?
If the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has got its details right, one of the named defendants in a recent complaint, Gopalkrishna Pai (Pai), was very active in establishing and running more than 100 companies as part of a skin care products online scheme.
The FTC filed a complaint against Pai and several of his companies in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on Feb. 21, 2019, for the defendants’ practices relating to negative option marketing. The complaint alleged that the defendants used more than 100 shell companies with straw owners to obtain merchant processing accounts needed to accept and process consumers’ credit and debit card payments. These interrelated companies had addresses around the continent, including in Puerto Rico and Wyoming.
The Takeaway
According to the FTC, Pai used this mass of business entities to carry out an elaborate negative option marketing scheme which ultimately brought in tens of millions of dollars through their “deceptive trial offers and payment processing scheme.”
The alleged front for the negative option scheme was a suite of skin care products that were advertised as “risk-free” online, with only nominal shipping and handling costs. Once a consumer signed up, the FTC says, Pai and his companies would charge them $90 for failing to cancel the offer within 14 or 15 days; simultaneously, the consumer would be enrolled in an auto-ship program that charged $90 monthly. These arrangements were disclosed – but only under a small “terms and conditions” hyperlink in the ads that was light gray font and appeared away from the prominent text and graphics on the page that urged consumers to complete the checkout process. In addition, Pai is accused of making cancellations difficult or impossible, and evading detection by using his 100-plus companies to conceal credit card transactions.
Pai and his companies were sued by the FTC in the District Court of Puerto Rico for violations of the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act’s (ROSCA) illegal negative option provisions. The FTC sought an award to redress the injury to consumers resulting from the defendants’ ROSCA violations, a permanent injunction to prevent future ROSCA violations by the defendants, and an award for the costs of bringing the legal action. As of early March 2019, there was no word of a settlement.
This case is another example of the FTC aggressively monitoring and regulating companies which deploy negative option marketing to sell their products. Although companies may legally market to consumers for trial periods and “risk-free” purchases, they must do so in compliance with the technical notice and consumer cancellation rights provisions of state and federal laws. The FTC has continued to crack down on those entities which fail to adequately disclose the full terms of these subscription agreements and fail to provide adequate notice to the consumer.
Army of Fake Reviews Pumped Product Ratings, Says Commish
Weight-loss supplement maker must pay for false claims and fake reviews
Wincing the Weight Away
When the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Brooklyn, NY-based Cure Encapsulations Inc. and its owner, Naftula Jacobowitz, it hit the defendants with two separate issues related to its “Quality Encapsulations Garcinia Cambogia Extract with HCA” product, which is considered a diet supplement.
First, the FTC maintains that Jacobowitz’s claims that the supplement acts as a “carb-blocker,” an appetite suppressant and a weight-loss supplement are false and unsubstantiated. Notably, there has also been discussion among laypersons online about the plant in question, garcinia cambogia, and the effects that the plant’s extract can have on weight loss for consumers. Second, the FTC alleged Jacobowitz purchased fake reviews for the product being sold on Amazon.
Love for Sale
Importantly, this February 2019 complaint is the FTC’s first suit brought against a company for buying fake reviews.
Specifically, the FTC produced an email that Jacobowitz allegedly sent to the website amazonverifiedreviews.com: “As I told you yesterday, I need 30 reviews 3 per day… The goal of my competition is to bring me down to a 4.2 overall rating, and I need to be at 4.3 overall in order to have the sales.”
Shortly thereafter, he allegedly wrote again, “Please make sure my product should stay a five star.”
The FTC has provided transcripts of the alleged fake ads, which were mailed from amazon-verifiedreviews to Jacobowitz.
The Takeaway
In addition to the false and unsubstantiated efficacy claims regarding weight loss, the FTC hit Jacobowitz with false endorsement claims, and is seeking a permanent injunction against future unsubstantiated claims and fake reviews.
As is common in these cases, the defendants settled quickly. In addition to a $12.8 million judgment and the standard prohibitions against the illegal behavior, Jacobowitz is required to “notify Amazon, Inc. that Defendants or their agents purchased reviews of Quality Encapsulations Garcinia Cambogia Extract with HCA sold by Defendants and appearing on the www.amazon.com website.”
Moreover, Jacobowitz is also required to email a detailed summary of the FTC’s critique of its weight-loss-related claims to consumers who bought the supplements. As businesses will continue to sell and market their products to online customers, customers can be expected to continue to put value in online reviews and ratings that appear to be from other customers for these products. Accordingly, the FTC can be expected to police reviews and take action with respect to unsubstantiated health claims and fake reviews for the products on these online platforms.
Mahindra Tractor’s Appeal of NAD Decision Put Out to Pasture
NARB panel affirms Division’s changes to sales, warranty and product superlatives
Tractorstruck
John Deere isn’t just a brand. In some parts of the United States, it’s a culture.
Given the widespread prevalence of John Deere products as part of a culture, the arrival of India’s Mahindra tractors in the United States back in 1994 sparked a serious rivalry between the brands. Given Mahindra’s overseas origin, it’s unlikely that the same cultural references in the United States will ever build up around the import brand, but the new arrival is still gaining attention as a popular competitor to John Deere.
Marketing and Warranty Claims
Unsurprisingly, John Deere pays close attention to Mahindra’s advertising. Back in June 2018, the company took exception to several of Mahindra’s marketing claims before the National Advertising Division (NAD). Mahindra appealed NAD’s findings before the National Advertising Review Board (NARB), which reached its own conclusions this February.
The claims under consideration included Mahindra’s boast that the brand was the “World’s #1 Selling Tractor” and the “#1 Selling Tractor in the World.” Additionally, John Deere objected to the Mahindra warranty claims, including the tags “#1 in protecting your back … with the industry’s best 5-year warranty” and “Best and industry’s leading limited powertrain warranties.”
NAD’s original ruling held that Mahindra “provided a reasonable basis” for its sales claims – the company relied on the Agricultural Equipment Statistics Committee of the Association of Equipment Manufacturers’ standard definition of “tractor.” But NAD requested that Mahindra disclose this definition when making its claim, along with the information that the claim was based on Mahindra tractor sales worldwide when combined with the sale of its Swaraj-branded tractors in India.
As for the warranty claims, NAD recommended that they be discontinued, although Mahindra was not precluded “from making truthful claims regarding any specific attribute in which Mahindra’s warranty is superior over its competitors, including the length of the warranty.” Finally, claims that Mahindra’s oil provided “Superior Protection” should be discontinued based on the lack of supporting evidence.
The Takeaway
NARB agreed with NAD’s recommendations regarding its sales figures and requested that Mahindra’s claim that “over [2.1] million Mahindra tractors sold worldwide to date” should specify the time period for the sales.
Mahindra had argued before NAD that its “best warranty” claims were puffery, but the NARB agreed with the original decision recommending that the claims be discontinued because certain types of tractors were not covered by the warranty provisions in question. Truthful claims about parts of the warranty could still be made in the future.
Finally, NARB rejected Mahindra’s argument that its oil claims were puffery, finding “these were objectively provable claims requiring substantiation,” and letting NAD’s original finding stand.
This case is a good example of how a brand can use the self-regulatory process to police its competitors, protect its brand and avoid the expense of litigation.
Will Nectar Sleep Wake from a Recurring Dream?
Bedding manufacturer doesn’t respond to NAD over limited time offer, gets FTC attention
SFW, but Still
There is an ad circulating online from Nectar Sleep, a mattress maker that markets its “bed of your dreams” with snappy, fast-talking, absurdist ads. The online video includes CGI caricatures of Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un with their disembodied brains hitting each other on a dance floor. The two-and-a-half-minute marketing piece is titled “Make America Sleep Again,” and has been watched on YouTube over 13 million times.
As absurd as this marketing piece between CGI caricatures of Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un is, the legal issue more specifically relates to Nectar Sleep’s recurring offer on their website. On their website and with their online product mentions, Nectar Sleep includes a recurring offer: “LIMITED OFFER: $125 Off + 2 Free Pillows.”
Tuft Needle, one of Nectar Sleep’s competitors in the bedding industry (see here, here and here), took the tag line before the National Advertising Division (NAD), alleging that the tag “misrepresents the price at which the Nectar mattress is sold because (1) it is not, in fact, offered for a limited time because this price point is always available to the purchaser, and (2) the pillows are never offered for sale by Nectar, therefore they are misleadingly offered as ‘free.’”
NAD claims that it never received a “substantive response” from Nectar Sleep addressing Tuft Needle’s claims and asserting any of Nectar Sleep’s defenses. Based on Nectar Sleep’s lack of response, NAD will likely kick the matter upstairs to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for review.
The Takeaway
What calculus does a company engage in when it decides to risk FTC review? Is it because an offer or an ad is so successful, it’s more cost-effective to let the ad round up business until a complaint is filed? Or is it something else?
This is not the first time that Nectar Sleep has been confronted with the FTC’s enforcement powers. Nectar Sleep settled a made-in-the-USA complaint before the FTC about a year ago. Therefore, Nectar Sleep is reasonably aware of the FTC’s broad enforcement for misleading marketing claims that may reasonably deceive consumers and the penalties that follow. It will be interesting to see how the FTC responds to this case, as Nectar Sleep has elected to not respond to the NAD complaint and Nectar Sleep has already been ostensibly warned that the FTC will take sweeping action against misleading businesses practices when needed.
Epic Games Sued by Minor Over Llama-Shaped Cash Cow
Fortnite publisher accused of addicting children to escalating microtransactions
Primer
We would wager that you know all about Fortnite, a game that has become very popular for children, teens and even adults (albeit immature ones) across the country. The game seems inescapable – constantly referred to in the mainstream media as a cultural monster that has swallowed the nation’s children whole. If you have (or even just know) children of a certain age, you’ve heard about it or seen them endlessly playing it.
At AD-ttorneys@law, we strive to provide a benefit to all our readers, so for the three or four of you who don’t know about the game, here’s the skinny:
Fortnite is an insanely popular game that grew out of a simple insight: combining the first-person shooter genre with the construction game genre (think Minecraft, the last cultural monster that seemed to have captured children’s attention nationwide). The original release of Fortnite spawned a “Battle Royale” version of the game, which blew the doors off the genre: an unheard of 3.4 million players logging in concurrently to fight in 100-player arena battles. This second version of the game, which was released only in late 2017, is estimated to have raked in $2.4 billion in 2018.
Any endeavor that rakes in that much money that quickly is a lawsuit magnet, and deservedly or not, Epic has mined its share from the Fortnite game line.
Llama Drama
The most recent is a suit brought by a guardian on behalf of his young charge, named in the suit as “R.A.,” in the United States District Court in the Central District of California. The suit asserts that the very structure of the original Fortnite’s payment-and-reward system implies unjust enrichment and violates California’s Consumer Legal Remedies, Unfair Competition and False Advertising Laws.
Epic, like many other gaming companies, has recently forgone the traditional payment model for games: Instead of purchasing a complete game, users download a free version that is immediately playable. The trick is that the free games reward microtransactions – small in-game purchases – that offer cooler looks for the player’s persona, or make the game easier to play, or unlock features and levels that free players would otherwise miss. From these small in-game purchases, Epic has made billions of dollars.
In Fortnite the moneymaker is a so-called Llama, a loot box shaped like its animal namesake, which can be purchased with in-game currency. The boxes, when opened (you bash them with a stick, like a piñata), offer items that better the users’ odds of dominating in the game.
The intricacies of the in-game payment system are deep, but R.A.’s central complaint equates the Llamas with gambling on several different levels.
First, the suit claims that the online currency used to purchase Fortnite Llamas, earned by spending real-world currency or amassing hours of playtime, creates confusion among minors who play the game and have difficulty conceptualizing how much real-world money they’re actually spending. Moreover, it claims that the ratio between the value of in-game currency and the price of the loot is intentionally mismatched, leading to a cycle of escalating earning and purchasing – what the suit calls the “10 hotdogs, 8 buns” trick. Finally, the company allegedly makes ongoing charges very easy and provides no payment history – which the complaint alleges are a perfect match for minors who are at a developmental disadvantage when it comes to self-control.
The suit claims that each Llama offers a random set of loot, with the chance of a big payoff of special, highly valuable items. But despite tiered pricing models that suggest a player is purchasing better odds for good loot by spending more money, the chances of receiving the special loot are “extremely unlikely.” False upgrade schemes allegedly milk more money from players hoping to increase their chances for good loot.
R.A. claims that Epic has received numerous complaints about these schemes, and quotes a number of them, including this passage: [I]t feels like I am gambling to get good gear they’ve made it really hard to make this game fun due to this unrewarding llama system . . . it makes you spend a ton of money for llamas that you’ve no good way of telling if you’re going to get something good. This is almost unacceptable[.]
That “almost” is chilling in the context of R.A.’s larger claim: that Epic’s reward system is a form of gambling that children find hard to resist.
The Takeaway
Epic hasn’t replied to the complaint yet – we’ll be sure to give equal time to their counterarguments. This complaint is one of an increasing number of suits filed by parents on behalf of their children for deceptive and/or illegal marketing practices by companies that market and deliver products to youth consumers. Based on the popularity of this children’s game, it will be interesting to see what type of fallout or corrective actions Epic takes in response to the complaint and allegations, as this type of legal action will undoubtedly shine a light on the online game industries’ marketing and business practices, especially as they relate to children.
We refer businesses that target children to the Self-Regulatory Program for Children’s Advertising (known as CARU) and its guidance for advertising and sales activities directed to children. The guidance prohibits techniques that take advantage of the susceptibility of children to advertising and sales and children’s lack of developmental maturity. As we penned a couple of years ago here, we have long wondered when state attorneys general or CARU would take on children’s game publishers for “funpain,” “freemium” and other in-game purchase schemes that go too far in order to extract more than pocket change from children.
Updates on California’s Consumer Privacy Law
The California attorney general (AG) has kicked off its process of promulgating regulations to interpret and implement California’s sweeping new privacy law. After a series of public hearings across the state, which we covered here and here, the AG closed the initial public comment period on March 8. Our clients have mostly sought to convey their comments through their respective trade organizations. About a dozen of our clients asked us to supplement those efforts with a set of aggregate comments, which we filed and are available here. To follow CCPA and other state and federal privacy legislative and regulatory developments, visit our U.S. Consumer Privacy resource. Legislation is pending in approximately 15 states and at the federal level. For more information, contact the author.
Notably, California Republican lawmakers have introduced another California privacy law titled “Your Data, Your Way,” which would expand and strengthen consumer privacy rights beyond what is required by the CCPA. For more information about the Your Data, Your Way legislation, please visit here.
Speaker Spotlight
Association of National Advertisers’ 2019 Advertising Law Public Policy Conference, Washington, DC
Amy Ralph Mudge, co-leader of BakerHostetler’s Advertising, Marketing and Digital Media team, will participate in a dynamic discussion on diversity in advertising at the ANA’s Advertising Law Public Policy Conference in Washington, D.C., on March 19-20. Alongside panelists Eugenia Blackmon, director, U.S. Commercial Compliance, Project Moonwalker, Allergan, Inc.; Shantel Smart, senior corporate counsel, global contracts, Subway; and Deidre Richardson, senior director, corporate counsel, Chico’s FAS, Amy will explore the role of legal practitioners in matters of diversity and inclusion. To register, click here.
International Trademark Association’s ‘The Business of Brands’ Conference, New York, New York
INTA has invited Linda Goldstein, co-leader of BakerHostetler’s Advertising, Marketing and Digital Media team, to serve on the faculty of its conference, The Business of Brands, in New York on March 28-29. Linda will participate in a panel discussion of the legal requirements for responsible advertising. For additional information, click here.