Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
Forum Moderators: werty
etc. etc. etc. Is this for real or a scam because I can't see the scam part?
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 1:33 pm (utc) on Aug. 16, 2006]
[edit reason] we do not post email to the forums - see tos. [/edit] [/edit][/1]
I just started reading it over and discovered one very strange thing. When I "mouse over" the link to the supposed site the URL is totally different then what is written.
I did not go to the site so I can't comment on what info they want in the form. If anyone else wants to click on the link then I would be highly suspicious if they ask for any log-in info or passwords.
Settlement with Checkmate Strategic Group
Yahoo! and Checkmate Strategic Group have been engaged in a class action click fraud lawsuit since June 2005.
I noticed there were some concerns on the boards as to whether or not the email notification around the Checkmate settlement is legit. It is in fact a legitimate notice and you should also be getting a notice via snail mail.
If you have any questions call the number referenced in the notice or take a look at the announcement here: [yhoo.client.shareholder.com...]
Hope this clears things up for you.
[edited by: OvertureRep at 9:16 pm (utc) on Aug. 16, 2006]
One-Time Extended Claims Period: Yahoo! will offer advertisers a one-time extended claims period during which advertisers can submit click fraud claims for clicks dating back through January 2004. If our investigation determines that a credit is due that was not given previously, we will issue a 100% credit, which can be used however the advertiser wishes to use it. This claims process will be overseen by a retired Federal judge.
I'm not sure how this will work and it only goes back 2 1/2 years. Some people have been advertising since Go To opened for business.
Industry-Wide Click Protection Efforts: Yahoo will work with a reputable third party toward building industry-wide efforts to combat click fraud, including development of industry-wide definitions of click fraud and a comprehensive lists of identified bots.
Good but how about removing the dodgy partner sites or allow advertisers to specify Yahoo! only?
Traffic Quality Inquiry Response Times: Yahoo! will provide advertisers who submit click fraud- or traffic quality-related inquiries with a time by which they will receive the results of Yahoo!'s investigation or, if the investigation is particularly complex, a status update.
This would be welcome as it is poor at the moment.
force yahoo to clean up the click fraud
The terms of the settlement don't say anything about "forcing" Y to do anything. Basically all we get is a 2.5 year period from which to make claims instead of 90 days. Everything else is just promises to make a few changes in the way they detect invalid clicks.
Those of us who have already been submitting invalid click reports get nothing.
And you don't need to do anything to become part of the "class" ... there really is no class. All Y advertisers have the opportunity to go through their logs for the past 2.5 years and submit suspect entries to Y for resolution. That's it. That's all there is. If Y tells you that they are valid clicks, you're done. You have no more recourse.
The mailer they are sending out (got one a couple of days ago) is simply an opportunity for anyone receiving it to GIVE UP THEIR RIGHTS to make any sort of claim in the future and in any future lawsuits. That's all the mailer is good for: To inform you of how you can give up your rights to future actions.
Looks like Google should have gotten Y's lawyers ...
"Notice of Class Action Settlement (OMS v. Yahoo!)
To submit a Claim Form for the class action settlement described in this Notice, please visit
Clicking on the above URL takes me to:
Is this legit or a scam? They ask you to enter your details online, so a bit suspicious.
Remember: Yahoo isn't giving anyone anything on this one, they're just extending the time they usually 'allow' for making a claim against past fraud.
<edit>Hold on ... this is a different case. This one has to do with "..Budgeting feature contained certain flaws and inadequate disclosures about how it worked." Reading the settlement text, now ...</edit>
[edited by: StupidScript at 6:11 pm (utc) on Aug. 31, 2006]
The issue is that some advertisers (OMS) expected to be able to pay less whenever their competition exhausted their daily budget because some advertisers (OMS) figured Y would take the competitors' ads offline at that point ... which we all know doesn't usually happen. (i.e. Even when you have spent your daily budget the ads keep showing and you keep getting charged.)
So if you think your bids should have been lower when your competitors hit their daily ceiling, get into this class (must have been a Y/Ovt advertiser between Oct 1, 2004 and June 1, 2005). There's a solid $750k ($600k for members of the "Non-Budgeting Class" and $150k for members of the "Budgeting Class") to split ... LMFAO!
[edited by: StupidScript at 6:23 pm (utc) on Aug. 31, 2006]
For us, we are staying away from this and leaving our option to sue going forward as things can and will change in this regard. Once again, the lawyers want to settle and you can be sure that their fees are the only significant win in the settlement. Class action is for lawyers only., that's why we would use our in house guys who are on payroll.
If we have to go through all that work just to get a few dollars back then we may as well go all the way and sue their butts for all the time we had to put into this and even to plan the case. Not to mention we would milk the free advertising out of this as well.