Dave M, my employer is being sued

[BobHunt]

I work for a car dealer and he also owns another one next door. It seems that the advertising company that he uses sent out mailers with envelopes that read "Important Vehicle Information Enclosed" and "Do Not Destroy". Upon opening it and reading the material inside, it had nothing to do with a recall, but instead said it was about an "exclusive credit amnesty event" and that potential car buyers even if they had bad credit could apply.
Now, he is being sued by the Illinois Atourney General.
Im sure the agency did this, although Mr P had to sign off on it.
I didnt want to use names on here, I can see how someone can do a search and read all of this.
Dont you think they should go after the agency?

[Dave McClung]

I work for a car dealer and he also owns another one next door. It seems that the advertising company that he uses sent out mailers with envelopes that read "Important Vehicle Information Enclosed" and "Do Not Destroy". Upon opening it and reading the material inside, it had nothing to do with a recall, but instead said it was about an "exclusive credit amnesty event" and that potential car buyers even if they had bad credit could apply.
Now, he is being sued by the Illinois Atourney General.
Im sure the agency did this, although Mr P had to sign off on it.
I didnt want to use names on here, I can see how someone can do a search and read all of this.
Dont you think they should go after the agency?

I am sorry, Bob, because he is your employer. Otherwise, I would be all for the suit. I hate to get all those envelopes that try to trick me into reading ads.

Several times lately, I have almost shredded important documents. One time it was actually a check, I almost shredded because it said "Important Document, Do Not Destory" on it. It is so hard to tell the advertisements from the real things. I favor laws that clamp down on untruthful advertising.

I would hold the advertising agency responsible, but if your employer approved or paid for the deceptive advertising, I would penalize him too.

How would you feel if it wasn't your employer?

[Cindi Hammons]

Bob,

We get those in the mail from car dealerships from which we have purchased cars. I'm with Dave, they are a real pain! We also get them from insurance companies and our credit card company with envelopes making you think there is something wrong with your account! Almost 100% of the time it is some new service that they are wanting to charge more for. Like Dave, I have nearly thrown away checks and real important stuff.

Don't know the legality issue of your original post, but I hope it doesn't affect your job.

[Barbara Moulton]

I work for a car dealer and he also owns another one next door. It seems that the advertising company that he uses sent out mailers with envelopes that read "Important Vehicle Information Enclosed" and "Do Not Destroy". Upon opening it and reading the material inside, it had nothing to do with a recall, but instead said it was about an "exclusive credit amnesty event" and that potential car buyers even if they had bad credit could apply.
Now, he is being sued by the Illinois Atourney General.
Im sure the agency did this, although Mr P had to sign off on it.
I didnt want to use names on here, I can see how someone can do a search and read all of this.
Dont you think they should go after the agency?

Why is he being sued? Are there restrictions in Illinois about what you can put on the outside of an envelope?

[Hal Paul]

Why is he being sued? Are there restrictions in Illinois about what you can put on the outside of an envelope?

In the United States there is a legal requirement that advertisers be truthful when they market a product or service. The expectation is that the advertisement is truthful regarding the product being sold as well as how they attract potential customers to view the add. From what I understand, the people suing Bob's employer contend that the text "important vehicle information enclosed" and "do not destroy" printed on the outside of the envelope is deceptive.

Here is some information the Federal Trade Commission has provided for small business owners about truth in advertising.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus35.shtm

[Edith K. Thurmond]

I work for a car dealer and he also owns another one next door. It seems that the advertising company that he uses sent out mailers with envelopes that read "Important Vehicle Information Enclosed" and "Do Not Destroy". Upon opening it and reading the material inside, it had nothing to do with a recall, but instead said it was about an "exclusive credit amnesty event" and that potential car buyers even if they had bad credit could apply.
Now, he is being sued by the Illinois Atourney General.
Im sure the agency did this, although Mr P had to sign off on it.
I didnt want to use names on here, I can see how someone can do a search and read all of this.
Dont you think they should go after the agency?

Bob,

The Hon. Lisa Madigan has an agenda from which she works, and if anyone is doing anything unlawful, s/he (public or private arena) will eventually hear from her office. She has been at this for some time, even before her current office, and she aims to clean up corruption and anything that harms the public. She is a powerful woman and has won most of those cases she has prosecuted. If Sen. Obama wins the presidency, I would not be surprised if she becomes the next U.S. Senator from Illinois.

Rooting for her to accomplish her goals of making things safer for everyone!

Blessings,

[BobHunt]

I guess maybe I gave my employer the benefit of the doubt that maybe his advertising company did this. I mean, I know he had to sign off on this, but arent some of these advertsing companys crooked as well? It has already hurt our business, as it was in several newspapers. I guess my question is, how can the attourney general sue when she really doesnt know yet where the guilt is, whether it is my store's owner or whether it is the adv. agency, or...does my employer take on any responsibility of this happening when he signs off on this?

If you look at what Hal posted in the FTC rulings, it always speaks towards the advertising agency.

[Edith K. Thurmond]

I guess maybe I gave my employer the benefit of the doubt that maybe his advertising company did this. I mean, I know he had to sign off on this, but arent some of these advertsing companys crooked as well? It has already hurt our business, as it was in several newspapers. I guess my question is, how can the attourney general sue when she really doesnt know yet where the guilt is, whether it is my store's owner or whether it is the adv. agency, or...does my employer take on any responsibility of this happening when he signs off on this?

If you look at what Hal posted in the FTC rulings, it always speaks towards the advertising agency.

Bob, your concerns are definitely understood! She will, undoubtedly, get to the the root of the problem and do what is right as she has a reputation for doing that.

Edited to add: In order for her to file a lawsuit, there has to be sufficient evidence that some wrong-doing has been done. In my opinion, she would not be one at all to file a 'frivilous' suit that would be thrown out of court. She's too smart for that and would have too much at stake to do so. There will be a trial, if a settlement by both parties is not reached before that time. In our country, trials can be done by a jury of peers or by a judge.

As I am writing this, Dave's rule about not discussing on NN any current and pending litigation comes to mind. He contributed to this thread so perhaps we are okay with doing so. If not, he will delete.

Blessings and peace to you,

[Hal Paul]

If you look at what Hal posted in the FTC rulings, it always speaks towards the advertising agency.

The problem is that the agency is just that, an agent for the company that is doing the advertising. In that sense, they are simply representing your employer to convey his message. They may still bear some liability, but if your employer signed off on a particular campaign, he may share a greater portion of the burden since it's his product that they were trying to sell.

[BobHunt]

sorry, I gave my employer the benefit of the doubt, it is something I have learned from you people..never to do again.

[Edith K. Thurmond]

sorry, I gave my employer the benefit of the doubt, ......

That is the crux of our entire judicial system (in a round-about way). One is considered innocent until proven guilty!

In all fairness, we here on NN were merely discussing what typically happens in court cases like this; what certain wording in laws usually means; and references to the prior work of the AG.

Take heart, Bob, that we live in a country where justice is suppose to prevail and trust that is does.

Blessings and peace,

[Hal Paul]

sorry, I gave my employer the benefit of the doubt, it is something I have learned from you people..never to do again.

Dude! I didn't say he was guilty. I merely commented that an agent serves to represent another, and the one being represented tends to carry the greater burden if a wrong was committed.

In the post I commented on you referenced me and stated that the burden was on the agency, my reply was to simply clarify that I don't believe it is, IF what they did was authorized by the person they were representing.