Discussion

  • Your original response to each set of discussion questions must be at least 250 words. 

Case 1

Innovative Marketing, Inc. (IMI), sold “scareware”—computer security software. IMI’s Internet ads redirected consumers to sites where they were told that a scan of their computers had detected dangerous files—viruses, spyware, and “illegal” pornography. In fact, no scans were conducted. Kristy Ross, an IMI cofounder and vice president, reviewed and edited the ads, and was aware of the many complaints that consumers had made about them. An individual can be held liable under the Federal Trade Commission Act’s prohibition of deceptive acts or practices if the person (1) participated directly in the deceptive practices or had the authority to control them and (2) had or should have had knowledge of them. (374, Miller)

  1. Were IMI’s ads deceptive? If so, can Ross be held liable? Explain. [Federal Trade Commission v. Ross, 743 F.3d 886 (4th Cir. 2014)] 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>