June 23, 2005

• Where's my elephant?? Where's my elephant?? Where's my elephant??
• ...the pregnant mother of three children, Good lord, I hope she wins. DJ Slick is lucky he is still alive.
• "I think I'll name him Stampy"
• Chalk this one up as yet another example of I can't take a joke so I'll sue. Sad, Sad, Sad.
• IANAL, but I dont think she has a case in the court of law. She didnt LOSE anything- she thought she had gained something, but hadn't. She didnt have any sort of contract with the station or the DJ- its not a like a formal contest with printed rules. However, I'm sure she will triumph in the court of public opinion, where the station will fire the DJ and/or buy her off with some sort of prize...
• My fave is still the one about the kid who collected seven million Pepsi points and tried to trade them in for a Harrier jet. It's marked "false" not because it didn't happen, but b/c he didn't get the jet.
• I'm not for lawsuits generally, but personally, I think she deserves to win $100k. If he had left it at "our loyal listeners with a chance to Win 100 GRAND!!!! It's sitting in a bag to my left ready for someone to take off with just like the Runaway bride," then I would say, welll....she probably can't take a joke. However, by adding that the tenth caller would be "100 GRAND RICHER!!! No joke," that did two things. First, it seriously implied money, with the "richer" bit. Though technically people use the term richer in a non-monetary context, it's not the primary purpose. Adding "No joke" indicates that it, well, wasn't supposed to be a joke, was it? In any case, though it wasn't a written contract, it was a verbal contract with a lot of witnesses and possibly taping. The radio station received publicity from this stunt, which is why they hold contests. In exchange for that, they have to give the prize they agreed to give. The bigger question, I suspect, is what the courts, if it gets that far, will consider what was agreed. If this doesn't hold up, what's to stop any radio station from claiming that they're going to give away, I dunno, a million dollars, then saying, "No, that was a million dollars of monopoly money. We just hadn't specified," or similar? Incidentally, the DJ was already fired. And I am also not a lawyer.
• I never got a pony, although I religiously ate Charleston Chew candy bars for TWO whole summers and sent in every single wrapper. I didn't even like them. But they SAID they would send me a pony. Bastards. I should sue.
• What Sandspider said. All of it.
• First off, I don't think she deserves $100,000... and I also couldn't give a shit less about how many kids she has or that decided to get knocked up again. However, the fact remains is that they should have told her immediately. The fact that she probably called all her friends and family, and dreamt of how she was to spend her windfall for the entire night beforehand, deserves some recompense. Had the DJ come clean during the initial call, I would say she should get jack squat. But the embarassment of going to the station next day to pick up (unawares) a candy bar, with the subsequent further humiliation of having to let everyone you told beforehand that you were duped, is worth at least $5,000... maybe $10,000 but only if she's hot. That's all I'd find for if I was on a jury.
• I don't think she'll win. He never actually said "a hundred thousand dollars". If he had, and then given her Monopoly money, as Sandspider suggested above, she might have a case. He said "100 Grand", that's what he gave her. I think the DJ's a shithead, but I don't think she'll win her case. For the record, your honor, I find "100 Grand" and "Charleston Chew" candy bars to be .... delicious!
• I think she's entitled to $100,000. I do not think she's entitled to "additional punitive damages". That's greedy.
• his inspiration? [FLASH] Doubtful she'll get the $100,000 - but you never know. DJ Skuz Bucket walks away with a bunch of press...
• OK, the dj never really said, "one hundred thousand DOLLARS," he said, "a hundred grand." It's morning radio. I would have been really suspicious. A promotion like that would likely get tv coverage. I'm with squeak.
• The suit alleges intent to "cheat, defraud, and play a malicious joke". I think the intent to play a joke was there, but the other two are really stretching it, imo.
• According to this, there have been precedents of stations being sanctioned for this type of bait and switch.
• After reading added details from cynnbad's link above, that is just fucked! The fact that she had to wait the entire evening, went to the radio station the following morning, and then was told to return later in the day! That's just wrong.
• He never actually said "a hundred thousand dollars". ... He said "100 Grand". So, if he said "a hundred thousand doll-hairs", they'd be in the clear? I would have been really suspicious. A promotion like that would likely get tv coverage. So she's not entitled because she's too stupid and/or too gullable?
• No, doll-hairs are curerncy for BarbieLand, silly. And no, she's not entitled. She's been duped, and is pissed off. They said "a hundred grand" and did not mention currency, dollar value or anything related to cash at all. If she got all irritated because she was too dumb to ask "do you mean one hundred thousand dollars?" then it's her own fault. Personally, I would ask if it were actual dollars, American dollars...wouldn't you?
• I will admit to being a left-wing commie-symp (ex)long-hair hippie freak. That said, I am appalled by people who feel they are entitled to anything--anything at all--that they did not work for. I am grateful for everything that has ever been given to me and I thank them for it. That which I have worked for, I have earned and am beholden to none. Life's like that. The DJ was no more assinine than he had been on any other day of his short-lived radio career as far as I can tell. The woman? Terminally stupid or horribly avaricious. Take your pick. Perfect sentence? He has to babysit her rugrats while she takes classes that will help her earn some money. Y'know, I've been at three parties where a gift to the honoree has been a "scratch and match" lotto ticket spoof. It generally takes about five minutes before people realize that they DIDN'T WIN. But to my knowledge, there have never been lawsuits or permanently disjointed noses over the whole thing.
• People like her, who listen to lame ass radio shows, are a large part of why radio sucks. Can't say I'm too heartbroken over this case, no matter how it ends up.
• I think that she's due something, and the radio station offering her $5K (as cynnbad's link says), seems like an admission that they were wrong. There was a radio promotion in Dallas where the djs told people there was money hidden in a book in the Ft. Worth public library. Hundreds of books -- some irreplaceable -- were literally torn apart , and of course there was no money in any book. As I remember, the djs were both fired and the station got a hefty fine, plus punitive damages to the library, plus they had to hold a library fundraiser.
• These assholes didn't just play a little trick on her, they jacked her around with the intention of humiliating her in front of her family. Ha Ha. And at least in my part of the country, radio shows, lame ass or not, are constantly running legitimate promotions and give-aways. I think she deserves something for punitive reasons if nothing else. The station management knew they screwed up, and tried to head off a lawsuit by offering her a lesser amount, which she refused. I have no great love for people who run screaming to the courts every time life doesn't go their way, but this was malicious.
• Okay, yeah, she should get something for the stringing along. That part was lousy.
• This is supposed to be a house of justice, not a sugar shack
• Oh, Henry (or Jason, since that was the DJ's name)! Don't you know not to pull such Twix on the listening audience? They're a bunch of Dum Dums. I think the prize money should come out of his next Payday. *snickers*
• Here's what it boils down to: the station said they'd give away a hundred grand to the tenth caller, with the assumption that anyone calling in would expect one hundred thousand dollars; in other words the station intended from the beginning to decieve for the benefits of gaining publicity. It's quite clear to me that the station owes her the money that they said they would provide in exchange for the task that she performed, plus any lawyer fees neccessary to secure it. Period.
• This sounds familiar... *smacks forehead* yeah! because Hooters pulled an equally assinine stunt a couple years ago with a "Toyota"
• Good job, ball point head, for missing the point entirely.
• Yeah, and if you google 'hooters toy yoda', you'll find this: >David Noll, her attorney, said Wednesday that he could not disclose the settlement's details, although he said Berry can now go to a local car dealership and "pick out whatever type of Toyota she wants." I don't get the objection that she should have known- it should have been obvious. The whole point of the stunt is that it's *not* obvious. If the audience can reasonably be expected to know they're talking about a candy bar, there's no gag.
• Personally, I would ask if it were actual dollars, American dollars...wouldn't you? "So, will this prize of "One Hundred Grand" be provided in the form of some sort of currency? I see. Dollars, eh? And when you say 'dollars' do you mean actual dollars? mmm hmmm... Let me ask you to clarify, do you mean actual American dollars? Now, these 'actual american dollars' of which we are speaking, am I to understand that they represent some sort of paper fiat currency for the exchange of which I can expect goods and services? I see... Wait, wait, what kind of paper? Some sort of cloth and pulp mixture, eh? And how does the gold standard figure into this? Really? "Wait a minute... Wait a minute.... You're not going to give me one hundred grand in currency from the Confederate United States of America, are you?"
• 1.) Are you a reasonable person? If not, stop here. 2.) If someone told you that you just won "a hundred grand," would you think you just won $100,000, or would you think you won a candy bar?
• >1.) Are you a reasonable person? If not, stop here. I, too, could preface my remarks by saying 'if you disagree with me, you must be stupid', but it's generally considered bad form. If a bum on the street told me I'd just won a hundred grand, I'd think he was drunk or insane. If a radio station told me they were giving away a hundred grand as a promotion, given that media outlets occasionally stage sweepstakes and giveaways as promotions, I'd think they meant a hundred grand. Again- the whole point of the prank is to make people think the DJ is talking about money. If it's announced in such a way that all "reasonable people" should know that he's talking about a candy bar, there's no point in doing it in the first place. You can't deliberately try to fool people and then argue that it's unreasonable for them to have been fooled.
• Stan, dirigibleman's asking what a reasonable person would believe under the circumstances. It's not a snark.
• Uh-oh... my apologies, then. Tranquilizer dart, please. In fairness, yeah, I'd probably have been suspicious of the hundred grand. But I'd probably have wanted to believe it was for real, too. I think it's a poor use to make of somebody who listens to your radio station, and I wouldn't be too sorry if it came back to bite them.
• Well, IAAL, and loss isn't the only cause for recovery. Reliance can do the trick, too (like she quits her job because suddenly she has all this cash). My bet is that the judge will hand this woman a nominal award, in that she was intentionally deceived, and the station should suffer some loss, but not on the scale of her suit. Are you a reasonable person? If not, stop here. That's funny, because believe it or not, "reasonable person" is a legal standard, and in this case, it's likely to be interpreted just the way that Stan the Bat suggests.
• That's funny, because believe it or not, "reasonable person" is a legal standard Yes, that was my point. All those sexual harrasment seminars they made us go to have finally paid off.
• She's asking for punitive because after the lawyers fees even if she was awarded the $100,000 she wouldn't have much left. Also, this has been done before.
• In that case, ChairmanKaga, it appears they at least delivered the punchline at the time the joke was made. I don't think she deserves all that money, but it was pretty unnecessary to wait till the next day to spring the joke on her. They could have avoided all this by just not being so cruel. But then, cruel is teh funE.
• Also, this has been done before Yep
• Also, there's Strong Bad's [flash] take on this basic method of cheating people.
• You are all asses. I just hope I run over you in a crosswalk... " ... oh, but he should have known I might hit him; it's always a possibilty..." Court: "Agreed! You're a stupid pedestrian! You have no right to cross the street! Stay on your side or die at your own risk! "
• I have to laugh at all the hypocrites calling this woman stupid or gullible. If you heard a radio station say that they had a contest to win 100 Grand, 95 out of 100 of you would have thought the same thing. That it was for $100,000. (The post that says that it would have been on the news makes no sense. Radio stations DO give away huge sums of money all the time. And the news does not mention it. You see, TV stations don't generally want to promote radio stations. Call them crazy, but promoting the competition generally isn't done.) Also..Radio is a PUBLIC TRUST. As such, listeners are SUPPOSED to be able to expect honestly unless the program is obviously and clearly labeled FICTION. (The station the originally broadcast War of the Worlds was fined, despite having disclaimers that it ws a fictional story, because they didn't do it enough.) And why should the station be punished? Here is why. 5 years ago, a radio station in Endicott, NY claimed to have someone that sure looked like Britney Spears in their studio, and then played sound clips to imply that it was her and she was there. The DJ told listeners that she would be outside the studio at a certain time. In the ensuing stampede that happened, a mother of 3 kids was killed. And it was a Britney Spears impersonator. Clear Channel got sued, and lost. Big time. The bottom line is, I have never heard a silly prank like this that was actually in the least bit humorous. And, to answer somoene's question above, yes, it IS fraud. Because their lie caused people to listen to their radio station longer than they may have otherwise. Hence, they "stole" ratings from other stations. In fact, technically speaking, this staion could be the subject of a class action suit. People's time is worth money.
• IANAL, jkfan87, but... I believe you are convoluting a lot of different issues: First off is the issue of whether or not it was actually deception. Most people would agree the DJ was a jackass, but I would guess that, in thinking up the idea, he had no idea somebody would get this pissed and take action. His intent, if this is allowed to be a factor, is not malicious; he is not gaining anything except increased listeners, some of which are even 'gaining' from this (in my perspective) funny story. (have you ever watched "punk'd"?) Second is the issue of the radio station's responsibility for unforseen consequences of their broadcast. I don't know the details of the Britney Spears impersonation incident, but I fail to see why it would matter if the woman was killed rushing to see the real or fake Britney. Would there have been less emotional injury if she had been killed trying to meet the real one? If she had sued only for the emotional damage due to the sad irony of getting killed rushing toward a fake Britney, that would make sense. Otherwise, your example only illustrates the idea that radio stations should have some degree of responsibility over the (unexpected) consequences of their broadcasts. Third is the legal definition of "fraud". law.dictionary.com says fraud is "n. the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right." You claim that time is money, and I'll agree with you generally, but can you say that the radio station is 'depriving' her of her of $100,000 worth of time? How can you measure what the radio station is gaining and she is giving up? If she'd called in and not won, how is this any different than if she had? Perhaps then the difference is that she COULDN'T have won. But then how is she any more deserving of any of the other callers, or anyone who listened an extra 10 seconds to the radio? Which brings us to the fourth issues, which is the idea that the radio station could be subject to a class action suit. Anything can be subject to a class action suit (right? we learned in 5th grade that you can sue anybody for anything, I'm assuming you can do the same thing with a class action lawsuit), but the issue of whether they would win is another matter completely. Can you prove that you heard the radio? Can you prove you were excited about the money they offered? Can you prove you were enough of a chump to believe them? And how fully did you believe them? Could you have called in hopefully, yet still thinking it was too good to be true? The bottom line is, your bottom line is very different from mine. Your analysis certainly makes a lot of sense and has plenty of logic behind it, but please don't act like everyone else is a dumb hypocrite because they see it differently.
• One does not need to have malicious intent to be guilty of fraud. You need to bone up on your interpretation of fraud. Reading an online dictionary's definition is not enough. It is just to give the victim what they lost. It is to force TRUTH IN ADVERTISING. They advertised $100,000. Considering everything that happened in 2004, a station doing this is REALLY stupid. They will not only lose the case for AT LEAST $100,000, but they will probably be fined. And that DJ will be hard pressed to get a job in the REAL industry ever again. He will be an internet DJ from now on. And the Britney Spears station lost their case. Becuase they put the woman in the dangerous situation through their lies. Again, malicious intent is not an issue at all. They were not charged with pre-meditated murder. But they WERE deemed to be responsible for her death, because without their deception, the woman would have been alive. Plain and simple. It was an open and shut case than never made it to trial. Clear Channel settled for a LOT of money. (Gee...why didn't they listen to you. You seem to know that the station wasn't responsible. I can't believe their lawyers thought they knew more than YOU!) As for you "can you prove you were a chump to believe them" well, I don't take you seriously anymore. If you heard a radio contest saying that they were giving away 100 Grand, you would have thought it was legit. If you say otherwise, then you are a liar. No doubt about that. It is very easy to say after the fact that you would have known. But the only people who actually do that are those that have no confidence in their ACTUAL ability to so try to build themselves up as smarter than they are.
• Peopel are also missing the obvious point. All accounts say that the idiot DJ sid "You can win one hundred grand." NO ONE....Not one single person on the face of the plant would say you can win...followed by the name of a candy bar, without the word "a" or "an". You would not say "You can win Hershey Bar." or "You can win Three Musketeer Bar." This station will settle. Keep in mind they are probably Clear Channel. So they have plenty of money. They will settle for $150,000 so the woman gets $100,000 aftter the lawyer's 33% cut. Better to do that than face punitive damamges that could be three times as much.