…or else you might face another lawsuit. I’ve only ever received two text messages that were spam and I just ignored both, but a local woman decided to take action and sued Taco Bell. This case goes all the way back to 2005 when 12 Taco Bell franchises in Chicago decided to promote the new chicken and steak Nachos Bell Grande. In an attempt to engage users using their mobile devices, Taco Bell ran a campaign that involved sending text messages to local residents and asking them to vote on the variety they preferred. They hired an ad agency, ESW Partners, who then commissioned a company called Ipsh to run the mobile portion of the campaign.
One woman, Tracie Thomas, wasn’t happy that she received 2 text messages and decided to sue. She claimed Taco Bell violated the federal Telephone Consumer Act, which prevents companies from using automatic dialing systems to make calls to cell phones unless the recipient has given them the ok. In her lawsuit she claims: "Unlike more conventional advertisements, wireless spam can actually cost its recipients money, because cell phone users must frequently pay their respective wireless service providers either for each text message call they receive or for a text plan that includes a number of messages."
Taco Bell’s rebuttal was that Thomas couldn’t prove the company “controlled the means and manner of how the text message was sent.” The judge agreed with Taco Bell and the company is now requesting Thomas reimburse them of $6,000 worth of legal fees. I was surprised to learn of the ruling. If the company signed off on the campaign and how the ad agency was planning to implement it, how can they not be held responsible? This could later have large implications on companies being liable for the actions done through an ad agency. As advertisers try to capitalize on mobile, this serves has a good lesson that brands should think twice before text spamming. Once you upset a consumer, you may lose them forever.
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/179687/taco-bell-not-responsible-for-text-ads-sent-by-age.html
2 comments:
Well, now you know our US laws, both state and federal is very complicated. How did OJ Simpons get away with murder? Or Casey Anthony skip on to La La land?
Back to the text spamming question:
Tracie Thomas is dumb to sue with the claim of paying for the text messages. It is because, like a land line you pay too! By monthly or by the minutes including FAX! I get like 5-10 advertisement fax everyday. From vacations to insurance! I am pay for the paper, electricity and the fax itself!
Another of her claim of Telephone Consumer Act with automatic dialing system calling thier "victims" Well, a message is generated as tiwce because the first time she didnt answer. So technically it is not spamming her ... yet! Unless the text is being send X number of times as if she owes money and a debt collecting agency is flood her voicemail and text ... that is most likely to be consider spamming
So, if Taco Bell sign a contract with the text ad agency similar to an indemnity cause which is a "hold harmless" contract. All the responsiblity is being washed off...Like OJ simpsons could nt fit on the gloves. Not gulity!
Marketing is one of the most creative industry of all. To hit the jackpot by such kind of lawsuit is like catching a fish swiming in the water... with your hands. The chances is very low... Traci Thomas should try the spilling coffee tecnique or the "Hot Shot" chili spicy scauce from Taco Bell, claim that Taco bell did not warn comsumer how spicy it is.
Roy
I agree with the warning that companies should be wary of their marketing strategies and possible "spamming" of consumers whether it is mobile, email, social or otherwise.
Though Taco Bell was not legally liable, it and other brands should consider the effect such actions have on their brand. In a world with numerous avenues for marketing, free and paid, I believe it is important to strike a balance where consumers are unwillingly being bombarded with advertising, or if it was willingly people are often caught off guard by the extent and manner of advertising. I personally am the type of consumer that it turned off by blatant and aggressive advertising in all avenues of my digital world.
I read an interesting article on the idea of creating "trust" ads to build trust with brands.
Read more: http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/key-issue-free-paid-media-regaining-trust/236262/
Trust ads
Post a Comment