I do not believe it is deception. If they said, "Call in to win 100 Grand." Well that is what the lady called in and won. If they said call in and win a Mustang - Heck they could be refering to a Ford Mustang or even a real Mustang (refering to a horse). To me it would have been deception in their presentation, if the radio DJ played cash-regiter noises making the "ching-ching" noise, and told the listeners that if they want to be debt free call in to win a 100 grand. Then that is deceptive. People believe what they want to believe, she wanted it to be money. They were referring to candy.
Honestly, I do not know how the contest was presented and neither do you. We are all making assumptions on a vague news report. I will just repeat what I have said earlier, if they presented the contest in a manner that gives the perception that money will be awarded, then take them to court. However, if it was advertised in a manner that was like, "Call in to win 100 Grand." Then I do not think its deceptive. Oh and VesceySux, I also have heard other DJ's pull this "100 grand" call in before. I think I heard it done in the mid to late nineties. At that time, when I did hear it the DJ's simply put it as, "Call in to win 100 grand"
The difference with the Rockets tickets is that she didn't purchase anything. She didn't suffer any damages except listening to the radio for 2 hours. I don't think that kind of suffering justifies $100,000. Give her 5 bucks for her suffering. Obviously if I pay $500 for poop when I thought I was getting Rockets tickets, then I am justified in getting my $500 back. The deceptive advertisement argument could be used, though I would argue that most reasonable people would have realized it is a joke.
Yep, it's been done a few times, and I don't think anyone has ever been sued over it in the past. That certainly doesn't make the skit right, but it certainly doesn't mean the victim is correct, either. BTW, the woman in the "Toy Yoda" case reached a favorable settlement . For the record, I think the skit is lame and terrible, but I don't think it's worthy of a lawsuit. Too much litigation in America today.
Radio stations run promotions, like this, to bring in more listeners. IOW, they benefit from the language they used during the promotion, regardless of whether that benefit is attributed to 1 listener or 10,000 listeners. Its flat out deceptive. Period. The law isn't going to look at the black and white of it, whether it was said as "100 grand" or "100,000 dollars". Its going to be judged on intent. A station would be wasting its time investing air to advertise a candy bar. Thats why they were deceptive, to suck in more listeners and IMO, I think the lady will win. Although the station would be wise to settle out of court and she would be wise to accept a percentage.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0623051grand1.html http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0623051grand4.html
You can argue emotional distress. 100 grand is a lot of money and to have it offered to you and then suddenly pulled away is very disconcerting - especially if she is poor. What if you had a brain tumor and one day the doctor told you, "It's in remission, you are completely healthy". And then the next day the doctor told you, "HAHA! I was just joking you idiot!" It's the same thing.
I tried cashing in those checks in the mail promising me a million dollars. The bank teller never laughed harder.
I've gotten some of those checks in the mail before too and they all said somewhere on them that they are not real.
Of course she did. $100,000 worth (non punitive). There was an agreement in place that if she were the 10th caller she would be "$100 grand richer" (btw ..this is the terminology that will cost the station ...if they had just said $100 grand, then thats a lil more vague, even though the implication is not ...but by saying $100 grand richer, they dug their own grave). She lived up to her end of the bargain and the station did not, because she is not $100 grand richer.
I'd like to see how cool with it you'd really be. There's a reason the FCC has such rules when it comes to contests, though. And they were possibly in the wrong. But it will definitely depend on exactly what was said during the whole 'promotion' on the air. It may have been clear to most folks that it was a joke. The DJ leaving and the station trying to pay her off with 5K doesn't look too good, though.
Call the white house and say you put an BOMB there then later try to explain you meant a BOMB POP Rocket River
Wait a second....let me ask a question that I didn't see addressed: You mentioned 'low-income family' and the egregiousness of it all, that a radio station 'crushed their hopes', etc....How did the radio station know that a 'low-income' family was going to win? Would your disdain be any less if the winner had been a upper middle-class family? Look, the station had no idea who was going to be the winner. They weren't trolling for some poor, destitute soul to laugh at and make fun of. They were looking for ANYBODY who happened to be that 10th caller to make fun of. It just so happened to be this lady. Now if your point is the joke was in poor taste, period, then I can buy that. But if you think it was in poor taste only because the 'winner' happened to be a low-income person but, conversely, would have been freakin' hilarious if it was an engineer making $90K a year, then that thinking is disingenuous and uncogent.
He was trolling for whoever so they can laugh at them. He didn't care who it was. He wanted everyone to think it was a 100 grand and not a 100 grand candy bar. He didn't care if they were rich or poor. He just needed someone to call so he can laugh. "100 GRAND RICHER!!! No joke." Let me guess it's so obvious that he was talking about the sugar? You really think that if some engineer making 90 grand a year called he would say, lol, you got me? I'm sure it wouldn't hurt he/she as much as a poor person but I bet he/she would be asking for their 100 grand too. It makes no difference how much the caller makes.
It's just as unfair in a legal sense, but I think offering a plate of ravioli to a starving, homeless person and then taking it away at the last minute is meaner than doing the same thing to someone who just had a cheeseburger for lunch.
