Here's a link to the Carrier lawsuit info: http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/california/cacdce/2:2007cv02641/387514/ --- Here's one for the Settlement Recovery lawsuit info: http://www.affiliatefairplay.com/service/images/post/order_of_proposed_settlement.pdf ----------- Hope that helps
I never got the email, or I might have deleted it since I get CJ mail all the time that I don't read. But this news isn't a shock at all.
I got an email on this a while back and then actually got something in the mail today about it... does this mean we're going to get money back from CJ letting in all the commission steelers ?
You'll get your fair percentage of the $1m settlement based on your earnings between two time periods in the lawsuit. So, most likely, you'll get almost nothing. It's really not a problem inside of CJ, from what I've seen from the advertiser side.
I received about 3 cards in the mail so I'm pretty sure this isn't spam. I don't think CJ owes me anything so I'm not signing up for it. If they did rip me off it's probably for a few dollars which isn't worth my time.
I also got something in the mail yesterday, but I haven't made anything with them and it sounds like I'd get back pennies anyway so I'm not going to bother. I'll just keep promoting and hope they fix the issue.
I don't get why you'd continue promoting, cristlegirl. Best of luck to you, but for me its been happening far too often to far too many people to continue risking missing out on money.
This lawsuit has nothing to do with improper tracking. This lawsuit has to do with software publishers who used deceptive methods & possibly stole commissions (by replacing affiliate links with their own links) and cost merchants more money in commissions that they didn't need to pay out. I've been working with CJ advertisers on the program management side of things for 2 years, and can't recall one instance of a publisher using software & then getting kicked out. Maybe our approval criteria was stricter than other merchants, but it didn't & doesn't seem to be an issue in CJ.
The main reason I'm sticking with them is because I do watch where my clicks are going and what cj shows me is about what other places show me. I don't get huge amounts of traffic so I really don't expect much. It doesn't cost me a think though to put their links up on my blogs and just let them sit there.
This lawsuit has to do with software publishers who used deceptive methods & possibly stole commissions (by replacing affiliate links with their own links) and cost merchants more money in commissions that they didn't need to pay out. This lawsuit is about publishers stealing from other publishers. Merchants generate sales, pay out affiliate commission to CJ and it's up to CJ to determine who gets the commission. CJ gains nothing when cookies are stolen...affiliate networks are still victims in this situation but what makes this case a problem for CJ is CJ not doing enough to protect publishers.
I'm surely glad to see lawsuits action against those scumbag. I have seen many publisher sites which are affiliate cookie stuffed and I wonder if they won't be caught. Some advertiser also stuffed their cookies on their own site, it's mean advertisers will get all commissions if the sales were made by the traffics sent by publishers. This is a rip-off and problem should be solved if CJ pay much more attention on this than ever. CJ never done enough protection for ethical publishers, that's really pissed me off when I contacted advertiser about any suspicious reversal, didn't get any reply, asked CJ representative for help and all the answer I've got is "Please contact advertiser yourself". WTF!! They are so lazy pig. If they can only do by answer that stupid dig, then they shouldn't be hired to be as representative by CJ!!
Wait... huh? Are you saying that advertisers are paying themselves commissions on orders? What in the world are you talking about?
Your understand is correct. However, they did remove that after peoples noticed on this one. If they are paying themselves so they don't have to pay publishers but they got sales from traffic sent by publishers. I hope it's clear for you. Sorry for my bad english which may cause you any confused.
That makes no sense, again. Why would an advertiser use an affiliate link to overwrite their affiliates' code? There are CJ fees on top of each commission they pay, and overwriting affiliate cookies without traffic coming from a different marketing channel is 100% against CJ's contract. If affiliates aren't paid commissions, they won't continue to promote. Why would an advertiser do this? If you're going to make allegations, name names - which advertiser was this? When were they doing this? Was this advertiser in CJ? Your scenario makes absolutely no sense to me.