Ross and AU; an unpopular viewpoint.

[zero]

I'm not sure Ross deserves to go to jail. The fact that some of us were pre charged and double charged might just simply be stupid unforgivable errors, not theft. The fact that AU didn't "earmark" our money specifically for the dvd's and have it waiting to return to us when we cancelled is just standard cash flow business practice. All the screw ups and laughable incompetence might just be just that. It's the simple explanation; no conspiracy or massive plan, just the lamentable truth that Ross overreached and we got burned.

Perhaps naively I'm willing to extend him and AU the benefit of the doubt 'till I see or hear any irrefutable evidence that flatly contradicts it.

The length of time it's taking to refund us all the bucks we are owed is a scandal, but I'm not sure it's a criminal offence. Ross might not be an evil crook, he might just be a really terrible CO, tho even that is relative - because given the choice should he pay up and sink AU or dither about what he owes us and try to keep the company afloat. Good CO / Bad CO? Evil / Incompetent? We simply don't know.

I have my own opinion about where it all went balls-up. The day I saw the box set on amazon I got angry and have stayed that way. All the guff about AU suddenly being exclusive retailers of the "collectors set" don't wash with me. I wonder if RR/AU had kept the licensing how things would look - I imagine that they might be rolling in dough by now and even if they had decided to sell the box set sans invisible lunchbox via AU we might be a lot less hostile. Perhaps.

[Jason R]

Everything, including sharing the rights in return for a $2 discount was based on the same thing. The need for cash and AU's own greed. All of the problems stemmed from that.

Again, he thought BMG would release this to him without paying in full. It was a miscalculation on his part. I agree that it might be the main thing that most people are pissed about, but all of the problems have the same cause.

FTC regulations in the US are pretty straight forward. I'd like to know how keeping an overcharge for 6-8 months is legal.

[mia zapata]

hello! i'm sorry if this is off-topic, but i don't know if i'm the only lucky person or if the others are being quiet like i should be. anyway, i pre-ordered back in april, paying only the $20 fee with a check. i then received the set in november. the invoice said nothing about billing or charges due, so in effect i bought the entire thing for 20 bucks. (not gloating, just baffled as to how a company can be so extremely incompetent.) has anyone else experienced this?

[so-called customer]

Don't things look a little red looking through those rose-colored glasses?

Face it, Ross has been scamming the customers since day one. No amount of justifying can cover up the fact that AU:

Was charging customers before being authorised
Overcharged without authorisation
Refused to refund stolen money
Advertised a non-exclusive set as an exclusive
Lied about paying BMG and every other participant
Lied about when the discs would be released
Lied about when the bonus material would be released
Lied about the "extras" that his customers would get

Playing victim when his company has mismanaged the entire project is a joke. However, those he scammed arent' laughing.

[zero]

I'd like to know how keeping an overcharge for 6-8 months is legal.

So would I, but despite scouring the net for legal advice regarding the US i can't find anything that says otherwise.

PS: Since you seem to be taking the brunt of RR's ire this might be of interest. The day I found out Amazon was selling the box set I was immediately going to cancel with AU, it was only your measured response here that made me wait to see how things panned out. Far from being the reason I cancelled, you were the reason I cut AU a little slack. I believe that RR must know you were AU's best line of defence 'till the s**t got so deep you couldn't in all conscience represent them anymore. It suits RR to portray you as the bad guy, but I can't imagine for a second he believes it.

[zero]

AU:Was charging customers before being authorised
Overcharged without authorisation
Refused to refund stolen money
Advertised a non-exclusive set as an exclusive
Lied ..lied.. lied

Can you point to one thing that we can be certain, and confirm, was provably malicious and/or illegal? I'd love to know. If you think suspecting it to be wrong-doing makes it wrong in the eyes of the law then it's you who's glasses are tinted.

[Spartacus]

No need for colored glasses:

Bouncing checks: A felony crime.
Violation of mail-order regulations, $11,000 per violation. See below. Did AU do any of what was required? No.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/bus ... lorder.htm

Why You Should Comply with the Rule
Merchants who violate the Rule can be sued by the FTC for injunctive relief, monetary civil penalties of up to $11,000 per violation (any time during the five years preceding the filing of the complaint), and consumer redress (any time during the three years preceding the filing of the complaint). When the mails are involved, the Postal Service also has authority to take action for problems such as non-delivery. State law enforcement agencies can take action for violating state consumer protection laws.

Apart from this, your failure to ship on time, or your failure to notify your customers promptly about delays and to obtain their consent to the delays, or your failure to make full and prompt refunds when your customers do not consent to delayed shipment, can adversely affect your business by discouraging repeat purchases. Accordingly, most businesses regard compliance with the Rule as simply good business practice.


Remember that exclusive deal you got? Deceptive advertising.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/bus ... index.html

Illegal under FTC regulations.

11 As explained in the FTC’s Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement—or omits information—that is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances and is "material" or important to a consumer’s decision to buy or use the product. See FTC Policy Statement on Deception, appended to Cliffdale Associates, Inc., 103 F.T.C. at 174 ("Deception Policy Statement"). A statement also may be deceptive if the advertiser does not have a reasonable basis to support the claim. Advertising Substantiation Statement. See FTC Policy Statement on Advertising Substantiation, appended to Thompson Medical Co., 104 F.T.C. 648, 839 (1984), aff’d, 791 F.2d 189 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1086 (1987).

Being complete pricks? Punishable by vigilante justice:
http://www.anotheruniversesucks.org

Spartacus

[starbug]

Well, sometimes it is not necessary for there to be provable malicious intent on the part of the perpetrator in order for a crime to have been committed.

There's a thing called Mens Rea (state of mind), and the level required varies with the crime you are charging them with (this is why it's important to pick the right offence to prosecute). Sometimes you have to prove that they did it and they knew what they were doing and intended the consequences. Sometimes you only have to prove that they did it and intended the action but not necessarily that they intended the awful consequences. Manslaughter is a good example here. A intends to hit B and wound him but not to kill him. However, B's a bit frail and ends up dead. A is held responsible for manslaughter (a serious crime in itself) but not for murder, as murder requires 'malice aforethought' as a state of mind - A must have intended the actual death of B.

Mens Rea is extremely important in criminal law in the UK. I'm not sure how it is in American law.

Sometimes it is enough that the twit 'ought to have known', as judged by reasonable standards of competency, that what they were doing was wrong (unless they can plead insanity, in which case they go to an institution, but not a prison, as being insane is an illness not a crime).

For example, in UK criminal law it is not a defence to say that you were intoxicated at the time you committed a crime. The prosecution laugh in your face and say 'well, you irresponsible little twit, you shouldn't have got drunk'. You're held responsible for your actions while drunk, even though at the time you did it, you probably weren't thinking it through rationally, and may not have maliciously intended it and planned it out in minute detail. The only exceptions to this are where it is truly not your fault you got drunk (eg someone spikes your drink).

Of course, Ross may not have acted maliciously. He may just have been grossly incompetent and negligent. But it doesn't follow that therefore, he committed no crime. That's all I'm saying.

I am confident that Ross has commmitted some sort of crime here, given what Spartacus says. Whether he has committed a crime sufficiently heinous to send him to jail, or whether he intended to commit a crime at all, are two completely separate issues.

I know about this stuff (in a UK context) as I studied it for 4 years. Although I admit, I have forgotten goodly portions of it already.

[Jason R]

I believe that the vast majority or problems were caused by:

1) Ross's incompetence. He was clearly in over his head with this project.
2) AU's cashflow problems.

The fact that he is blaming others (i.e. ME) for ALL of his problems is exceedingly unCEO-like. His persecution complex is unlike anything I have ever seen.

I don't believe that AU originally set out to screw everyone over. I think that they later realized that we were like sheep, and that they could get away with a lot as long as they sent everyone a super-collectible tin lunchbox and bonus disc.

Complain? We are going to take away your lunchbox. Sounds really stupid, but I know that a VERY large number maintained their orders and did not cancel because they wanted that piece of collectible vaporware.

Ross said in one of our last conversations (because towards the end, I refused his calls and kept our communication limited to email so that I had proof of what he was telling me, and so he couldn't change stories later on), that he knew that none of the MSCL crowd would ever buy from him again.

The result of this opinion? Zero effort to appease any of their thousands of MSCL customers. How does a customer get results? By spreading the word about how badly they are being treated. By picketing, or in the case of online retail, by cyberpicketing.

Sign the anti-AU petition.
Join http://www.anotheruniversesucks.org and tell your story.
Post your story to USENET, to TwilightZone message boards and to Comic message forums.

Whether AU plans on ever keeping a promise to you or not, FORCE them to do it. Get what you paid for by threatening to ensure than nobody else will ever buy from them until you do.

And if they have cashflow problems, they need to tell it like it is to their customers. Otherwise they will assume the worst and think that AU is intentionally mistreating them. For example, when they sent me bounced checks, don't you think I would have reacted differently if they called me and said "Jason, we are having some cashflow problems this month, can we make it up to you next month or reduce this month's payment?" You'd think this would be better than sending a bounced check to buy time --or to send a followup bank wire that gets mysteriously lost in the aether of cyberspace for 3-4 weeks.

Finally I grew tired of Ross and tired of AU. I know that many customers have grown tired in the same way. AU have used up their nine lives. They are out of chances. No more "get out of jail free" cards.

Report them to your bank.
Report them to http://www.ifccfbi.gov and http://www.ftc.gov

As time goes by, your chances of recovering ANYTHING will decline. Already AU has not checked drygrass.com's database in over 3 weeks. They have not answered phones since they began shipping the the DVDs. Email addresses are being deleted. Emails are going unanswered. Phone lines are being disconnected, for crying out loud!

With all due respect to Zero, who wrote a dead-on, accurate open letter to AU, it may not all be criminal, but there is certainly a moral and immoral way of doing business. AU's practices are immoral. They cannot be allowed to remain in business as long as they treat customers this way. A prison might not deprive Ross of his freedom, but burned customers can certainly deprive him of future earnings.

Jason Rosenfeld

[pgh kenny]

When real companies run into serious cashflow problems they file Chapter 11 or Chapter 7. They cut staff. They terminate coffee service. They cancel the holiday party. They buy thier office furniture from Office Depot and use the both sides of their paper. Unpleasant but legal.

When AU ran into serious cashflow problems, they submitted unauthorized precharges and overcharges. They kept customers money AND didn't pay their vendors. Now, when we say "AU" or "they" or "the company", we're really talking about Mr. Ross Rojek. And the last time I checked, people like Mr. Rojek that steal money usually get convicted. People that hide money eventually get a certified letter and visit from the IRS.

He may not go to jail, but I think a nice dose of probation and retribution is what we are really after here. That would impede his ability to screw around with other customers and vendors. If we can't get a conviction, there's nothing stopping Ross from buying the trademark to another established but failing online vendor to support his lifestyle of the rich and famous.

Jail would be a bonus, but let's face it: in America, affluent white male CEOs hardly ever do time. Sure we'll throw you in jail with a mandatory minimum for drug possession, but if you implement illegal accounting techniques and work for a multibillion dollar company we'll just make you go to a public hearing.....

[pgh kenny]

okay, this thread is about to win the award in the "number of super long essays" category of the annual MSCL AnotherUniverse.com DVD forum awards show.

I've got lots of awards I'd like to hand out, but I'll spare everyone.

[Jason R]

Here's the Cliff's Notes version of my tome:

AU over its head. In hot water. Could have done the right thing and communicated with customers. When you owe a bank money they are much more willing to work with you if you are up front and make an effort to communicate. Same with customers and freelancers. We were AU's credit card. They maxed us out and are having a hard time paying us back.

Most people, including myself, just want to see everything delivered as promised and refunds issued.

Right now, everyone is pretty P.O.ed.

In a nutshell,
Jason

[Natasha (candygirl)]

As Starbug reiterated (and I, as well as others, have said before), Ross's intentions make the whole mess even worse, but the fact remains that he broke the law. Let's put aside the endless delays for a minute and just look at the double and triple charges. Let's give Ross the benefit of the doubt and say that they were accidental. That doesn't make them any less legal. Try to look at it from an outside perspective - if an unauthorized charge from ANYONE showed up on your credit card statement, would you just let it go for six months? The double charge is credit card fraud. The fact that AU did not reverse the charges for months on end is on top of their original "mistake." Even if these two things are completely innocent or due to incompetence, they are still illegal. Ross then told people not to contact their credit card companies to ensure that they wouldn't be credited by both AU and their credit card companies because that would cause an order cancellation. Again, imagine another company told you this malarkey. Shenanigans!

I can't remember which AU employee mentioned that not everyone at the company was getting regular paychecks, but this is also illegal. California state law requires employees to be paid as scheduled. If a company is unable to pay its employees, the sheriff is authorized to shut the company down. They will literally come and padlock the door shut. Knowing that AU is unethical enough to withhold compensation to its employees AND ask them to continue working (some companies will temporarily close the company until enough money comes in to cover payroll) cements my theory that AU is unethical enough to do anything possible when it comes to money.

Do I have tangible proof of their intentions? No. As much as I would love to see a memo with the subject heading "let's steal money from our customers," I don't want to go dumpster diving. AU's actions speak clearly enough for me to believe that strange things are afoot.

[lance]

When real companies run into serious cashflow problems they file Chapter 11 or Chapter 7. They cut staff. They terminate coffee service. They cancel the holiday party. They buy thier office furniture from Office Depot and use the both sides of their paper. Unpleasant but legal.

When AU ran into serious cashflow problems, they submitted unauthorized precharges and overcharges. They kept customers money AND didn't pay their vendors. Now, when we say "AU" or "they" or "the company", we're really talking about Mr. Ross Rojek. And the last time I checked, people like Mr. Rojek that steal money usually get convicted. People that hide money eventually get a certified letter and visit from the IRS.

He may not go to jail, but I think a nice dose of probation and retribution is what we are really after here. That would impede his ability to screw around with other customers and vendors. If we can't get a conviction, there's nothing stopping Ross from buying the trademark to another established but failing online vendor to support his lifestyle of the rich and famous.

Jail would be a bonus, but let's face it: in America, affluent white male CEOs hardly ever do time. Sure we'll throw you in jail with a mandatory minimum for drug possession, but if you implement illegal accounting techniques and work for a multibillion dollar company we'll just make you go to a public hearing.....

Pgh_kenny,

I agree with you. Given everything that has happened I would hope that Ross and AU receive some kind of punishment. Good post.

Lance Man

[Jason R]

Original overcharges?
In some ways, forgiveable.

Failure to log in to drygrass.com in more than 3 weeks?
Almost understandable, given the fact that I am logging their actions. Why log in if you can't give people their money.

Failure to provide refund for overcharge amount after 7-8 months?
An omission to act. As grievous, under the law, as an intentional act.

Blah. This is old hat, already. We all know what actions have to be taken by AU.