In a lawsuit filed Sept. 28 in Los Angeles Superior Court, Amber Duick claims she had difficulty eating, sleeping and going to work during March and April of last year after she received e-mails for five days from a fictitious man called Sebastian Bowler, from England, who said he was on the run from the law, knew her and where she lived, and was coming to her home to hide from the police.
Along with messages from the fictitious man, Duick received a fake bill for damages to a hotel room where the man had stayed.
Toyota's lawyers say Duick agreed to the prank when she filled out an online personality test sponsored by the company, but her lawyer says the agreement she clicked didn't mention anything about the nature of the prank.
Tepper, Duick's attorney, said he discussed the campaign with Toyota's attorneys earlier this year, and they said the "opting in" Harp referred to was done when Duick's friend e-mailed her a "personality test" that contained a link to an "indecipherable" written statement that Toyota used as a form of consent from Duick.
Tepper, said that during those legal negotiations, Toyota's lawyers claimed Duick signed the written legal agreement, which they said amounts to "informed written consent."
"So if [Duick] signed something, she's informed that she's signing 'A,' but in fact she's signing something else," Duick's attorney said. "It's written and it is consent, but you're not informed about the thing that you're actually signing up for? "It didn't say someone was going to be stalking my client. It was premised upon keeping my client in the dark, upon fooling her that these e-mails were real."
Update: Our reader Michael Belisle posted a link to the Toyota Matrix marketing/prank website, where Toyota explains how the prank works.
YourOtherYou is a unique interactive experience enabling consumers to play extravagant pranks. Simply input a little info about a friend (phone, address, etc.) and we'll then use it, without their knowledge, to freak them out through a series of dynamically personalized phone calls, texts, emails and videos. First, one of five virtual lunatics will contact your friend. They will seem to know them intimately, and tell them that they are driving cross-country to visit. It all goes downhill from there. The Matrix integrates seamlessly into the experience and you can follow the progress of your prank in real-time online. Each piece of the campaign assures that the experience is as Google-proof as possible.
"Woman Sues Toyota Over 'Terrifying' Prank" [ABCNews] (Thanks to Steve!)
(Photo: Capture Queen ™)
This, the end-of-the-world movie with so many web sites set up to make it look legit up to the point that NASA has had to issue a statement about the planet that is not about to collide with us, the blair witch project -- anyone remember the advertising for that? It was brought up in an article about the 2012 thing, and then I remembered, oh yeah, a girl in my class being dead on convinced that this was a real documentary/real recovered footage. All this effort to make it not google-able what's going on. There's all this bad shit happening and I know there's *one thing* in my mind that's trying to complain --
OH RIGHT. I was a sociology student, and I did various research projects (both as a researcher and as a subject) while I was attending school. And they all had a notice about the human subjects review board -- that this had been approved, but with xyz caveat: These questions may make you feel uncomfortable. This is entirely confidential, unless we believe you may be a danger to yourself. Thank you for testing cookies with the food science department, artificial sweetener may cause allergic reaction.
These ads would not pass the human subjects review board if they were experiments in the pursuit of knowledge-- knowledge that could save other people the future, could find a cure or a treatment or an answer. And the ad department springs it on someone for a quick buck.
Why is there no human subjects review board for advertising?
]]>That said, I'm not sure how much protection that would offer in a case like this, where at least some info is coming from a (so-called) "friend" — but if they're going to the trouble to get the victim to take some kind of test and provide personal info, I assume that's the email they'd use...?? It would have added an interesting dimension if the emails had come from "toyota@___", you know?
]]>No really.
]]>And nor are large automotive companies.
]]>When did Toyota get the idea that stalking someone is a funny prank? Whether it was a publicity stunt or not, it WAS stalking and that's a criminal act. As absurd as it might sound, this woman should consider filing a restraining order against Toyota.
]]>@mythago: 1. You're right - my mistake for just going off the linked article which lists nothing about the ad agency being sued - they have been. As for your 2 - I'm not assuming anything, just throwing out a couple questions. However, I can't imagine that any attorney worth his salt, after getting all the info about her contacting friends and neighbors, wouldn't have gone the next obvious step and asked if she dialed the number for the police. Maybe she told the attorney she did, but he is verifying that she actually made the call before saying anything? Who knows - just found it interesting is all.
]]>@windycity: 1) Don't assume that the ad agency is not a party or won't be a party later.
2) No, I wouldn't assume that she must not have called the police or her attorney would have said so. It's possible he doesn't know, or that the police blew her off.
]]>@Rectilinear Propagation: That's why you get a lawyer involved to employ the shotgun approach mentioned above. The average person might not think of all the possible parties to sue, but a lawyer sure will.
I can see Duick asking her attorney to not involve her friend, but why wouldn't the attorney want to name the ad agency as a party to the suit?
I thought this was a little fishy too - "The alleged harassment lasted five days, according to the suit, and frightened Duick so much she contacted neighbors, friends and family, and the occupant of her former home about the man she feared was coming to visit. Her attorney declined to comment as to whether or not she called the police. She even made her longtime boyfriend sleep with a club and mace next to the bed for protection."
If she contacted the police, wouldn't you think the attorney would be blabbing about that? And if she didn't call the police, was she really 10 million dollars worth of scared?
]]>"I'm driving cross country in my Toyota Matrix to come kill you. Then i'm going to put your body in teh 30 cu feet of cubic space my luxurious Toyota Matrix offers. While in the trunk of my Toyota Matrix, your body parts won't move due to the Toyota Matrix's smooth riding suspension and patent pending deathstalker steering system."
*shrug*
]]>@Bridonik: The "friend" is not the one who did the actual stalking. Your argument is like saying if I hire a hit man, the hit man is blameless for committing a murder.
]]>The Rape Tunnel was a hoax art piece recently reported on Gawker, wherein "at the end of the tunnel the subject will find [the artist] waiting in the project room [who will] try to the best of [his] ability to overpower and rape the person who crawls through."
For further discussion about whether the event at the end of the rape tunnel constitutes "rape-rape", "regular rape", or "consensual rough sex", see the Gawker threads.
]]>@ZoeSchizzel: Right, it isn't the proper thread.
]]>@shepd: It depends on your state, actually.
]]>@MostlyHarmless: I guess you were trying to be funny, but really, no. Women get enough of this shit in real life that it's not funny. As a joke it's about on par with "Hey, I'll give you $20 to go pound on my girlfriend's door at 2 am and pretend to be a rapist breaking into the house!"
]]>@ospreyguy: Their insurance pays for it anyway. Thanks for providing us with the Daily Fail.
]]>@H3ion: A lot of people believe that the cops typically ignore this type of thing.
This is because the cops DO typically ignore this type of thing. At best, she could have gotten a restraining order, and those aren't worth much.
]]>The ten million has two purposes. One is, yes, to recompense her for her suffering. Work troubles often produce financial problems. The other is that punitive damages only work if the amount is enough to be meaningful for the company being punished. Otherwise, you might as well make the penalty for assault be that the criminal has to dye their hair blue for a week, and put murderers in jail for three days.
However, I look forward to supporting your campaign for real criminal liability for corporations: for putting the CEOs and head of marketing of Toyota, and the CEO of the ad agency, on trial for stalking.
]]>So, if I consent to be "raped", I have not in fact consented to rape.
Unless you're 18 minus a day and you're in the US. Especially when the person asking just celebrated their 18th birthday.
]]>@Al Swearengen: Come on, we might be dealing with people who still think AOL is the "internet". And there are still some out there...
]]>Sh's sng tyt bcs thy hv MNY. slly ppl s bg cmpns bcs thy'r mr lkly t sttl thn t ctlly g t crt.
]]>@Rectilinear Propagation: Yea I agree with all of you, it makes sense but still.
]]>@plumenoir: Maybe it had one of those light grey color, 4 point text size "advertisement" labels on the emails?
]]>@savdavid: So...you're saying Toyota should get off with no punishment...despite the fact that stalking and harassment are both against the law?
]]>I don't know how this mess will end legally or why, but generally speaking it reminds me of the old saying, "If you play with fire you are going to get burned."
Toyota, you really ought to consider the fact that there are tons of creative ways to market your products efficiently. Don't risk dumb crap like this.
]]>@The Cynical Librarian: LOL
Damn that made me chuckle ... thanks!
]]>Then there are the people who say they agree that Toyota was wrong but that they shouldn't be punished for it. WTF is that? Is it suddenly OK to harass people?
The worst part is that had they gone so far to actually have someone show up at her home to terrorize her in person they'd still be calling her stupid for falling for it.
]]>The alleged harassment lasted five days, according to the suit, and frightened Duick so much she contacted neighbors, friends and family, and the occupant of her former home about the man she feared was coming to visit. Her attorney declined to comment as to whether or not she called the police. She even made her longtime boyfriend sleep with a club and mace next to the bed for protection.]]>
You can be the bun
And I can be the burger, girl
I know you wanna do it
We can make sandwiches
@mythago: Lord, I hope no one answers that question.
]]>It even happens on this site. In those posts about the awesome billboards or the sexist print ads no one mentioned the name of any ad agency or asked who it was.
]]>With extra-sturdy tiedowns and double-thick soundproofing.
]]>... Probably explains my singularity...
]]>Sounds like it's all the friends fault. If this is true, then the woman who was stalked did not know it was a prank! How can you give your consent to something you know nothing about? And when is it legal for someone else (the friend) to give consent on your behalf?
]]>And how does this promote Toyota exactly?!?!
]]>Seriously though, this was a supremely dumb promo idea, short of each of the people being "pranked" winning a Matrix, or winning something you are just asking to be sued with something like this.
]]>@fantomesq: Bingo. Why sue a company with millions when you can sue one with BILLIONS!!
]]>This would have terrified the living hell out of me.
]]>You can also withdraw consent. If I agree to give you my wallet, then put it back in my purse and say "I changed my mind," you do not not have the right to take it from me. If you walk into a "rape tunnel" (whatever the hell that is) and then say "Look, I know I am in this tunnel but I don't want to have sex with you," you did not consent.
You really don't even need to be a lawyer to understand this.
]]>Maybe they were trying to advertise superior trunk space or something?
]]>@Amy Alkon: Data-grab is one thing. This is quite another.
]]>What pantload at Saatchi & Saatchi thought this was a good marketing campaign? It's like they played Majestic and then watched Jackass and then did a whole skullfull of cocaine before showing up at the pitch meeting.
]]>And the idea that Saatchi & Saatchi is a poor little company with no money is hilarious.
]]>Who the FARK thought up this STUPID arse prank?
Screw the law suit, I want jail time.
]]>What the hell does a personality test even have to do with Toyota cars? Would anyone think that taking a personality test is going to result in Toyota stalking you? I certainly don't.
And if Toyota manages to win on the stalker opt-in, I know a few ladies I'm going to send a personality test.
]]>You can't give someone permission to commit crimes like stealing and rape because, by definition, these crimes require a lack of consent. When consent is given, the underlying act is legal. So, if I consent to be "raped", I have not in fact consented to rape. That's an oxymoron. I have consented to intercourse. Likewise, if you give me permission to "steal" your wallet, you are, in fact, giving me your wallet.
Since entering the rape tunnel would have been consensual, it would be more appropriately termed the "forcible and unpleasant intercourse tunnel", but that's not as catchy.
]]>YourOtherYou is a unique interactive experience enabling consumers to play extravagant pranks. Simply input a little info about a friend (phone, address, etc.) and we'll then use it, without their knowledge, to freak them out through a series of dynamically personalized phone calls, texts, emails and videos. First, one of five virtual lunatics will contact your friend. They will seem to know them intimately, and tell them that they are driving cross-country to visit. It all goes downhill from there. The Matrix integrates seamlessly into the experience and you can follow the progress of your prank in real-time online. Each piece of the campaign assures that the experience is as Google-proof as possible. [tmspreview.com]
Downhill because, as we see here, it all ends in Toyota getting their asses sued. The fact that Saatchi and Saatchi said "without their knowledge" would seem to work against Toyota's consent claim.
]]>That's only because EVERYONE buys toyotas.
]]>I guess this isn't the proper thread to say how much I love my Toyota Matrix? Great gas mileage and enormous cargo room. LOVE!!
]]>@plumenoir: +9000 for the Bill Bicks quote!
]]>You beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing: it was probably a check box that she agrees to me contacted and to participate in future advertising.
The thing that gets me is, did the email she received ever even hint it was from Toyota? If not, I can see her point. If she got these weird emails with all this info about her, I can see why she'd be freaked out.
Heck, if I had signed up for some marketing thing and started getting emails from some guy that is supposedly a criminal and he's coming to my house - and the email contained personal information about me the advertisers provided - I'd be a tad concerned, too. At the very least, I'd think it was a friend messing with me; but to find out, say, Microsoft was doing it because I agreed to Xbox advertising, I'd be pretty pissed.
No matter how you slice it, this sounds like a dumb idea from the agency. Maybe a $10 million hit will get some common sense into these companies' heads...
]]>That quote explaining the campaign reminds me of the old Bill Hicks routine about advertising and marketing:
"I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too, 'Oh, you know what Bill's doing, he's going for that anti-marketing dollar. That's a good market, he's very smart.' Oh man, I am not doing that. You f******* evil scumbags!"
]]>Seriously, who thought this was a good idea?
]]>That said, consent to receive mailings is one thing. Threats from an alleged criminal are quite something else. $10 million is a bit high but I'd say this woman has her retirement plan all worked out.
]]>For my brokerage, I have to type in my name in a text box, check off a box stating I have read the whole passage, and click "ok" for an electronic signature.
]]>When you are done playing "blame the consumer" and decide to join us here in the real world, I am sure you will agree with me.
]]>I'm guessing that the "informed consent" she clicked on/agreed to said something like "you agree to participate in Toyota's marketing and advertising efforts." I've been presented with things like this; they're on the back of most lottery tickets, for example. And most reasonable people assume this means they'd perhaps use your name and/or photo in an ad, or you'd be part of a focus group.
NOT that it gives the company carte blanche to do anything they want to you, and then just say "Oh that? When that dude walked up to you and punched you in the face on the street? Yeah, that was our agency - it was marketing. You agreed to that, remember?"
]]>@legwork: For that, $10 mil sounds about right...
]]>I don't understand how this stunt is supposed to sell cars.
Tepper, Duick's attorney, said he discussed the campaign with Toyota's attorneys earlier this year, and they said the "opting in" Harp referred to was done when Duick's friend e-mailed her a "personality test" that contained a link to an "indecipherable" written statement that Toyota used as a form of consent from Duick.Tepper, said that during those legal negotiations, Toyota's lawyers claimed Duick signed the written legal agreement, which they said amounts to "informed written consent."
I'm also not up on how clicking a link equates to "informed written consent." I understand there does exist such a thing as an electronic signature but I thought there was more to it than that.
]]>This wasn't like a 419 scam.
]]>Saatchi & Saatchi told the marketing magazine OMMA last year that it had developed the campaign to target men under 35 who hate advertising.The prank campaign, Saatchi creative director Alex Flint told the magazine, should gain the appreciation from "even the most cynical, anti-advertising guy."
So really, it has nothing to do with the prank-ed, and quite possibly not even the prank-er.. but with idiot douchebags who might hear about it, think it's SWEET! and not realize they're being sold to.
]]>@junip: Well, it looks like the Matrix can seat 4, maybe 5. If you have more friends than that, you can use this tool to alienate them so you don't have to take two cars whenever you go out.
]]>Toyota's lawyers seem to have already acknowledged Toyota's responsibility by saying that the victim opted in.
And I'm sure Toyota has a lot more money than the ad agency.
But yeah, there's got to be more to the story.
]]>Sorry, that's as close as I could get to blaming the OP.
Dumbshit Toyota, both their attorneys and marketers. What happened to their common sense?
$10mil is a bit much but they deserve a very large and painful slap for this one.
]]>Well, I guess it would be scary to receive emails and messages through the internet. People HAVE been stalked and killed via online meeting and whatnot, so I'm not doubting the legitmacy of her being frightened.
That said, why is she suing Toyota? Why not sue the agency, and what about the person that referred her to this prank?
Somethings not adding up here.
]]>