California Promises No Sales Tax Due To Affiliates To Keep Amazon/Overstock Affiliates Happy

from the someone's-been-watching dept

In the last few weeks we've seen companies like Amazon drop affiliates in a bunch of different states, due to proposals in cash-strapped state legislatures to force the online retailers to collect sales tax even if there are only affiliates in that state. Apparently, California politicians put forth a similar proposal, and following threats from Overstock to drop its local affiliates, Governor Schwarzenegger has promised that no such bill will pass (thanks Eric Goldman). It seems that the willingness for these online retailers to cut off affiliates (and the anger that creates among those affiliates) caught the attention of at least someone with power in California.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Amazon Cuts Off Affiliates In Hawaii And Rhode Island... Who Else Wants To Try?

from the you-might-make-them-angry dept

Last week, Amazon decided to cut off North Carolina affiliates due to proposed legislation that would have affiliates (really, advertisers) be considered as local "employees" for the sake of proving that Amazon had a business "nexus" in the state, and thus need to collect state sales tax there. It appears similar legislation is popping up across a bunch of states, and Amazon is cutting off affiliates one by one. Affiliates in both Hawaii and Rhode Island have been told that they can no longer sell via Amazon over this issue. It'll be interesting to see if any states back down. Pissing off a bunch of small business owners who make money selling products via Amazon probably isn't a particularly wise thing to do in the middle of a recession.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Amazon Cuts Off All North Carolina Affiliates Over Questionable Proposed Tax Bill

from the tax-amazon dept

You may remember last year -- when New York passed an ill-considered law that attempted to twist the interpretation of its tax law to make Amazon responsible for collecting sales tax in NY because some affiliates were based there. This is problematic, because it basically defines an affiliate as an employee of the company, when an affiliate is really just an advertiser. In response, Amazon went to court, but another retailer, Overstock, went the more drastic (and press friendly) route, and cut off all NY affiliates. I guess Amazon was kicking itself for not thinking of the same thing, and now that a similar issue is showing up in North Carolina, Amazon has abruptly cut off all affiliates in the state, leading to anger among many of those affiliates. The question is whether they turn that anger against Amazon or the state government for pushing forward with such a law.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Zango's Latest Trick: Pitching Fake Batman MMORPG To Get People To Download Adware

from the and-so-it-goes dept

We've talked about Zango's continued claims that it's a changed company from the one that paid huge fines for tricking people into downloading its intrusive adware, but somethings never really seem to change. An anonymous reader points us to an ad found on a bunch of legitimate video game sites recently, pitching a new Batman online virtual world game, but if you click through, it turns out that it's just a severely limited demo version of a client-side Batman game from 2001. Despite the ad promising all sorts of things, such as "play online with your friends" the actual download has none of that... but it does include an install of Zango. Chris Boyd, who figured all this out wonders why the sites that ran this ad did so, knowing that it was almost certainly bogus. Zango, of course, will blame a "rogue affiliate" which is what they always do -- but Boyd wonders why they won't actually identify who's responsible.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

NewEgg Tells NY Tax Collectors To Take A Hike

from the take-that dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about how NY state had passed a highly questionable law designed to force e-commerce retailers to collect sales tax in the state. As you hopefully know, retailers are only supposed to collect sales tax in states where they have a physical presence. The reasoning for this is pretty straightforward. The taxes are designed to help provide core infrastructure services for those retailers (roads, water, etc.). Without a physical presence in the state, the retailers aren't making use of those services, so it doesn't seem right to tax them for it. The NY state law was sneaky in that it changed the definition needed to establish a "physical presence" to include anyone who acted as an affiliate of the retailer. Most e-commerce sites have affiliate programs that allow others to get a kickback on sales for driving those sales. Affiliates are effectively advertisers, driving traffic to an e-commerce site. It's quite a stretch to suggest they represent a physical presence for the company. But, NY politicians did it because they wanted to get more cash out of Amazon.

Different online retailers have reacted in different ways. Both Amazon and Overstock sued over the law -- and Overstock even banned NY affiliates while this law is in place. Online tech retailer NewEgg started collecting the tax, but has changed its mind. It sent a letter to customers saying that it's decided not to collect the tax. There isn't much more of an explanation, but it sounds like it's asking New York to sue it if it wants to get the tax at all:

As a result of recent changes in New York State tax law requiring certain out-of-state retailers to collect and remit sales taxes to the State of New York, we began collecting applicable sales tax for all orders shipped to New York addresses starting June 1, 2008.

After careful review and consideration, we are pleased to inform you that we have stopped collecting New York sales tax, effective August 21, 2008. This decision was driven by your direct and candid feedback and our continued commitment to you as our valued customers.

62 Comments | Leave a Comment..

New York Politicians Think About Repealing Amazon Tax, But Let It Drop

from the so-much-for-that dept

Back in April, we noted that some NY state politicians were trying to put in place a rather sneaky legal change that effectively would force Amazon to collect sales tax in New York, despite not having a physical presence there. The "trick" was to claim that if you had any affiliates in the state, you had a local presence. Affiliates, of course, can be nothing more than an advertiser. So, based on this change of law, effectively anyone who has an advertiser in NY is considered to have a local presence there and must collect sales tax. Both Amazon.com and Overstock have sued over this law, and Overstock has even gone so far as to cut off all NY affiliates in response (showing how the law probably hurts NYers a lot more than it helps them).

Saul Hansell, over at the NY Times, picked up on an odd fact, however. Just weeks after this passed, a separate bill was introduced to repeal it. Yet, that bill appeared to have no sponsor, but the state Senate actually voted and approved it. After some digging, Hansell got an explanation: saying that the original bill was part of a larger bill that was approved, but many felt that they wanted to address just this specific issue. Of course, it appears that the state senators' interest is not matched by the corresponding state assembly (who would also need to pass such a bill). Over there, they'd just as soon leave the matter as is, and let the courts (and taxpayers) sort it out.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Are Companies Responsible For Actions Of Affiliates?

from the lawsuits-galore dept

Back in May we wrote about how shoe store DSW was suing Zappos over potential trademark infringement done by an affiliate -- and now we've got another similar story. The company NameSafe is suing competitor LifeLock over Google ads that make use of NameSafe's name. While we've seen plenty of lawsuits where Google was incorrectly sued over ads based on competitor search terms, this case actually does seem a little more reasonable on those points: rather than suing Google, NameSafe is suing LifeLock, and NameSafe can probably make a half-decent case that the ads could be seen as confusing or deceptive.

However, where this case gets more interesting is on the question of whether LifeLock is to blame -- or if it's the fault of an affiliate marketer, as LifeLock claims. LifeLock says that it terminated the affiliate's account and also reminded all of its affiliates that this type of activity goes against their reseller agreements. That seems like a reasonable response, but for now the lawsuit against LifeLock continues, which will inevitably raise questions about whether or not a company is responsible for the actions of its affiliates and resellers. It seems like common sense to say no -- that the liability should remain with those who actually did the action -- but we've seen stranger decisions from courts before, so it may not be clear cut here.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Overstock Sues New York Over Questionable Tax Collecting Law

from the and-here's-another-one dept

Back in April, New York state signed into law a very questionable bill that effectively made any affiliates of your service (i.e., anyone advertising your services) considered as representing a "local presence" for your company for tax purposes. The law had no reason for existing other than to try to squeeze extra tax money out of online retailers. Amazon quickly sued over the law and Overstock has now followed suit, filing a lawsuit against the tax law. Overstock, of course, has taken its reaction even further, banning all New York affiliates as long as this law is in place. The effective result of the law, then, is that it actually ends up harming residents of the state while not doing very much to actually increase tax revenue. It seems quite likely that this law will get tossed out, as it seems to go entirely against earlier rulings on what constitutes a physical presence in the state.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Overstock Cuts Off NY Affiliates Over NY's Amazon Sales Tax Law

from the nice-work,-New-York dept

Last month we wrote about how New York was changing a law to try to force Amazon to collect and pay sales tax in New York by defining any affiliate in the state as being an Amazon point of presence. This is a clear perversion of the intention of the law that only requires collecting sales tax if the company has a physical presence in the state. While Amazon is now fighting this law in court, others are taking more drastic measures. E-commerce site Overstock.com has declared that it will no longer allow New York affiliates in order to avoid having the state consider it to have a "physical presence" there. This would be an unintended consequence of such a law. In an effort to get e-commerce providers to cough up more in taxes, not only will Overstock not be paying those taxes, it just made life a lot more difficult for thousands of Overstock affiliates in New York.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Shoe Store DSW Sues Zappos For Activities Of Affiliates

from the safe-harbors... dept

There's an interesting lawsuit coming out concerning the popular online shoe store, Zappos, that has built up a large business in part by being extremely focused on providing an excellent customer experience. DSW is a large shoe retailer with many brick and mortar stores and also (not surprisingly) an e-commerce operation (Update: the e-commerce part just launched recently, which has many thinking that this whole event appears to be something of a reverse Streisand Effect situation, where it's suing Zappos to get media attention). Late yesterday, DSW filed a lawsuit against Zappos, charging the company with infringing on DSW intellectual property. What was odd, though, was that DSW never contacted Zappos at all -- preferring to inform it of the lawsuit via press release. Zappos CEO, Tony Hsieh, explained all of this via Twitter, which he's used (quite successfully) to connect and communicate with fans of Zappos.

What came next is quite interesting. Various Twitter followers began investigating the matter, and noticed that a guy using the Twitter name SEOColumbus was defending DSW for filing the lawsuit, while also raving about how much better DSW was than Zappos. Carlo Longino responded to those claims, and then did a quick search discovering that the LinkedIn page of the guy said that he just happened to be DSW's E-Commerce Operations Manager -- something he declined to mention. Soon after Carlo called him on it, though, Carlo noticed that he deleted his LinkedIn profile. The guy claims that he just contracted at DSW for a few months -- but it still seems like he should have disclosed that while bashing Zappos and praising DSW. Update: This part of the story is getting even more bizarre, with claims that the SEOColumbus Twitter account is actually controlled by someone else (which doesn't make much sense, given what the accountholder was saying). And, on top of that, the SEOColubmus Twitter account has now been shut down (temporarily?). Update 2: I've removed the guy's name from this post following a polite request, claiming that the Twitter account really was controlled by someone else. There are numerous inconsistencies in his story that are hard to square up, but at this point we'll take him at his word and thus have removed his name.

As for the lawsuit itself, from the information provided by whoever owns the Twitter account, it seems like it's not due to any actions by Zappos, but by a Zappos affiliate. Just like many e-commerce companies, Zappos lets affiliates sign up and basically drive traffic to Zappos. One of those affiliates set up a site called dsw-shoes.net -- which pretty clearly does infringe on the DSW trademark (which, again, is really about consumer protection, not ownership). It seems reasonable to think that dsw-shoes.net could create some confusion in the customer's mind, even though it has (in tiny print, at the bottom of the page) a note claiming it's not affiliated with DSW. It does, however, link to Zappos using an affiliate code. Given the various safe harbors out there, it certainly seems like DSW went after the wrong target. The complaint should be against whoever operates the affiliate -- not Zappos. An affiliate linking to Zappos should not create liability for Zappos itself. It appears that in DSW's rush to sue Zappos, it didn't bother to understand Zappos is protected against the actions of its affiliates, as it most certainly was not encouraging them to pretend to be DSW. A quick call or letter to Zappos probably would have educated them on this (though, honestly, it should have been obvious from the website in question), but instead, DSW just rushed into a lawsuit, informing Zappos by press release.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Sprint And Affiliate Sue Each Other Over Legality Of New WiMax Effort

from the bad-blood dept

In certain markets, Sprint has always used affiliates to sell its service, rather than building out its own efforts. Some of those affiliate relationships caused problems back in 2004/2005 when Sprint merged with Nextel -- as Nextel's service existed in some of those markets, potentially "competing" with the Sprint affiliates who had agreements that Sprint would not compete directly. So, with the new WiMax joint venture with Clearwire, Sprint knew that the big affiliate iPCS would be upset. In fact, last week, Sprint sued iPCS in Delaware seeking a declaratory judgment that the new joint venture did not break their agreement with iPCS. That lawsuit appears to have been filed slightly before iPCS filed its own lawsuit in Illinois against Sprint. Chances are the two suits will be combined in some manner, but it's yet another hurdle that Sprint needs to clear before it can get this new WiMax offering off the ground. Sprint may have a decent claim here -- as the agreement with iPCS is focused only on 1.9GHz spectrum, whereas the WiMax network is on 2.5GHz spectrum. Either way, it seems like these affiliate relationships may be a lot more pain than they're worth.

2 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Says Porn Company Not Responsible For Spam Sent By Affiliates

from the no-inducement dept

A court has now ruled that Impulse Media is not guilty of spamming because some of its affiliates spammed people. The company, which provides "adult content" has an affiliate program to drive traffic to its site. Some of the people in the affiliate program (not surprisingly) sent out a bunch of spam using their affiliate codes. The government charged that this was Impulse Media's fault. Impulse Media's response was that it forbade spamming in its terms of service and kicked anyone caught spamming out of the program. The government responded that affiliates weren't required to read the terms and anyone kicked out could quickly sign right back up again. However, that wasn't enough to convince the government who found no clear liability for the company. This is a bit of a fine line, but it seems like the correct decision. The government absolutely could have (and probably should have) gone after the affiliates who did spam -- but chose to focus on the wrong company here.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..