Tuesday, June 17, 2008
An Open Letter to the owners of Expo-Guide
Dear Sir/Madam,
Having studied the forms currently being mailed by expo-guide and done comparisons with the forms formerly mailed by Construct Data Verlag (CDV) I have come to the conclusion that it is almost impossible that your forms were contrived without reference to Construct Data’s mailings
I fully accept that you may have accepted the design in complete innocence, that they it have been presented to you by a third party, and that as such this letter may represent your first warning of the problems these forms can cause.
A little history
CDVs forms were widely criticised, for over a decade the company profited from the fact that people would sign the forms in error, mistaking them for a communication from an exhibition organiser. CDV suffered numerous adverse rulings, both legal and from self regulatory organisations. When faced with such rulings they would amend the form slightly, but the aspects of the form which mislead were always maintained.
In early 2007 after a prolonged legal tussle with the Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb CDV found it necessary to modify their forms once again and the latest layout, (the layout to which expo-guides forms correspond) was conceived. I was in no doubt that the new form would mislead and I published an open letter to Wolfgang Valvoda, CEO of CDV telling him of my concerns and offering to assist in the design of a form that would not mislead
The letter went unanswered and the forms were indeed signed in error, in very large numbers. In November 2007 I was forced to publish a second open letter in which I concluded that Mr Valvoda was either remarkably inept or had set out with the intent to decieve, again he chose not to respond. Eventually the Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb forced deeper concessions from CDV who are now barred from mailing new forms from Austria.
Because CDV made concessions out of court the forms were never subjected to detailed scrutiny by a judge, which does not mean that they are legal!
The Forms you are mailing
So there you have it, expo-guide are in the position CDV found themselves in back in April 2007, you are mailing a form that I predict will be signed in error, you can fully expect that many who sign the new form will refuse to pay you.
You have clearly invested considerable money in this new project, with phone lines in six countries and a substantial website at http://www.expo-guide.com but your business model could be fatally flawed if you persist with the forms you are mailing at present.
Another Free offer
So once again I am willing to offer my time and experience to help your company design a form that cannot mislead, this offer comes with two provisos:
Jules Woodell - 16th June 2008
See StopECGs Advice page regarding expo-guide
Having studied the forms currently being mailed by expo-guide and done comparisons with the forms formerly mailed by Construct Data Verlag (CDV) I have come to the conclusion that it is almost impossible that your forms were contrived without reference to Construct Data’s mailings
I fully accept that you may have accepted the design in complete innocence, that they it have been presented to you by a third party, and that as such this letter may represent your first warning of the problems these forms can cause.
A little history
CDVs forms were widely criticised, for over a decade the company profited from the fact that people would sign the forms in error, mistaking them for a communication from an exhibition organiser. CDV suffered numerous adverse rulings, both legal and from self regulatory organisations. When faced with such rulings they would amend the form slightly, but the aspects of the form which mislead were always maintained.
In early 2007 after a prolonged legal tussle with the Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb CDV found it necessary to modify their forms once again and the latest layout, (the layout to which expo-guides forms correspond) was conceived. I was in no doubt that the new form would mislead and I published an open letter to Wolfgang Valvoda, CEO of CDV telling him of my concerns and offering to assist in the design of a form that would not mislead
The letter went unanswered and the forms were indeed signed in error, in very large numbers. In November 2007 I was forced to publish a second open letter in which I concluded that Mr Valvoda was either remarkably inept or had set out with the intent to decieve, again he chose not to respond. Eventually the Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb forced deeper concessions from CDV who are now barred from mailing new forms from Austria.
Because CDV made concessions out of court the forms were never subjected to detailed scrutiny by a judge, which does not mean that they are legal!
The Forms you are mailing
So there you have it, expo-guide are in the position CDV found themselves in back in April 2007, you are mailing a form that I predict will be signed in error, you can fully expect that many who sign the new form will refuse to pay you.
You have clearly invested considerable money in this new project, with phone lines in six countries and a substantial website at http://www.expo-guide.com but your business model could be fatally flawed if you persist with the forms you are mailing at present.
Another Free offer
So once again I am willing to offer my time and experience to help your company design a form that cannot mislead, this offer comes with two provisos:
- I would expect you to accept that your initial mailshots were a mistake, and where people state that they signed in error you should offer them the opportunity to rescind the contract.
- That in accepting a new design you take it in its entirety and do not modify it or alter the meaning when translating into other languages
Should Expo-guide continue to mail the misleading forms and/or demand money from those who have signed in error it will be hard not to conclude that it is your intent to mislead people. In that instance stopECG will campaign against you with the same zeal CDV experienced.
Should you wish to reply to any part of this letter, please let me know, your reply will be published here for all readers to see.
Jules Woodell - 16th June 2008
See StopECGs Advice page regarding expo-guide
Labels: Construct Data Verlag, contract, Expo-guide, misleading, Open Letter, StopECG, www.expo-guide.com
Thursday, November 29, 2007
A Second Open Letter to Wolfgang Valvoda, CEO, Construct Data (Fairguide)
Firstly for new readers of this blog, a little background.
Construct Data Verlag (CDV) has traded from Austria since around 1991, in those years the company has been the subject of consistent complaints that it’s advertising communications are misleading, indeed in 2004 a German judge ruled that the offers formulated by Construct Data AG are formulated in such a way that an intention to deceive in the sense of code 263 Par. 1 St GB German Criminal Code (Fraud) See:
http://www.vertikal.net/en/stories.php?id=1266
CDV has repeatedly modified the contracts it mails but again and again they have failed to remove the misleading aspects that lead to so many complaints. Finally, on 13th February 2007, faced with a comprehensive lawsuit from the Austrian Schutzverband CDV signed a far-reaching accord before the Austrian courts. The objective of this agreement was to prevent the problems caused by Construct Data’s mailing of misleading contracts and to assist those who had signed them in error in releasing themselves from any claimed obligation to CDV.
The Court case was not heard in order to marginally clarify the layout of the documents mailed by CDV, the case had been brought to put an end to a problem so serious that the Judge accepted it could be of harm to Austrian commerce in general.
So it would be an understatement to say that StopECG and others were frustrated when Construct Data started mailing new forms, which although different in layout were, in our opinion still very misleading, In April this year I published An Open Letter to Wolfgang Valvoda, CEO, Construct Data in which I stated my concerns about the new form and offered to assist in the design of an entirely different document that could not mislead. That offer was never accepted and the new misleading forms have been mailed in vast numbers to people all over the world.
The predicted has happened, my inbox is now full of messages from people who have signed the new document in error and are disputing payment, CDV for their part are insisting that the new forms are legal and contractually binding and are attempting to put the blame for this continuing farce onto those people who have signed in error, claiming (sic) that as businesspeople they should have paid closer attention before signing.
Worse, when people reply referring to the cease and desist undertaking as suggested by the Shutsverband and distributed by stopECG, Construct Data are replying with letters describing the messages as fallacious, out of date and coming from a “known internet source”. (Its nice to know you have noticed us).
It is clear from the volume of mail that I am getting that the atmosphere in Construct Data’s offices can hardly be pleasant. Staff must spend much of the day pedalling the same tired arguments, arguments I cannot believe they themselves have total faith in; manning the phones when angry and frustrated ‘customers’ call in, reading a bulging mailbag of complaints and answering similarly hostile emails. Indeed I am aware that many emails to Construct Data simply go unanswered. So both Construct Data’s staff and its so-called customers are being put through considerable stress… why?
The reason for this second open letter is that I have thought long and hard about the possible reasons for people allowing this situation to arise, I can think of 2 possible explanations which are outlined below, neither paints a pretty picture of the activities at CDV and I am hoping Mr Valvoda will respond to this post with a better explanation.
The first explanation goes like this… Wolfgang Valvoda and his merry band of staff in Modling are so inept, that, after a court case which nearly finished their company, they could not muster the common sense between them to design a form that would not deceive. That when told their new creation might mislead they were as myopic in outlook as to believe that they were right and others wrong. That when people started stating that they had signed the document in error the blindness got worse! Rather than take them at their word CDV staff insisted on payments claiming that considerable costs had been incurred as a result of the (other parties) mistake. That rather than examine the new document again and try to rectify what is clearly a critical problem they have blundered on, demanding payments and insisting the document is in order and that they are STILL sending out more copies of the contract even though they must now know that people will dispute it and will refuse to pay!
Does that sound unfair? OK, let us for a moment consider the alternative, an option far more disturbing and one which I have to state I find it hard to believe so many people would wilfully partake in.
The only alternative I can see is that following the court case a new form was cleverly and deliberately contrived WITH THE INTENT to deceive, both the layout and text have misleading aspects so this form would possibly be the work of several people, possibly lawyers and other experts would be consulted to affirm that it might sidestep the wording of the agreement signed before the courts.
The perpetrators would know that any new legal process would time and in that time those who signed the new form in error could be told they had no protection under the Feb 13th agreement and then be bullied into paying before any new restraints were placed on Construct Data to stop. Could it be that the perpetrators signed the agreement before the courts in the full knowledge that it could be flouted? Rather than hold out for a formal judgement on the legality of the previous forms and face the possibility of an injunction that would be hard to defy?!
I.e. the second option would indicate that the staff at CDV had deliberate and flagrant disregard for Austrian law, that they had wilfully created a document in the hope that they could con people, then scare them into paying up with bogus threats of legal action. How sickening would that be?
It is possible that I have missed something here… So Mr Valvoda, the stage is yours! Please feel free to respond and I will publish your comments.
Jules Woodell.
People in dispute with Construct Data Verlag AG can find advice on stopecg.org
Construct Data Verlag (CDV) has traded from Austria since around 1991, in those years the company has been the subject of consistent complaints that it’s advertising communications are misleading, indeed in 2004 a German judge ruled that the offers formulated by Construct Data AG are formulated in such a way that an intention to deceive in the sense of code 263 Par. 1 St GB German Criminal Code (Fraud) See:
http://www.vertikal.net/en/stories.php?id=1266
CDV has repeatedly modified the contracts it mails but again and again they have failed to remove the misleading aspects that lead to so many complaints. Finally, on 13th February 2007, faced with a comprehensive lawsuit from the Austrian Schutzverband CDV signed a far-reaching accord before the Austrian courts. The objective of this agreement was to prevent the problems caused by Construct Data’s mailing of misleading contracts and to assist those who had signed them in error in releasing themselves from any claimed obligation to CDV.
The Court case was not heard in order to marginally clarify the layout of the documents mailed by CDV, the case had been brought to put an end to a problem so serious that the Judge accepted it could be of harm to Austrian commerce in general.
So it would be an understatement to say that StopECG and others were frustrated when Construct Data started mailing new forms, which although different in layout were, in our opinion still very misleading, In April this year I published An Open Letter to Wolfgang Valvoda, CEO, Construct Data in which I stated my concerns about the new form and offered to assist in the design of an entirely different document that could not mislead. That offer was never accepted and the new misleading forms have been mailed in vast numbers to people all over the world.
The predicted has happened, my inbox is now full of messages from people who have signed the new document in error and are disputing payment, CDV for their part are insisting that the new forms are legal and contractually binding and are attempting to put the blame for this continuing farce onto those people who have signed in error, claiming (sic) that as businesspeople they should have paid closer attention before signing.
Worse, when people reply referring to the cease and desist undertaking as suggested by the Shutsverband and distributed by stopECG, Construct Data are replying with letters describing the messages as fallacious, out of date and coming from a “known internet source”. (Its nice to know you have noticed us).
It is clear from the volume of mail that I am getting that the atmosphere in Construct Data’s offices can hardly be pleasant. Staff must spend much of the day pedalling the same tired arguments, arguments I cannot believe they themselves have total faith in; manning the phones when angry and frustrated ‘customers’ call in, reading a bulging mailbag of complaints and answering similarly hostile emails. Indeed I am aware that many emails to Construct Data simply go unanswered. So both Construct Data’s staff and its so-called customers are being put through considerable stress… why?
The reason for this second open letter is that I have thought long and hard about the possible reasons for people allowing this situation to arise, I can think of 2 possible explanations which are outlined below, neither paints a pretty picture of the activities at CDV and I am hoping Mr Valvoda will respond to this post with a better explanation.
The first explanation goes like this… Wolfgang Valvoda and his merry band of staff in Modling are so inept, that, after a court case which nearly finished their company, they could not muster the common sense between them to design a form that would not deceive. That when told their new creation might mislead they were as myopic in outlook as to believe that they were right and others wrong. That when people started stating that they had signed the document in error the blindness got worse! Rather than take them at their word CDV staff insisted on payments claiming that considerable costs had been incurred as a result of the (other parties) mistake. That rather than examine the new document again and try to rectify what is clearly a critical problem they have blundered on, demanding payments and insisting the document is in order and that they are STILL sending out more copies of the contract even though they must now know that people will dispute it and will refuse to pay!
Does that sound unfair? OK, let us for a moment consider the alternative, an option far more disturbing and one which I have to state I find it hard to believe so many people would wilfully partake in.
The only alternative I can see is that following the court case a new form was cleverly and deliberately contrived WITH THE INTENT to deceive, both the layout and text have misleading aspects so this form would possibly be the work of several people, possibly lawyers and other experts would be consulted to affirm that it might sidestep the wording of the agreement signed before the courts.
The perpetrators would know that any new legal process would time and in that time those who signed the new form in error could be told they had no protection under the Feb 13th agreement and then be bullied into paying before any new restraints were placed on Construct Data to stop. Could it be that the perpetrators signed the agreement before the courts in the full knowledge that it could be flouted? Rather than hold out for a formal judgement on the legality of the previous forms and face the possibility of an injunction that would be hard to defy?!
I.e. the second option would indicate that the staff at CDV had deliberate and flagrant disregard for Austrian law, that they had wilfully created a document in the hope that they could con people, then scare them into paying up with bogus threats of legal action. How sickening would that be?
It is possible that I have missed something here… So Mr Valvoda, the stage is yours! Please feel free to respond and I will publish your comments.
Jules Woodell.
People in dispute with Construct Data Verlag AG can find advice on stopecg.org
Labels: Austria, CDV, construct Data, contract, deceive, error, misleading, Modling, Schutzverband, signed, Wolfgang Valvoda
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
An Open Letter to Wolfgang Valvoda, CEO, Construct Data (Fairguide)
Dear Mr Valvoda,
We have corresponded occasionally regarding your concerns at my website and the heartfelt criticism of your company it contains, also in early 2006 I offered as a goodwill gesture to remove scans of your companies disputed contracts from the website after lawyers acting on your behalf claimed I was in breach of copyright. This week I am withdrawing that gesture and publishing copies of the most recent unsolicited mailshots sent out by your company. I will explain my reasons later in this letter.
You personally cannot fail to be aware that Construct Data AG does not have a normal business relationship with its customers. By my estimation up to 80% of people who sign your contracts never pay, I am sure the percentage who dispute the contract to some degree is higher still. This means that your staff are invariably tied up with issuing demands for payment, quoting legal points and reading angry letters when they should be promoting your website and ensuring that those who do pay get value for money.
This has culminated in a most extraordinary court case where the Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb won the right to challenge your business model even though they represent only Austrian firms, this to spite the fact that your company, for some unexplainable reason, does not solicit business within Austrias borders.
I had sincerely hoped that this court case would mark a turning point for Construct data, an opportunity for you to break away from the past and to join the vast majority of directory publishers who have satisfied return customers. Alas this week I was sent copies of your latest contract.
I do not have a crystal ball Mr. Valvoda, but let me make a prediction. You will encounter people who sign this new document who then state that they did not realize you would demand money for their listing. They will refuse to pay, will complain and will state that they feel duped. For this reason I am publishing scans of your new contract on www.stopecg.org and will be asking fair organisers and other interested parties to distribute the scans to exhibitors. I do this in the hope that seeing the contracts in advance will enable people to make an informed decision before returning it. It constitutes fair use and I will defend my right to show these scans, in court if necessary.
However I am not writing this letter solely to criticize, I wish to offer you an olive branch. My concerns about the misleading nature of this new document are based on several years of correspondence with literally thousands of people who have signed contracts in error. I have seen a lot of contracts, some poorly contrived, and some very cleverly schemed with the intent of misleading the recipient. I am willing to use this knowledge to help you.
Allow me, and others involved with stopECG to design your new contract, I will not produce a document critical of Construct Data, however I will produce a document that is hard to sign in error, where the recipient will have all the information they need at hand before returning the document. This document can then be used by Construct Data for future mailings. I add the restriction that while you may translate it into other languages, you cannot modify the layout or meaning. I offer my time for free in the hope that we can put construct Data’s sordid past to rest and set your company on a new and reputable course.
Yours,
Jules Woodell
We have corresponded occasionally regarding your concerns at my website and the heartfelt criticism of your company it contains, also in early 2006 I offered as a goodwill gesture to remove scans of your companies disputed contracts from the website after lawyers acting on your behalf claimed I was in breach of copyright. This week I am withdrawing that gesture and publishing copies of the most recent unsolicited mailshots sent out by your company. I will explain my reasons later in this letter.
You personally cannot fail to be aware that Construct Data AG does not have a normal business relationship with its customers. By my estimation up to 80% of people who sign your contracts never pay, I am sure the percentage who dispute the contract to some degree is higher still. This means that your staff are invariably tied up with issuing demands for payment, quoting legal points and reading angry letters when they should be promoting your website and ensuring that those who do pay get value for money.
This has culminated in a most extraordinary court case where the Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb won the right to challenge your business model even though they represent only Austrian firms, this to spite the fact that your company, for some unexplainable reason, does not solicit business within Austrias borders.
I had sincerely hoped that this court case would mark a turning point for Construct data, an opportunity for you to break away from the past and to join the vast majority of directory publishers who have satisfied return customers. Alas this week I was sent copies of your latest contract.
I do not have a crystal ball Mr. Valvoda, but let me make a prediction. You will encounter people who sign this new document who then state that they did not realize you would demand money for their listing. They will refuse to pay, will complain and will state that they feel duped. For this reason I am publishing scans of your new contract on www.stopecg.org and will be asking fair organisers and other interested parties to distribute the scans to exhibitors. I do this in the hope that seeing the contracts in advance will enable people to make an informed decision before returning it. It constitutes fair use and I will defend my right to show these scans, in court if necessary.
However I am not writing this letter solely to criticize, I wish to offer you an olive branch. My concerns about the misleading nature of this new document are based on several years of correspondence with literally thousands of people who have signed contracts in error. I have seen a lot of contracts, some poorly contrived, and some very cleverly schemed with the intent of misleading the recipient. I am willing to use this knowledge to help you.
Allow me, and others involved with stopECG to design your new contract, I will not produce a document critical of Construct Data, however I will produce a document that is hard to sign in error, where the recipient will have all the information they need at hand before returning the document. This document can then be used by Construct Data for future mailings. I add the restriction that while you may translate it into other languages, you cannot modify the layout or meaning. I offer my time for free in the hope that we can put construct Data’s sordid past to rest and set your company on a new and reputable course.
Yours,
Jules Woodell
Labels: Construct Data Veralg AG, contract, fairguide, Wolfgang Valvoda
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Misleading forms alert: The UK Internet Register
Today I started getting emails about a new form that was arriving at UK companies via Fax, those who examined it felt it was misleading and so sent me copies, I am always happy to see forms and contracts that you get, please email them!
The UK Internet Register is new, however it is simply a variation on a form that has been used in many countries, the layout of the form ensures that the cost is hard to spot. Like so many other forms, companies have noticed that their details are inaccurate, drawing them away from the small print and into the process of correcting their data.
What is on offer is an inter-professional directory that appears to be published online only and where signing will cost you £639 Per Annum for a minimum of 3 years, interestingly you are already fully listed if get sent the form, all you gain by signing is 3 keywords in their search engine. I checked their website on Alexia and the traffic is currently so low that it cannot be evaluated. Looks like those 3 keywords might not be a very good buy at £213 each!
The form arrives by fax with a freephone faxback number of 080 82 38 02 31. I checked this number on on ICSTIS. They note that they do not regulate freephone numbers, but they do tell you that this number is provided by MCI WorldCom Ltd.
If you receive a form and consider it misleading you may wish to contact MCI WorldCom Ltd. and voice your concerns about the usage of this freephone number
MCI Wordlcom Ltd, Barnards Inn 86 Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1EN
Ph 0207 6754496
So is The UK Internet Register really new? Well a closer examination reveals it is actually sent by a company well known to stopECG
DAD Deutscher Adressdienst GmbH
This company has indulged for years in the mailing of misleading contracts, like so many other guides StopECG features, DAD will claim that the forms they send are clear, yet like the other guides DAD fail to amend the forms and fully remove the ambiguities their 'customers' complain of. Swiss newspaper Tagesanzeiger exposed links between DAD and other Ludenbach guides, it appears likely that they are part of his empire. You will notice that director Inga Kruskop has a long association with Lüdenbach
In the dreaded small print a website is noted where the directory can be found
http://www.uk-internet-register.com/
A whois confirms that this domain is owned by DAD and was only set up in January this year, a reverse DNS on the server shows it hosts other very similar domains such as:
American-internet-register.com
Belgisch-internet-register.com
Canadian-internet-register.com
I wonder where DAD’s misleading Faxes will be going next?
If you have signed this form in error and are now disputing the matter, please visit the stopECG page on DAD.
Labels: contract, Deutscher Adressdienst GmbH, misleading, UK Internet Register
