What to do about deceptive advertising in public (non profit) television?

[TLark]

I live in Illinois. I believe that I've been the victim of consumer fraud and I'm looking for an opinion. I would prefer not to name names because I'm not sure of the proper legal phrase to describe the problem - but I think Bait and Switch or Deceptive Trade Practice fit as well as any.

Recently I was watching public television during one of their fund raiser programs. During a break they solicited contributions by offering a variety of gifts. The pitch basically went like this. If you make a contribution at a certain level (in this case about $175) you will receive two MAIN FLOOR tickets to the FRIDAY live performance.

I took the bait and charged the full amount to my credit card over the phone. What I received were lousy BALCONY tickets to the SATURDAY show. I called the television station to complain and they refused to refund my money and refused to make good on their promotion. Even the credit card company refused to honor my complaint. They stated that I had not actually purchased anything so the misleading advertising didn't matter.

It makes me angry to think that consumers cannot trust public television and I'm about one step away from suing them in small claims court. I still have the video tape of their promotion and I still have the erroneous tickets they sent to me. When I sue them - should I forget about the contribution of $175 and sue them for fraud, or just sue for the contribution?

Thanks,
TLark

 

[TLark]

What to do about deceptive advertising in public (non profit) television

It has been over two weeks since I posted the above question and I’m a little surprised that no one has had even a comment. Of course that is okay - but now I’m wondering if I posted in the wrong forum, or maybe the issue is more complicated than I thought, or maybe it just isn’t appropriate for small claims. Can someone recommend another site where I can get some advice?

 

[Zigner]

It has been over two weeks since I posted the above question and I’m a little surprised that no one has had even a comment. Of course that is okay - but now I’m wondering if I posted in the wrong forum, or maybe the issue is more complicated than I thought, or maybe it just isn’t appropriate for small claims. Can someone recommend another site where I can get some advice?

You made a donation - that's a gift. How do you expect to sue and win?

 

[TLark]

Thanks for the feedback. Maybe this sort of business practice is okay in Illinois - but where I come from that would be called fraud. At best it is dishonest. So let me just see if I've got this right. A company can promise you anything for your "donation" and then simply not deliver on that promise. And the consumer has no recourse? It that pretty much it in a nutshell?

 

[TLark]

You made a donation - that's a gift. How do you expect to sue and win?

I just wanted to provide an update. Although I didn’t receive any encouraging replies here - I sued them in small claims court anyway. I received nearly three times the amount that I originally requested as a refund.

 

[quincy]

While I agree that what the charity did was wrong, and I think your case against them was legitimate, I can't help but get a feeling that a bunch of kids in some third world country somewhere didn't get their badly needed medicine because of you.

 

[TLark]

Quincy... I respect your opinion but I don't understand it. Not even a little bit. My complaint was about deceptive advertising in public television (like PBS) and had nothing to do with third-world countries or medication for children. So excuse me for asking... but what on earth are you referring to?

 

[Zigner]

Quincy... I respect your opinion but I don't understand it. Not even a little bit. My complaint was about deceptive advertising in public television (like PBS) and had nothing to do with third-world countries or medication for children. So excuse me for asking... but what on earth are you referring to?

Referring to the fact that you would sue a non-profit and then gloat about it.
Give the info on your case - I'd like to review it.

 

[quincy]

TLark - I"m sorry. I have no idea what I was thinking. Well, I guess I was obviously thinking about children in Third World countries.

So I will amend my reply:

While I think that what the public television station did was wrong, and I think your case against them was legitimate, I can't help but get a feeling that a bunch of kids will be deprived of Clifford and Sesame Street and Reading Rainbow because of you.

(not quite as dramatic as children in Third World countries going without medicine, perhaps, but you have put the survival of middle-class parents with young children at risk)

 

[TLark]

Back in August I followed the link on this forum to post my case on attorneypages.com. I requested to have it reviewed by an attorney at that time. I never heard from anyone. Of course, I was not surprised. So I find it disconcerting that now someone wants to review it long after it’s a done deal. It seems pointless now. If anything I think you need to review your definition of “gloat”. My single-sentence description of the outcome of this case could hardly be considered gloating.

I hope this doesn’t come as a shock - but nonprofits are susceptible to the same corruption as any other corporation. The statement about putting the survival of parents at risk is both pessimistic and bizarre. The case didn’t involve thousands of dollars. And the performance that I referred to in my original posting was for Celtic Woman, not some program for children. At worst - the management of this particular defendant will think twice before they defraud someone else and that will benefit everyone including the parents referred to in the reply.

Everyone makes mistakes. What I found disturbing was that when I brought the mistake to their attention they refused to do the right thing.

 

[quincy]

TLark -

My comment about parents, while perhaps "pessimistic and bizarre", was meant to be funny (plus, pessimistic I don't understand - bizarre, however, is what my humor tends to be, so I accept that readily).

And I said I thought your suing them was legitimate. I am aware that non-profits can be corrupt.

I guess what struck us all is that it seems like your donation should have been because you wanted to help public television and not because you wanted a couple of tickets to a performance. Most people donate to benefit an organization because they care. They don't donate to get a present. That's all.

 

[bon_temps2000]

TLark,

It is good to see that this sort of thing can be dealt with in a small claims court. Regardless of the source, deceptive trade practices need to be quashed regardless of the source. As a matter of fact, NP's and NFP's should be ESPECIALLY sensitive to this sort of behavior, considering that they are granted tax-free status based on their supposed good intentions.

Thanks for the story and the follow-up.

Quincy/Zigner - Your responses are useless, self-righteous fluff.

 

[Zigner]

Quincy/Zigner - Your responses are useless, self-righteous fluff.

And you contributed what?

 

[bon_temps2000]

What I attempted to contribute was a little bit of encouragement for an individual with a valid legal question who was treated to smug responses from internet trolls rather than assistance or advice.

 

[Zigner]

What I attempted to contribute was a little bit of encouragement for an individual with a valid legal question who was treated to smug responses from internet trolls rather than assistance or advice.

Oh, good. I guess you're right. Our responses didn't make the opportunistic poster feel all warm and fuzzy.
Thanks for your help!