MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W221667329

WHEN CONSUMER FRAUD CROSSES THE INTERNATIONAL LINE: THE BASIS FOR EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION UNDER THE FTC ACT[dagger]

2007· article· en· W221667329 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Rabkin

Bibliographic record

VenueNorthwestern University law review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Law and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtraterritorialityJurisdictionEnforcementBusinessLawPresumptionSubject-matter jurisdictionPolitical scienceOriginal jurisdiction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION 294 I. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF FTC CONSUMER FRAUD ENFORCEMENT 297 A. Origins of the Consumer Fraud Provisions of the FTC Act 297 B. Deceptive Versus Unfair Practices 299 C. FTC Antifraud Enforcement Methods 301 II. CASES IN WHICH THE FTC HAS EXERCISED EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION .... 303 A. Branch v. FTC 304 B. Post-Branch Decisions 307 III. NIEMAN: THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT's WHOLESALE REJECTION OF THE EXTRATERRITORIALITY OF THE FTC ACT 308 IV. THE FTC ACT OVERCOMES THE PRESUMPTION AGAINST EXTRATERRITORIALITY .312 A. The Plain Meaning of the FTC Act Provides for Extraterritorial Application 312 B. The Court's Decision in Aramco Tends to Support, Not Undermine, the Extraterritorial Application of the FTC Act 313 C. An Apt Analog: The Antifraud Provisions of the Exchange AcI 316 V. APPLYING THE CONDUCT AND EFFECTS APPROACHES TO THE FTC ACT ........ 317 A. The Conduct Approach 318 B. The EffectsApproach 322 CONCLUSION 328 INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, the globalization of commerce and the Internet in particular have exponentially accelerated a process that began more than a century ago: the bridging of the commercial gap between buyers and sellers from far-flung points of the globe.' As transactions between businesses and consumers increasingly span borders, the pool of potential victims for perpetrators of consumer fraud has likewise expanded.2 Indeed, both fraud against U.S. consumers by foreign businesses and fraud against foreign consumers by U.S. businesses have risen dramatically over the past decade, with the Internet playing a growing role in cross-border fraud.3 At the same time, U.S. courts disagree about whether transnational fraud is within the reach of the consumer fraud statutes that have been enforced for over half a century by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the United States' principal consumer protection agency. Though the technology has changed, modem consumer frauds bear a striking resemblance to those of the past, relying, as always, on misrepresentation and deception. Recent examples of cross-border fraud include an American company that operated a massive illegal pyramid conning consumers around the world out of $175 million with false promises of quick riches through work-at-home business opportunities;4 a Swiss company that sold U.S. consumers dietary supplements and electronic devices, claiming that these products would cure terminal cancers and AIDS;5 and a British operation that sold Internet domain names with bogus suffixes such as .usa and .brit to consumers around the world, in a fraudulent effort to capitalize on increased patriotic sentiment after September 11th.6 In a more elaborate scheme, a Canadian company targeted U.S. residents with offers for pre-approved credit cards with credit limits of $2,000 or $2,500, in exchange for an advance fee of $189 to $219.7 The victims, most of whom had poor credit history, agreed to have the money debited from their bank accounts, but never received the promised credit cards.8 In November 2005, the FTC brought suit against a Costa Rican operation that used Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, shell corporations, aliases, and shills to con U.S. consumers into investing in a bogus business opportunity.9 Promoting their coffee display rack franchises through classified ads and the Internet, the defendants claimed that, for a set fee ranging from $15,000 to $85,000, they would provide prospective franchisees with everything needed to set up a franchise, including pre-arranged retail locations at which to set up their coffee display racks. From their base in Costa Rica, the defendants used VoIP technology to make it appear as if they were operating out of Las Cruces, New Mexico, where their website claimed they had been in business since 1994. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0120.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorthwestern University law reviewSame topicBusiness Law and EthicsFrench-language works237,207