The Reply

Dear Walter:

My comments about what I feel is WebLoyalty’s unscrupulous business model shouldn’t be a surprise. It appears that others are equally concerned:

1. McAfee SiteAdvisor gives WebLoyalty a caution symbol stating “Feedback from credible users reflected a negative overall experience after shopping at this site.”

2. The Boston Globe ran an article about WebLoyalty on September 12, 2006 titled “Suit says online marketer ran scam, Shoppers allegedly tricked into paying fee”

3. The Seattle Times Consumer Section ran an article about WebLoyalty on May 21st, 2006 titled simply “A Scam pops up”

4. Rip Off Report.com claimed they had received 4758 complains about WebLoyalty.

5. The Washington Post ran an article titled “Same Old Scam, Every Month”

6. I’m sure you are familiar with Adam Rosi-Kessel.org. Do you think some of the 1658 complains there might be hurting your reputation?

7. There are over 100 comments on ahoyhoy.org regarding your “scam”.

8. The Connecticut Better Business Bureau states that “this company has an unsatisfactory record… due to a pattern of complaints concerning deceptive marketing/selling practices and unauthorized charges to consumers’ credit cards.”

9. Consumer Affairs.com has an article from September 11, 2006 titled “WebLoyalty named in Federal Lawsuit, Consumers’ Credit Cards Charged Without their Knowledge, Suit Charges”.


It is not WebLoyalty’s reputation that needs protecting. It is Visa, Mastercard, and WebLoyalty’s affiliates who appear to be compromising their customer’s trust.

It is the Internet users assumption that credit card information given to Lillian Vernon will be protected. This gives the user the safety of not having to read every popup ad in detail on every site before simply clicking a button. In fact this assumption appears to be backed up by those publicly available policies by both Visa and Mastercard.





So it would appear that Internet users must not only assume that their information is safe with Lillian Vernon (and your other affiliates) but that Visa and MasterCard REQUIRE IT.

Furthermore, in regards to statements about wording, location, and your attachments:

1. Your email fails to mention the voice over stating:
“Congratulations- heres your special reward for your purchase today. Get ten dollars off your next purchase plus money saving discounts. Click yes below now.”

2. Because of the length of the page the user must scroll down to click yes. By scrolling down the user won’t be able to see the text supposedly granting you permission to their personal information. (Which, as stated above, a user can’t grant you anyways)

3. Entering an email address twice is common to ensure that an email address is correct. It in no way indicates some sort of electronic signature when the user clearly did not go to your site to make a transaction. Instead they were re-directed to your site via a pop-up.

4. From my tests it appears that the email address entered does not have to be valid nor does it have to match the email address used with the affiliate’s site. Please note that the two membership signups were tests. My family was originally deceived in November 2006.

5. The wording “authorizing the secure transfer of your name, address and credit or debit card information” is in smaller print then the “I want my Reservation Rewards discounts and my $10.00 Reward Certificate…” wording located directly under the “Yes (click here now)” button.

In closing- I urge WebLoyalty to change their business model to align with how the rest of the Internet does business. Failing to do so will not only hurt your affiliates- but your enablers: Visa, Mastercard, HackerSafe, etc.

Michael R. McNett