Well, I guess it would be scary to receive emails and messages through the internet. People HAVE been stalked and killed via online meeting and whatnot, so I'm not doubting the legitmacy of her being frightened.

That said, why is she suing Toyota? Why not sue the agency, and what about the person that referred her to this prank?

Somethings not adding up here.

Hey, don't sign up for The Game if you don't want to shoot Sean Penn.

Sorry, that's as close as I could get to blaming the OP.

Dumbshit Toyota, both their attorneys and marketers. What happened to their common sense?

$10mil is a bit much but they deserve a very large and painful slap for this one.

wait... how is this supposed to help toyota sell their stuff?

@TheObserver: Toyota is ultimately responsible since it was their product being advertised. That being said, the ad agency who cooked this up should also be named in the suit.

@junip: ...stalking victims buy Toyotas?

@TheObserver:

Toyota's lawyers seem to have already acknowledged Toyota's responsibility by saying that the victim opted in.

And I'm sure Toyota has a lot more money than the ad agency.

But yeah, there's got to be more to the story.

@junip: That was my question. Apparently the target of the "advertising" was actually the person who pranked her, not the victim herself - but that still doesn't make sense to me. Giving me the means to punk someone of my choosing does not make me want to buy a car.

come on, does this lady believe every international who sends her strange emails? if she does she should also sue gmail, or aol or whoever her email provider is because she may have fallen for a nigerian scam too.

So did she ultimately buy a Matrix?

@junip: Well, it looks like the Matrix can seat 4, maybe 5. If you have more friends than that, you can use this tool to alienate them so you don't have to take two cars whenever you go out.

What did they think the "best-case scenario" of this promotion would be?

Damn Toyota and it's accosting ways

@junip: Because the target demographic apparently loves this kind of thing:

Saatchi & Saatchi told the marketing magazine OMMA last year that it had developed the campaign to target men under 35 who hate advertising.

The prank campaign, Saatchi creative director Alex Flint told the magazine, should gain the appreciation from "even the most cynical, anti-advertising guy."

So really, it has nothing to do with the prank-ed, and quite possibly not even the prank-er.. but with idiot douchebags who might hear about it, think it's SWEET! and not realize they're being sold to.

@joshuadavis: Read the article. The emails were purportedly from someone who was in trouble with the law and claimed to be coming to her house, and they also sent her a bill (by email, I assume) claiming to be from some hotel, billing her for damages he had done.

This wasn't like a 419 scam.

I read the linked article and I still am completely not getting this.

I don't understand how this stunt is supposed to sell cars.

Tepper, Duick's attorney, said he discussed the campaign with Toyota's attorneys earlier this year, and they said the "opting in" Harp referred to was done when Duick's friend e-mailed her a "personality test" that contained a link to an "indecipherable" written statement that Toyota used as a form of consent from Duick.

Tepper, said that during those legal negotiations, Toyota's lawyers claimed Duick signed the written legal agreement, which they said amounts to "informed written consent."

I'm also not up on how clicking a link equates to "informed written consent." I understand there does exist such a thing as an electronic signature but I thought there was more to it than that.

@legwork: For that, $10 mil sounds about right...

Sounds like an Alternate Reality game gone horribly wrong.

I'm guessing that the "informed consent" she clicked on/agreed to said something like "you agree to participate in Toyota's marketing and advertising efforts." I've been presented with things like this; they're on the back of most lottery tickets, for example. And most reasonable people assume this means they'd perhaps use your name and/or photo in an ad, or you'd be part of a focus group.

NOT that it gives the company carte blanche to do anything they want to you, and then just say "Oh that? When that dude walked up to you and punched you in the face on the street? Yeah, that was our agency - it was marketing. You agreed to that, remember?"

@nstonep: read it again chief. She took a personality test that opted her in for this. And it could have just said something as simple as "by clicking this link, you opt-in to receive promotions from toyota in the future" - Which would cover this...

When you are done playing "blame the consumer" and decide to join us here in the real world, I am sure you will agree with me.

@Cliff_Donner:

For my brokerage, I have to type in my name in a text box, check off a box stating I have read the whole passage, and click "ok" for an electronic signature.

If she went through the trouble of having her boyfriend sleep beside the bed with mace and a club, and didn't call the police, then she's a few fries short of a happy meal.

That said, consent to receive mailings is one thing. Threats from an alleged criminal are quite something else. $10 million is a bit high but I'd say this woman has her retirement plan all worked out.

I don't have a lot of compassion for people who give their personal information to quizzes and personality tests. Yeah this is idiotic marketing, but folks are dangerously generous with their personal information these days.

What does a psycho stalker have to do with a new car?

Wow. Spectacularly bad idea on Toyota's part.

Seriously, who thought this was a good idea?

@veg-o-matic:

That quote explaining the campaign reminds me of the old Bill Hicks routine about advertising and marketing:

"I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too, 'Oh, you know what Bill's doing, he's going for that anti-marketing dollar. That's a good market, he's very smart.' Oh man, I am not doing that. You f******* evil scumbags!"

Companies are not charities, and if they're giving something away, it probably isn't for nothing. Contests are usually thinly veiled data-grabs.

@DGberg:

You beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing: it was probably a check box that she agrees to me contacted and to participate in future advertising.

The thing that gets me is, did the email she received ever even hint it was from Toyota? If not, I can see her point. If she got these weird emails with all this info about her, I can see why she'd be freaked out.

Heck, if I had signed up for some marketing thing and started getting emails from some guy that is supposedly a criminal and he's coming to my house - and the email contained personal information about me the advertisers provided - I'd be a tad concerned, too. At the very least, I'd think it was a friend messing with me; but to find out, say, Microsoft was doing it because I agreed to Xbox advertising, I'd be pretty pissed.

No matter how you slice it, this sounds like a dumb idea from the agency. Maybe a $10 million hit will get some common sense into these companies' heads...

@TheObserver: The person who referred her presumably knew as much about the prank as Duick herself, i.e., nothing.

@TheCoolestGuyInTown: She buys a Toyota Matrix with the money she wins in the lawsuit.

@plumenoir: +9000 for the Bill Bicks quote!

I guess this isn't the proper thread to say how much I love my Toyota Matrix? Great gas mileage and enormous cargo room. LOVE!!

@TheObserver: Because Toyota is the deep pocket.

@mralmostpopular:

That's only because EVERYONE buys toyotas.

@Cliff_Donner: Found a video advertisement for this "Your Other You" campaign and I still don't understand how it makes anyone want to buy a car. Like, I see the Matrix in the video—but then there's the part about signing your friends up for a hilarious stalking prank.

Here's a description of the campaign (emphasis mine):

YourOtherYou is a unique interactive experience enabling consumers to play extravagant pranks. Simply input a little info about a friend (phone, address, etc.) and we'll then use it, without their knowledge, to freak them out through a series of dynamically personalized phone calls, texts, emails and videos. First, one of five virtual lunatics will contact your friend. They will seem to know them intimately, and tell them that they are driving cross-country to visit. It all goes downhill from there. The Matrix integrates seamlessly into the experience and you can follow the progress of your prank in real-time online. Each piece of the campaign assures that the experience is as Google-proof as possible. [tmspreview.com]

Downhill because, as we see here, it all ends in Toyota getting their asses sued. The fact that Saatchi and Saatchi said "without their knowledge" would seem to work against Toyota's consent claim.

Stories like this always confuse me (like the rape tunnel,) since it's a pretty simple point of law that you can't give someone permission to commit a crime against you.

@TheCoolestGuyInTown:
Step 1: scare someone into suing them.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit?

@fantomesq: Actually first law of American tort is you shotgun approach your suits. You sue everybody and let the court dismiss it against each defendant individually. There have been many cases in the past where a plaintiff who had a legitimate case with legitimate damages and the court determines that the actual party at fault was not named, and the plaintiff got nothing.

So, Toyota is, what, the most successful car company in the world? Do they REALLY have to pull this s**t to sell cars?

@strathmeyer: I'm just an armchair lawyer, but logic would suggest that if you give someone permission to do an act that's legal when consensual, it's not a crime.

You can't give someone permission to commit crimes like stealing and rape because, by definition, these crimes require a lack of consent. When consent is given, the underlying act is legal. So, if I consent to be "raped", I have not in fact consented to rape. That's an oxymoron. I have consented to intercourse. Likewise, if you give me permission to "steal" your wallet, you are, in fact, giving me your wallet.

Since entering the rape tunnel would have been consensual, it would be more appropriately termed the "forcible and unpleasant intercourse tunnel", but that's not as catchy.

Is she going to sue her fiend as well for referring her?

What the hell does a personality test even have to do with Toyota cars? Would anyone think that taking a personality test is going to result in Toyota stalking you? I certainly don't.

And if Toyota manages to win on the stalker opt-in, I know a few ladies I'm going to send a personality test.

Yes, 10 million ought to solve that bothersome insomnia, bad appetite and work troubles right away!
It works like this: Woman is either stupid or, more likely, thinking how she can cash in on this.
Toyota, that was not nice. However, the woman is even worse.

Who the FARK thought up this STUPID arse prank?

Screw the law suit, I want jail time.

@Cliff_Donner: AT&T once told me that my answering machine answering the phone and saying in its robot voice "After tone, record message" counted as consent to their contract for a yellow pages ad to the tune of $800.

@legwork: This whole thing reminds me of the stupid ads that say, "Don't go to bed before the King" by Burger King. I assume they are actors, but maybe they aren't. This prank advertising does NOT appeal to me at all.

I don't mean to sound heartless, but three simple numbers could have cleared this up. Having two months of difficulty in your life for not calling 911. I'll let the court decide if this was stupid enough to award damages, but to not alert authorities is simply stupid when you believe your life is in danger.

@legwork: Sorry, somehow my post responded to yours, but it wasn't really meant to.

@Michael Belisle: Wow, that is even creepier than I thought.