We all should have known that at the intersection of a long-lost car, a multi-national pizza chain, and a huge cash reward, there would be litigation. Papa John’s owner John Schnatter offered a $250,000 reward for his 1971 Camaro. A couple who formerly owned the car helped Schnatter track it down, but didn’t receive the reward because they didn’t hold the car’s title. They did receive a $25,000 “finder’s fee,” but claim that the reward should rightfully be theirs. Now the company and the couple are suing each other. [WKLY] (Thanks, Becky!)
Before John Schnatter founded Papa John’s pizza, he was a struggling businessman. Back in 1983 he was reduced to selling his black and gold 1971 Chevy Camaro Z28 for $2,800 to keep his dad’s bar afloat and to start Papa John’s.
Justin sent us this gamepiece he scraped like a wet scab off the side of his moist Subway beverage cup. (I do not like gamepieces affixed to fast food drinks.) We’re in awe at its nearly k?an-like phrasing. How is an instant win not an instant winner? How do you peel the gamepiece that has already been peeled? Feel free to use these in your meditations.
Ari’s wife had ten minutes to call into her local Washington D.C. radio station to claim a $1,000 giveaway, but couldn’t connect because Vonage routes all calls to 1-800 numbers through New York, and the radio station was only accepting local calls. For ten anguishing minutes Ari and his wife suffered through busy signals, worried that the radio station was deluged by other callers. After emailing both Vonage and the station producer, Ari and his wife finally realized what happened…
Dan’s son is learning an important consumer life lesson, which is that sometimes companies promise really fun things that just don’t happen. GameStop sent out a promotional e-mail about a really cool contest involving Backyard Baseball ’10. Except the contest isn’t working, and no one knows who can help Dan straighten it out.
Tim thought he was entering an innocent giveaway at his local Subway in Warrenton, Virginia earlier this month. Nope. It was just timeshare bait. We wish the Subway would have known better than to allow the dropbox in their store to begin with, but after reading Tim’s story you’ll know what to watch out for should you run into a similar contest.
Um, we’re a little sketched out by a survey question from the Mexican restaurant On The Border asking customers to agree or disagree with the statement: “I love On The Border.” Sure, sometimes we LOVE Mexican food, but we don’t really love any restaurant. It’s just too large a step to take with an eatery, you know? Reader Max is equally confused…
Is there anything scammers won’t try in their attempts to disguise advance fee fraud? Nope. Chelsea and her husband just found out that OMG THEY JUST WON 350K!!!1! from the Gaming Association of America. They’ll be receiving their check shortly, but in the meantime the GAA has sent them a much smaller check for about $5,000 to cover any fees associated with the prize. All they need to do is contact the “non-government service tax agent (GST)” to take care of cashing and handing over that $5k, and they’ll be swimming with hookers in champagne-filled pools.
That’s right, despite having its budget slashed and being put up for sale, Consumerist still rocked 2008 with a bunch of cool and/or ridiculously awesome posts, and now we’re in the running for the Best Blog in the 2008 Weblog Awards. You can cast your vote here. Frankly, we haven’t even heard of some of the competitors. Gawk-er? What is that, a peeping tom site? Boing boing? Who names this stuff?
ABCNews took a look at “Free if you can finish it” challenges all over the US — and even sent the reporter to attempt one — with the help of a championship competitive eater. So, was the 50-pounder a bargain?
The Leading Hotels of the World want you to know they are still committed to offering 6,000 five-star hotel rooms for $19.28. The contest, originally conceived as a way to honor the association’s 1928 formation, is proving ironically successful, fusing a modern giveaway with 1928 technology. That whole email do-over idea? Silly! Forget it even existed. The group has gone and hired themselves some internet sherpas to help run the contest, and here’s what they’ve come up with….
You can enter to win a chance for a $250 gas card by submitting a review of your car to CarMax, an online used-car retailer. 8 winners will be chosen over 8 weeks, and of those people submitting a review with a picture, an additional $300 gas card winner will be chosen. Even if it’s a long shot, who couldn’t use even just a possible free gas card? Plus, writing words is fun. [CarMax]
Back in January, Herbert Hawks made a hole-in-one on a golf simulator at the Maryland State Fairgrounds, and he won $25,000. (You can watch the winning shot here.) WBAL TV reports that as of late July he has yet to see the prize money, and every person or company the TV station has contacted passes the blame on to someone else. At the bottom of the list is Golf Marketing Worldwide, a company that insures hole-in-one contests and has a history of not paying out on contests and/or doing business in states where the company doesn’t have a license.
Reader JoeTan says this is his 6th attempt at removing a Dunkin’ Donuts game piece from his iced coffee and the results, shown above, have all been identical. Mush.
After a furious series of battle, the weaklings have been vanquished and the Round 1 champions in our Worst Company in America 2008 contest advance to the second round. See the full-sized graphic, suitable for framing or forming the basis of informal office betting pools, inside…
Our publisher’s advertising monkeys are giving you the chance to win a $300 AMEX card if you tell us a little bit about yourself in this 5-10 minute survey. Giving an email address is optional to complete the survey, but necessary if you want to be eligible for the drawing, otherwise we won’t have any way to contact you.
A class-action lawsuit has been filed in California against Verizon and several third-party companies, alleging that they promoted illegal gambling by enticing customers to pay to enter contests in which there was an “infinitesimally” small chance of winning, reports RCRWireless. “The suit centers on 99-cent charges levied on wireless consumers who played contests associated with popular TV shows like ‘Deal or No Deal’ and ‘Sole Survivor.’” The plaintiffs claim that the contests were less promotional sweepstakes than “illegal lotteries designed to generate revenues far in excess of the value of the cash awarded.”