New Jersey Star-Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine has more, including this:
The attorney general contends that the site is violating the consumer fraud act because it fails to “honor the terms and conditions that it informs the public it will adhere to.”
I called consumer affairs spokesman Jeff Lamm and asked him to direct me to any terms and conditions on the site that are binding on the operator. If such terms or conditions existed, I reasoned, then JuicyCampus must have hired the dumbest lawyers on the planet.
It didn’t. Although Lamm said he was told by the attorney general’s legal staff that “there were representations on the site about people who visit the site being able to report objectionable or malicious content or content that violates one’s right to privacy,” he couldn’t direct me to any such representations.
In fact, the site’s FAQ (frequently asked questions) section goes out of its way to tell complainers to buzz off. The answer to the question “What if I see a comment that isn’t true?” amounts to five paragraphs of the old saying “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”
Then there’s this:
“Q. I’m offended!
“A: Sorry. Also, that’s not a question …”
David Wald, Milgram’s spokesman, said the site is fraudulent because “there’s no avenue to remove postings.” But that would be fraudulent only if the site’s operators had promised to remove postings. They didn’t. And of course there are tens of thousands of other websites out there that offer no avenue to remove postings. Are they all subject to $10,000 fines under New Jersey consumer law?
The American Civil Liberties Union doesn’t think so. “I can’t fathom how the AG could consider this a target for a consumer fraud claim,” said Deborah Jacobs of the New Jersey chapter….