A woman in Los Angeles is suing Toyota for $10 million over what some are calling a "terror marketing campaign" led her to believe she was being stalked. Amber Duick filed a lawsuit claiming that she had trouble eating, sleeping and going to work last year after receiving threatening e-mails for five days from a British "fugitive" writing her under the name Sebastian Bowler. He claimed to know where she lived and said he was heading to her home where he would hide from the police.
Terrifying, aside from the fact that Bowler never really existed (even though his supposed MySpace page still does). He was the product of a guerrilla marketing campaign for the Toyota Matrix, developed by the creative firm Saatchi & Saatchi.
A representative from Saatchi says the campaign was targeted at men who hate advertising -- "even the most cynical, anti-advertising guy." How that translates to stalking is beyond us, but perhaps worse is that a spokesperson for Toyota claimed that Duick "opted in" to the emails.
"The person who made this claim specifically opted in, granting her permission to receive campaign emails and other communications from Toyota," Toyota Spokesman Chad Harp wrote.
Hm. If we signed up for marketing emails and instead got a stalker (real or made-up), we'd probably sue, too. Would you?
More Fun Stuff On the Web:
A nice day for a ... Wal-Mart wedding. (The Frisky)
Condensed for your viewing pleasure: The 100 best internet videos in three minutes. (CollegeHumor)
Enough already, with the leggings! (Celebuzz)
World's grossest Halloween candy. (Holy Taco)
Comments:
Add a comment
Saturday 17 October
By razzi
Toyota claimed that Duick "opted in" to the emails. hmmmm? So another words, if I open an e-mail from Toyota and I see something other than an "ad" And this person keeps sending me e-mail telling me what he's going to do. I know I would be scared too. What the devil kind of people are these folks to send out e-mails like that to begin with to scare a person like that?? even if I was a men, that's still sick! So you darn right I would go after them when I found out what it really was and who was doing it. And I hope she's gets every penny too. That's just not right at all.
Reply
Saturday 17 October
By Smmie
Common knowledge dictates that you only open e mail from addresses you know. Do you sue the Nigerians for offering your 5 million dollars every frickin' week? It's your own fault for being gullible to BS.
Sunday 18 October
By nor cal amy
you're kidding right? the woman is over reacting, quit wasting the time of courts, thats why our litigious society is where its at with lawsuits being unaffordable for the average person, and actual legal processes taking an unjust amount of time. this woman is looking for easy money. sad how people like you don't get that. get angry cuz youre a retard that overreacts about advertising....so you sue? very sad.
Saturday 17 October
By Lynn
OK. First, does the name "Amber" sound like a man's name? Second, if she "opted in" to receive marketing advertisements, then how could they conclude s(he) was anti-advertising? Third, there's a huge difference between opting in for Toyota Products and being THREATENED PHYSICAL HARM by an unknown individual! Lastly, although the $10M is a ridiculous amount of $$ to ask for in what has become the over-abused American Litigation Lottery System, advertisers have no right to threaten, scare, or induce fear into people, wherefore, they should not only have to pay her for that (maybe $100k), but every single Individual who operated, managed and sent these emails should be criminally charged under Federal and State laws for making such threats!
When will the Citizens of this great country start holding CEOS, Managers, and Employees of these Companies LEGALLY and CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS!?! If you did it, you can bet your bottom dollar you would be ARRESTED and CHARGED with stalking, intent to harm, or whatever law they could throw at you, so why in the hell do the Citizens of this country ALLOW COMPANIES TO GET AWAY WITH IT? Stupid, stupid, stupid!
Reply
Saturday 17 October
By Shane
Obviously you cannot read! HER name is Amber, not the 'escaped' fugitive you numbnut!
Saturday 17 October
By grumpy
Ed, your time would be better spent looking for an apartment and moving out of your mammas basement.
Maybe then YOU will discover the real world.
Reply
Saturday 17 October
By Keith
I am typically against lawsuites, because I feel most are unjustified and are only a way for losers to rape and pilage large companies; however, in this case, I hope Toyota is forced to pay up the $10,000,000.00. In fact, I hope the judge or jury rule in favor of more. This woman did not deserve this and regardless of her opting in or not, this was certaily an act of terror and was irresponsible and should have never happened. Why isn't this being broadcast on television? If anything could potentially help sell Amewrican cars and trucks, this could. I know I'll think of this story the next time I think about buying a car or truck.
Reply
Saturday 17 October
By sandy
Keith - very good comment and I couldn't agree more! It was terrifying, I am sure. ABUSE of the advertising opportunities they have here in America. BUY AMERICAN!!!
Saturday 17 October
By Victor
Are you on crack? This is one example of morons who watch fcuking Oprah and Philbilly. Get a fcuking life.
Saturday 17 October
By Monique
Keith, you said "I am typically against lawsuites, because I feel most are unjustified and are only a way for losers to rape and pilage large companies".
It's not the companies that lose out over lawsuits. It us, the consumers. We pay higher prices to compensate for their loss.
Saturday 17 October
By David
I want to know how many people were targeted with this add. If she is the only one than the excuse of marketing is BS. This is not acceptable behavior for any one. I'm coming to your house and hiding out does not sell cars or trucks. I smell a cover up. This is cyber bullying by a company. Either the company can pay up or turn over the offenders for prosecution. I take either one as payment.
Reply
Saturday 17 October
By cee
Keith, I had as medical malpractice suit where the court called the defendant doctor's testimony perjurious. My lawyer forced me to settle out of court and 3 weeks later this perjuror was nominated as Pa. secretary of health (Peter J. Jannetta 1995-1996) There was proof of negligence and malpractice and other issues. he had many suits against him but because the court system as well as the medical societies and the state said to him it was okay to commit malpractice he has hurt more people (based on people writing to me to tell me what he did to their loved ones, or themselves.)
Lawsuits are to protect people from the bad guys since no one else bothers to do it. 85% of med. malpractice is committed by 15% of doctors. If it takes lawsuits to get rid of these guys than that is what must happen (same for corporations)
My lawyer, someone I truested and had known in high school, Michael Fishbein, forced me to settle, despite my telling him the settlement was not acceptable. He had done no depositions, interogatoies or gotten the ptoper experts so I had to go along with the settlement. He told me, although he denies it, that "after doiing this for 20 years you lose your zeal for it." when I told him he was not acting as my advocate. Turns out while he had no 'zeal; for my case he was the lead diet drug Phen fen lawyer where he helped win a 54 million dollar settlement. he has been quoted since saying some of the plintiffs, who were in the class action suit and received money did not suffer damage.
He is the perfect anecdote for why there should not be class action suits and why there should be mediction for medical malpractice.
(By the way fee dispute gave me a small amount more and took away from his fee...and then wrote in their findings they had "found for the lawyer" so that he has no mark against him. No matter how you look at it the litigation system stinks as long as the people who take oaths to preserve it and its integrity behave like Michael Fishbein,
_____________________________________________________________
, "We have little difficulty in concluding that Dr. Jannetta's testimony at deposition was different than, or inconsistent with, the testimony at trial." Levy v Jannetta, CCP Allegheny County, GD 81-7689; appeal -J. A370017/92 Levy v Jannetta et al, No. 00150 Pittsburgh, 1992. settled, 1995
Reply
Saturday 17 October
By deedee
I worked for personal injury attorneys and for counsel representing a major insurance company and from experience I can you that in the end every one loses. The attorney's fees and the settlement is passed on to the consumer. The only ones who truly benefit are the lawyers and the "expert witnesses." What happened to grace and mercy and forgiveness. Those people in Rwanda who suffered awful atrocities speak of forgiveness not vengeance. That's why this country is so messed up, no one wants to forgive. We are for ever seeking vengeance. Attorneys will go after "deep pockets" and companies cower because they don't want publicity and the bottom line is that they know they will pass the costs on the consumers of whatever goods or service. I have had many things happened to me or a family member that warranted lawsuits, but we chose forgiveness. We have been blessed beyond measure. This woman and her attorney are so selfish. They are thinking of their pockets. They are not thinking of the possibility of many people losing jobs, etc. There is more to joy to life beyond money.
Saturday 17 October
By Mike
Saatchi & Saatchi? A Japanese ad firm? Don't forget you're dealing with the same folks who brought you hiri-kiri and kamikazis. Pretty intense group of folks. It took an atom bomb to get them to clean up their act.
Reply
Sunday 18 October
By angelo
Saatchi is a very well known British ad firm, and likely employs lots of Americans.
Saturday 17 October
By Louisa M Rinaldi
This is surely as difficult to accept, sort out and take/or not take suit action on, who and where.
Ed, should watch who's toes or paws you steps on, You could almost sound like a Bowler yourself; and one living in the Dark ages, far from from today's day and age of high tech. which brings it bads along the good.
Let the young woman have here day in court and in this country with the great justice sytsem, and the people who honestly sit in that court rooms, she may just win her $lottery#. I know I would do the same, The world is trying to come together, and still stay independent . . .Freedom isn't Free~Give Peace a chance.
Reply
Saturday 17 October
By rob
women are scared of everything, they think the boogie mans behind every tree, women are weird that way
Reply
Monday 19 October
By A Woman
Your an idiot. Men are afraid of change, and of their own faults. At least women are usually scared of things that can ACTUALLY hurt them. Are you single or in an unhappy marriage? If so, I can see why.
Monday 19 October
By carah
don't be a jerk rob, there are plenty of women out there are whom are not scared of most things, let alone everything. And exactly what is your experience base with women? I'de be mildly worried over this as would most people, even men. however she might have been a little gulliable to just believe what they said.
By the way i think she should definately sue the company and criminal charges should be brought the individuals whom knew about the content of this add campaign.
Saturday 17 October
By adam
ummmmm, again somone was so scared and affected by the actions of another but she didn't call the police? she just all the sudden realized she wanted to sue and see what she could get.
Reply