Recent Posts801
Living Room / Re: Google Search Results Removal
« Last post by app103 on June 13, 2014, 06:39 AM »Or an unethical opportunist taking advantage of an opportunity to create some buzz, thereby getting lots more people to link to them naturally, to replace their spammy unnatural links. Great black hat SEO tactic, if you ask me.
What other competitors have complained of delisting or sudden drop in rank that can not be attributed to recent Google Panda updates and their own bad behavior? Why would this company be targeted and not the others? What does Vivint's other competitors have to say about their claims?
Vivint isn't exactly noted for having a stellar reputation: http://en.wikipedia..../Vivint#Legal_issues
- Search engine company catches your unnatural spammy links and delists you for it.
- Search engine company then buys one of your competitors.
- You accuse search engine of shenanigans.
- Story goes viral.
- Everybody starts sharing the story and linking to you.
- You reap the benefits of all that brand new natural linking which later causes your rank in the search engine to rise, giving you an unfair advantage over your competitors.
- Profit!
What other competitors have complained of delisting or sudden drop in rank that can not be attributed to recent Google Panda updates and their own bad behavior? Why would this company be targeted and not the others? What does Vivint's other competitors have to say about their claims?
Vivint isn't exactly noted for having a stellar reputation: http://en.wikipedia..../Vivint#Legal_issues
Vivint's sales practices have resulted in nearly 3,000 complaints to the Better Business Bureau, and resulted in investigations by at least fifteen states.[54][55]
On March 15, 2013 the Kansas Attorney General entered into a Settlement Agreement with Vivint, Inc. According to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the company was accused of using a variety of deceptive practices while going door-to-door offering to install new home security systems or replace existing systems. The Attorney General's Office said the salesman failed to advise the consumers of their rights under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act and did not disclose all costs associated with switching alarm system providers.[56]
On April 26, 2013 the State of Ohio Attorney General's Office entered into an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance Settlement Agreement with Vivint, Inc. According to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, consumers filed complaints that the company made representations to consumers that its home security equipment was free, but failed to disclose the existence or amount of installation, activation and monitoring fees associated with the system. Vivint door-to-door sales representatives misrepresented the price of continued monthly monitoring fees, made representations that it was providing an upgrade to the consumer's current home security system; that the consumer's current security system company was no longer in business; or that Vivint was otherwise part of or authorized to continue monitoring the consumer's current home security system. Vivint routinely installed the home security systems on the same day the contracts were executed and within the three-day cancellation period and failed to orally inform consumers of their right to cancel the contract within three days or misrepresented the consumers' right to cancel by informing them they were signing the contract on a "trial basis" or that they had thirty days to cancel.[56]
On June 3, 2013 the State of Nebraska Attorney General's Office entered into an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance with Vivint, Inc. According to the terms of the Agreement, Vivint, Inc. shall not make any misrepresentations and/or false or misleading statements, directly or by implication, which have the tendency or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers.[56]
The State of Wisconsin took legal action against the company in September 2012, for deceptive and misleading sales tactics. The judgment ordered Vivint Inc. to refund up to $148,000 and cancel almost $450,000 in consumer debt. The judgment requires Vivint to pay refunds to consumers who were misled about their ability to cancel their alarm service contracts, as well as consumers who were misled about false alarm charges. Vivint also will remove affected consumers from collections and the company will pay forfeitures and attorneys fees to the State as well as improve their disclosures to consumers about their services and charges, making it easier for consumers to cancel their contracts if they so desire.[57][58]
Arkansas fined Vivint/APX $40,850 for over 40 violations in 2009.[59] On September 10, 2010 the State of Arkansas Attorney General's Office charged Vivint, Inc. with violating the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Vivint paid $125,000 for the costs of the investigation and prosecution of the complaint.[60] In 2008 and 2009, Vivint paid a total of $65,850 in Arkansas using improperly licensed workers.[54]
The states of Washington, Louisiana, South Carolina, Minnesota and Tennessee have all fined Vivint/APX for violating state licensing codes.[59][59][61] In Washington, police cited Vivint/APX seven times in 2008 and 2009 for having unlicensed workers install alarms.[54] Louisiana also fined Vivint for violating a Cease and Desist Order, and engaging in false, misleading, or deceptive practices.[59]
State and local prosecutors in California and Oregon have also charged Vivint with engaging in deceptive trade practices, misleading customers, and engaging in improper collections tactics. To settle these charges, Vivint has entered into consent agreements. Vivint paid $425,000 in fines in California.[62][63] Oregon fined Vivint/APX $60,000 for "targeting elderly Oregonians with misleading and high-pressure sales tactics".[64]
There are currently as of 2014, two federal lawsuits against Vivint for telemarketing (TCPA) violations.[2][65] One of them, Johansen v. Vivint, Inc., has been certified as a Class Action.
