Comments on: Duick Blind: California Woman Sues After Being “Punked” by Toyota

By: NYLSBlog

NYLSBlog — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:03:41 +0000

New York Law School’s blog, “Legal as She is Spoke,” explores the merits of Ms. Duick’s claim against Toyota. Check it out!

http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/10/24/toyota-punk’d-you/

“Like” us on Facebook if you enjoyed the read!

By: From The Terrible Idea File: Toyota's 'Cyberstalking' Guerrilla Ad Campaign - Forbes

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:41:17 +0000

[...] of emotional distress and unfair, unlawful, and deceptive trade practices, among other claims. Said legal scholar Jonathan Turley when this lawsuit was first filed in L.A. in 2009: “I am astonished that any lawyer reviewed [...]

By: Jh

Jh — Thu, 19 May 2011 08:49:20 +0000

Oh the sue happy way of life… What an easy way to make 10 million bucks. She should spend her energy on her eating disorder.. But I guess you need that to be a model..

What amazes me is that this frail, insecure “model” wants to be a therapist now.

By: Toyota and Stalking and Stuff « Happily Bitter

Toyota and Stalking and Stuff « Happily Bitter — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 08:50:54 +0000

[...] you heard of Amber Duick? Toyota has – she is suing them because she says she was traumatized by a marketing [...]

By: scribadiva

scribadiva — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:24:37 +0000

Elaine said it all: you can’t get punkd if you are agreeing to get punkd. And the car dealers are obviously insane and cruel.

A murderous stalker will convince me to buy a car? This was potentially a murderous situation if this woman totally bugged out, like I would.

I know I sound like an old fogey, but since when are all the boundaries of civil life now optional? I understand the right wing’s lack of scruples, but is it invading every area of our lives??

By: Philosimphy

Philosimphy — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:03:28 +0000

Wow, I was reading the S&S site, well the page about the CEO Kevin Roberts who also has a link to another site with his… umm…concept? …. called “Lovemarks” -

“” About Lovemarks — The Future Beyond Brands

Brands have run out of juice. More and more people in the world have grown to expect great performance from products, services and experiences.
….
Lovemarks reach your heart as well as your mind, creating an intimate, emotional connection that you just can’t live without. Ever.

Take a brand away and people will find a replacement. Take a Lovemark away and people will protest its absence. Lovemarks are a relationship, not a mere transaction. You don’t just buy Lovemarks, you embrace them passionately. That’s why you never want to let go. “”

http://www.lovemarks.com/index.php?pageID=20020
it continues explaining the hallmarks of a Lovemark are “mystery, sensuality, and intimacy”

That all sounds pretty creepy to me, in light of this stalky ad anyway… Sounds like somebody doesn’t understand healthy boundaries.

By: rafflaw

rafflaw — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:47:12 +0000

I have to agree that this was one weird and stupid advertising campaign! I think that this S&S advertising company are not going to be working for Toyota much longer!

By: marie

marie — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:06:23 +0000

What I don’t understand here is why Toyota imagined that any customer (even one in on the “joke”) would be encouraged to buy a car on the strength of this nonsense. Seriously, would you make a major purchase from a psychotic company?

By: GWLawSchoolMom

GWLawSchoolMom — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:22:35 +0000

punked? I’ve never heard of this and that is a good thing.
why can’t we agree to limit practical jokes to April 1st?

sometimes when you buy something online there is this little box you have to uncheck that gives the company permission to sent you email, which they will, and which I’ve become religious about avoiding.
perhaps this is how Toyota thinks this woman gave consent.

By: lottakatz

lottakatz — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:06:39 +0000

“[t]he person who made this claim specifically opted in, granting her permission to receive campaign emails and other communications from Toyota.”
———-

The very nature of the campaign, that she (and others) was to be pranked, meant that the the fact that she was being sent advertising by Toyota had to be concealed. Unless each email started or ended with a clear statement from Toyota saying that this email is part of a marketing campaign and she was in no danger then she did not give INFORMED consent for the kind of abuse she got. IMO. Going to the trouble of setting up a bogus email profile to give the appearance that the ‘stalker’ was a real person is even more evidence that Toyota wanted to put a patina of reality or credibility on the emails. I hope she gets a favorable verdict or a gi-mungus out of court settlement.

By: Elaine M.

Elaine M. — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:15:14 +0000

This was one strange marketing campaign indeed.

How can a person be pranked if he/she is expecting to be pranked?

Sounds like Saatchi & Saatchi are truly advertising “mad men.”

By: Anonymously Yours

Anonymously Yours — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:44:58 +0000

Can we say: The lady standing in her window with the Aluminum Hat makes not for a good neighbor.

By: Former Federal LEO

Former Federal LEO — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 05:49:36 +0000

Is there a Rule 13, to wit: damages for stupendous stupidity?