Comments on: Deal or Raw Deal?

By: Sean

Sean — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 02:49:58 +0000

If this is illegal, so is any other contest you can enter by either buying a product or sending in a letter.

By: OBQuiet

OBQuiet — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:05:56 +0000

I could be wrong(I often am) but didn’t the show also offer the option of free registration at their web site?

As someone else mentioned, if all the $0.99 went to a Telecom company for registering, tracking and delivering the info, how is it different from the stamp you use sending in entry?

By: xrey

xrey — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:20:28 +0000

*Most* sweepstakes say “No Purchase Necessary” to avoid state laws prohibiting gambling.

Deal or No Deal obviously didn’t do their homework, or they put profit ahead of legal security.

Still, does anyone believe that the plaintiffs would not have accepted the $10,000 if they had won?

By: kimsch

kimsch — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:07:51 +0000

In Vermont, one doesn’t even send in a stamped self-addressed envelope for a contest. There is no cost at all allowed so one would just send in a self-addressed envelope without the stamp. Washington state may have this rule as well. Otherwise the contest or sweepstakes is illegal in the state of Vermont (and perhaps Washington).

By: ColoComment

ColoComment — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:01:50 +0000

“Who received the $.99, the show or the communications company that passed on the messages?” Good question.

If the communications company was the recipient, then how is that any different from a $0.41 first-class stamp for a mailed entry for a no-purchase sweepstakes?

By: markm

markm — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:42:28 +0000

Who received the $.99, the show or the communications company that passed on the messages?

By: BP

BP — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:22:02 +0000

Wouldn’t it be fantastic if a GA DA had the integrity to prosecute everyone who returned a claim form for participating in what they just judicially admitted to be illegal gambling?