[jberm123]

>what's to stop the same employees and founders from following that method ad infinitum?

Informed consumers

[TeMPOraL]

Part of the task of marketing is to disinform customers. Companies existing to scam people are necessarily marketing-heavy.

[flyGuyOnTheSly]

>Companies existing to scam people are necessarily marketing-heavy.

Consumers can absolutely that.

I certainly have.

If you're screaming in my face and hurrying me along to pull out my wallet and buy something ASAP, 99 times out of 100 it's a scam.

[sieabahlpark]

I didn't realize scamming was a legal business venture.

[lotsofpulp]

Depends who you’re scamming. Quite a few powerful and rich people who I would classify as being “scammers”, but their victim is usually a group of people such as taxpayers.

[jberm123]

Did I say I support scamming?

[mehhh]

Plenty of companies never deliver a product, hence chargebacks being built into our credit & debit systems (and being available for checks in a restricted form)

[johnfactorial]

Informing all consumers in the market is not a legitimately accomplishable solution to the problem. As long as there are 350 consumers unaware that these people have done this before, and they never have a day in court over it, this story can repeat itself forever.

Maybe informed lenders is a solution, though.

[jberm123]

Assuming this is as easy as you make it out to be, don't you think it would be relatively easy to host this scam business' site offshore/anonymously and scam people outside the jurisdiction of the US courts?

[mcbuilder]

"There is a sucker born every minute"

[djshelleyshell]

I don’t think I’m a sucker for ordering a product promised to be in stock.