Direct Line letter to Befuddle Limited

[befuddle]

Tweet

I have received a four page letter this weekend from a law firm representing RBS Direct Line.

They have an issue in that a page on my white label cashback site promotes Direct Line via an inactive TradeDoubler link and that there are meta keywords in the pages that include their trademarked term.

I have deleted the content of the page immediately but I'm unable to delete the page, as it's a white label service and I've not got full control of the content yet from G4S. I'll be following that up asap, as there'll be other affiliate sites affected too.

I have no issue in removing the content or replying to their letter to prevent legal proceedings but there's a part that is not clear, which reads:

'I undertake ... To reimburse your legal costs incurred in this matter on an indemnity basis'

Does that mean they'll be wanting money for the costs to date including sending that letter? Or is it just for costs for potential future proceedings?

I've not got and won't be getting a solicitor, which they recommend I do, so if anyone can put my mind at ease or provide some tlc, it'll be appreciated.

Without Prejudice
and all that.

Ray

[3wdl]

Are you actually doing anything wrong?

Surely all you're doing is linking to a site? When did that become against the law?

TBH, if I got that through I'd tell them where to go, but then I've always been slightly hot-headed like that.

Just my 2p (and completely un-work-related personal views).

[nickhx]

'I undertake ... To reimburse your legal costs incurred in this matter on an indemnity basis'

This essentially means that they can charge back to you all of their legal costs on a pound-for-pound basis (irrespective of their amount and whether or not they have been reasonably incurred).

This is unreasonable and under no circumstances should you agree to this.

[bburgess1]

I have received a four page letter this weekend from a law firm representing RBS Direct Line.

They have an issue in that a page on my white label cashback site promotes Direct Line via an inactive TradeDoubler link and that there are meta keywords in the pages that include their trademarked term.

I have deleted the content of the page immediately but I'm unable to delete the page, as it's a white label service and I've not got full control of the content yet from G4S. I'll be following that up asap, as there'll be other affiliate sites affected too.

I have no issue in removing the content or replying to their letter to prevent legal proceedings but there's a part that is not clear, which reads:

'I undertake ... To reimburse your legal costs incurred in this matter on an indemnity basis'

Does that mean they'll be wanting money for the costs to date including sending that letter? Or is it just for costs for potential future proceedings?

I've not got and won't be getting a solicitor, which they recommend I do, so if anyone can put my mind at ease or provide some tlc, it'll be appreciated.

Without Prejudice
and all that.

Ray

I had the same.. They frightened the life out of me, I signed that all links would be taken down.. sent it to get there before the date.. Now I have got another the same.. mine was for priveledge on OMG..
I actually took the site down..

Barbara

[befuddle]

With the white label cash back site, it's in my contract that I don't actually own the merchant's data and that the site itself is owned by the provider.

I'm still going to do my bit to comply and I'll send them a letter saying I've done so but not one saying I'll accept their legal bills.

On another note, RBS is the same company as my bank Natwest, so I'm now considering moving all my money to another bank.

[befuddle]

Barbara, are you saying they sent you a letter, you replied and then they sent you the same letter again? ie effectively ignoring your letter?

Ray

[Barry]

I get emails from them on a constant basis asking how I get traffic for their programs and how exactly I promote them - and I mean like once a month. They always come in between the emails I get asking how many leads they think I can do for them and in between the other emails saying stuff like 'your leads are looking low this week, when do I expect them to rise again' - In short I dont mind answering these questions - but not on a weekly basis.

They obviously are not as frightening as the legal letter you have had but it doesn't surprise me that they have gone straight in with an unreasonably sounding legal letter.

Thanks for the info, I also have a whitelabel cashback site, so fingers crossed I have not got a letter on its way.

Please let us know how you get on.

Ta

Baz

[ian-d]

From experience (not within AM) responding to these kind of threatening letters just encourages them to pursue further, no matter whether they are right or wrong. I'd suggest you just carry out the requested changes providing your happy to do so and leave it at that, don't respond, these companies frive on "making contact".

[befuddle]

Are TradeDoubler and OMG aware of these letters? I'd suggest that these networks get in touch with affiliates immediately to make sure any redundant Direct Line pages are removed from their sites.

The letter claimed that I was not being honest and it provided details on how I was not actually linking to Direct Line. Which Befuddles me.

Is there an active affiliate scheme at the moment? There's some very high profile sites with Direct Line pages out there.

[Barry]

They are on OMG.

Ta

Baz

[befuddle]

Oh yes, I can see I'm an active affiliate of theirs on OMG.

[bapages]

So are they saying that because they chose to move networks and hence gave you prior agrrment to promote them on TD that they now accuse you of dishonesty?

[befuddle]

I do have to wonder whether I would have received this letter advising that I seek legal advice if there was simply an active OMG tracking link in place rather than an inactive TradeDoubler link.

Edit: For the record, they are not my tracking links. It's a white label site and by contract I do not own the site, nor its database of contents.

[bapages]

I did notice a couple of weeks back an IP logged on our DL page from an Brand Protection agency based in Cambs. I wonder if this is related? I suspect what they are inferring is you are using the brand to attract traffic for the purpose of generating adverting revenue for other insurers and assume if you had valid OMG links it would not be an issue.

I also suspect it only affects those rated in natural listings.

[3wdl]

I did notice a couple of weeks back an IP logged on our DL page from an Brand Protection agency based in Cambs. I wonder if this is related? I suspect what they are inferring is you are using the brand to attract traffic for the purpose of generating adverting revenue for other insurers and assume if you had valid OMG links it would not be an issue.

I also suspect it only affects those rated in natural listings.

More likely to be as they banned incentive sites a while back?