Content deleted Content added
Spelling and Grammer cleanup. |
m →Legality: very minor grammar correction |
||
Line 21:
While detractors of matrix schemes contend that the sites and business models are illegal, in America there are no laws naming the schemes as illegal, and no rulings stating that the business model operates outside of law. There are, however, some challenges currently in the court system. In addition, the U.S. [[Federal Trade Commission]] and the U.K. [[Trading Standards]] have issued warnings to the public about the sites, stating that due to the ease by which these models can be manipulated for fraudulent purposes, care should be taken and research done on the scheme in question prior to purchasing from them with the intent on receiving the list gift. The rewards for entering into a successful matrix scheme are substantial. However, several matrix sites have shut down whilst defending lawsuits, such as the civil action taken against the EZExpo.com. {{fact}}
The U.K. Office of Fair Trading, however, has declared some of them to be illegal. On July 1st, 2005, the Office of Fair Trading in England declared that two matrix schemes were a form of illegal lottery, pulsematrix.com and phones4everyone (at themobilematrix.com). <ref name =oftpress2>{{cite web | url =http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press+releases/2005/118-05.htm | title = Website schemes offering 'free' electronic gadgets stopped by OFT| accessdate = 2005-07-01}}</ref> In the UK some matrix sites may claim they are a private lottery, and thus operate legally. Opponents of matrix schemes believe otherwise. Nonetheless, neither the Office of Fair Trading or the Department of Trade and Industry has tested this argument in a court of law. All court cases to date have been in the civil court system, and so it is still unclear whether matrix schemes operate within the law.
In 2003 EZExpo and several payment processors were sued in the civil courts for running an illegal lottery in the state of California, with the payment processors abetting the scam.<ref>{{cite web | url =http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=371626 | title = California Courts - Appelate Court Case Information -Docket Entries| accessdate = 2005-08-06}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web | url =http://wagelaw.typepad.com/wage_law/2006/05/prop_64_cases_t.html | title = Wage Law: Prop 64 Cases To Be Argued | accessdate = 2005-08-06}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url =http://www.diaz-law.com/diazlaw/2005/05/prop_64_to_the_.html | title = The Antitrust Monitor: Prop 64 to the Rescue for Neovi, PaySystems, and PayPal But Not for Ginix| accessdate = 2005-08-06}}</ref> However, the civil case is still ongoing.
| |||