In a nutshell, Honda Village lied to us when we bought our car, lied to us after the fact, ignored our complaints, sent us (and others) intentionally misleading junk mail and refused to stop when asked, sent us lots of spam and refused to stop when asked, and did mediocre auto-body work for us which took multiple attempts to get right (this last point was Village Collision, another business within the Village Automotive Group umbrella of which Honda Village is a part).

Nevertheless, Honda Village is where we bought our Honda Odyssey minivan, and they are the closest Honda dealership to our house, so when we need service done that is warranty- or recall-related and/or inexpensive and hard enough for them to screw up, we take our van there. Or so I thought.

A number of months ago, I brought our van to Honda Village for some simple service or recall or something; I forget the details. After looking up our van in the computer, the associate informed me that I had to speak to the service department manager about something. I went into the manager’s office, where he informed me that Honda Village would not service my vehicle.

Honda Village has never apologized for any of the things I complained to them about. They have never acknowledged doing anything wrong, unless you consider it an “apology” when they paid me the refund I demanded for the warranty which they convinced me to purchase by outright lying to me about its coverage (fraud!).

Their response to my legitimate complaints was not to acknowledge them and try to improve. No, their response has been to continue on with business as usual and refuse to serve me.

Judge for yourself whether this is a business which deserves your patronage.

P.S. I just realized that I never got around to posting what happened after my last letter to Honda Village’s lawyer. So, for those who are curious… Their lawyer sent back a response asserting that the precedents on which I was relying were out-of-date, and citing a newer precedent which he claimed precluded my filing a Chapter 93a claim against Honda Village. After reviewing that newer precedent, I thought he was probably right, and in any case didn’t have any more time to waste on it, so I dropped it.

I remain somewhat appalled by what happened, but I think it’s important to give credit where credit is due. Since I sent them the complaint which I posted, they have been quite responsive, culminating with this email which I received yesterday from a senior employee of the organization:

While it’s unacceptable that it took them so long to solve this problem, it’s important to recognize that they’ve clearly now got their act together. This is definitely a case of “better late than never.” Thank you, MADD, for doing the right thing.

Kimberly Earle, CEO
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Fax: (972) 869-2206

To whom it may concern:

My efforts to get MADD to stop sending me junk mail commenced almost exactly a year ago, on April 21, 2010, with a message sent to you through your web site. I received a response the same day, claiming that it would take “two to three months” for the mailings to stop.

I received another mailing on September 7, 2010, so I sent email to donations@madd.org and asked again to be removed from your list. I received a response on September 14: ““We are looking into why was this change. But know that we have flag your account again for future removal.” How embarrassing it must be for you that the people whom you have responding to emails can’t write proper English.

I received another mailing on November 19, 2010. I emailed donations@madd.org again and received no response.

I received another mailing around the end of 2010. On January 2, 2011, I sent you a fax at (972) 869-2206 asking, for the fourth time, for you to stop sending me junk mail. Again, I received no response.

I’ve received another mailing from you today.

Your abject failure over the course of an entire year to abide by my simple request to be removed from your mailing list has ensured two things:

1. I will never, ever donate another penny to your organization or support it in any other way.
2. I will publish this letter on my popular consumer activism blog, urging all of my readers to direct their support to organizations which don’t waste money sending mailings to people who don’t want them or ignore the express wishes of their supporters.

I have been contacting merchants and political and charitable organizations for over three and a half years to eliminate the flood of junk mail in my mailbox. I can count on one hand the number of organizations which have been incapable of honoring unsubscribe requests. How sad that a supposedly reputable organization like MADD is a member of that disreputable group.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Kamens

CC: donations@madd.org

I’ve had run-ins of varying magnitude about this with numerous organizations over the years. The ones that I post about here are the worst of the worst. They have either overtly refused to accommodate my requests, or claimed repeatedly, but falsely, that they had done so.

Today, I am forced to add Yad Sarah to this disreputable bunch. I am sorry to do this, because the work Yad Sarah claims to do is important, and because they appear to be respected by other organizations which I respect and tend to trust. However, after my experience with them, I must wonder how efficiently and effectively they use the money entrusted to them by donors to perform their mission.

I have had to ask Yad Sarah to stop spamming me on no less than four separate occasions, in July 2004, August 2004, May 2005, and most recently July 2010. Each time I made the request, they claimed that it had been acted upon. Each of the first three times, it turned out that it had not. Although I give them credit for managing to stop spamming me for over five years after my May 2005 request, I must ask which part of “You must remove my e-mail address from any and all of your mailing lists, immediately and permanently,” which is what I wrote to them in July 2004, they are incapable of understanding.

I had similar trouble getting their American fundraising arm, Friends of Yad Sarah, to remove me from their postal mailing list. I wrote to them on three separate occasions, first by email and then twice by fax, before I finally got a response. The person who responded claimed, “This is the first request we received,” which means that either she was comfortable implying that a donor is a liar, or the organization is so shoddily run that they lose track on a regular basis of attempts by donors to contact them. At least they seem to have done the right thing when they finally responded — I haven’t received any junk mail from them since April 2009.

I encourage those who value Yad Sarah’s work and might choose to support them to seek out better run organizations that will put your money to better use.

(click for larger image)

This one is a tiny, tiny bit less deceptive than the Honda Village mailings: notice how it has the word “Auto” hidden in the return address!

The mailing inside was also deceptive.  No, actually, it was an outright lie.  It’s one of those “trade in your vehicle now!” hard sells, which informs me, “Our Records Indicate Your 2007 Honda Odyssey Has A Trade Value Between: $16,500 and $18,450″.  Funny how the Kelly Blue Book says its value is between $13,200 and $15,550.  Big difference!

We were occasionally using Herb Chambers Honda’s service department, but now I guess we’ll have to find yet another dealership when we need genuine Honda service for whatever reason.

Are there any car dealerships that don’t engage in slimy sales practices?  Discuss amongst yourselves.

I enjoyed your recent letter about the direct and indirect ways in which CJP has positively affected your life. Many in the Jewish community don’t realize how pervasive and beneficial CJP’s influence is, and I think it is extremely valuable to occasionally remind people. Your letter was an especially persuasive and effective reminder.

Having said that, I have a minor complaint I would like to share with you. I expect the merchants and organizations which I support to respect people’s privacy. There is one particular marketing / PR strategy which demonstrates an overt lack of respect privacy, and I was very sorry to see that your letter employed it.

I am speaking of the tactic of sending promotional materials in unmarked envelopes, sometimes even with handwritten rather than printed addresses, in an effort to fool their recipients into thinking that they contain personal rather than promotional correspondence.

There is only one reason for an official letter from the CJP, on CJP letterhead, to be sent in an envelope without any CJP markings on it, and that is to circumvent the fact that some recipients will discard a marked envelope unopened. That is their right, and intentionally circumventing it is akin to a traveling salesman’s foot in the door. Frankly, it’s just plain rude.

I hope that the CJP will reconsider the use of this technique in the future.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Kamens

I received in the mail today a letter from E. Peter Mullane, the lawyer whom Village Automotive Group has apparently retained to respond to my Chapter 93a letter about their deceptive advertising practices.

It is worth noting that E. Peter Mullane’s chief claim to fame is that he is one of the lawyers who defended John J. Connolly Jr., the former FBI agent who was convicted in federal court of racketeering, obstruction of justice, murder and conspiracy to commit murder and will be spending the rest of his life in prison.  Nice!

I am not going to publish Mullane’s letter here, because there are all kinds of legal issues with that, and… well… Mullane is a lawyer, y’know?  I will, however, publish the response I just sent him, from which you can get a pretty good idea of the claims he made in his letter.  Enjoy!

E. Peter Mullane, Esq.
6 Bennett Street
Cambridge, MA 02138-5708

Dear Mr. Mullane,

I received your letter today concerning Village Automotive Group. Not Honda Village, because the deceptive practices about which I wrote are being used by multiple VAG dealerships, and because Honda Village is not a registered corporation but rather is part of Village Automotive Group, Inc. As such, any class action undertaken in response to these practices will name VAG as the defendant.

While agree with your characterization of the advertising industry as “primarily and unapologetically based upon the premises and goal of the advertisers trying to get people to buy things they perhaps do not really need, or to use products that have less value than is being represented and touted by the manufacturer,” the law views these objectives differently from intentional deception, i.e., knowingly misleading consumers into believing something that is completely and objectively false.

Concerning your example, “the pharmaceutical companies who spend billions of dollars advertising prescription drugs that commonly do not perform as advertised, and in fact in many cases have undisclosed side-effects that are actually harmful to the consumer,” in fact, drug companies are prohibited from knowingly making false claims and are required to disclose side effects. There have been several high-profile cases recently when drug companies have been fined and prosecuted for failures in this regard.

As for your other example, “companies advertising the social benefits of alcohol and tobacco use, while promoting the fiction and deception that the use of those products is the key to the road to happiness and having a fun time,” advertisements are permitted to employ exaggeration and hyperbole which a reasonable man would recognize as such, and the alcohol and tobacco advertisements to which you refer clearly fall into this category, and the law does not regard them as “deception.”

As for your assertion that the advertising industry is protected by the First Amendment, that is true to a large extent, but again, that protection does not apply to intentional, knowing deception. If that were not so, then the deceptive advertising elements of Chapter 93a would have been ruled unconstitutional long ago. For example, an oriental rug store may not repeatedly advertise fake “Going out of business!” sales to dupe customers into thinking that they are getting a good deal when they are not.

The envelopes which Village Automotive Group is using to mail its advertisements to consumers are designed to intentionally, knowingly deceive the recipients into thinking that their content is different and more important than it actually is. This is true for at least three different reasons:

1. The sender of the mailings is not identified on the outside of the envelopes.
2. The envelopes bear markings designed to make them falsely appear to be Certified Mail™, thus making the contents of the envelopes appear to be more important than they actually are.
3. The other markings on the envelopes, e.g., the printed year and the font used for the return address, are designed to mimic those of mailings sent by the federal government (most notably, the IRS and/or Social Security Administration), thus, once again, making it appear that the contents of the envelopes are far more personal and important than they actually are.

Unlike an alcohol or tobacco advertisement, a reasonable man would not recognize the deception being promulgated by one of these envelopes until he had already opened it. Indeed, the strategies employed by these envelopes are designed and intended to deceive a reasonable man.

According to Duclersaint v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 427 Mass. 809, 696 NE2d 536 (1998) “A practice may be deceptive if it reasonably could be found to have caused the plaintiff to act differently than he otherwise would have acted.” That is clearly the case here, as the entire purpose of these deceptive envelopes is to cause their recipients to open them rather than throwing them in the trash as they would have if they had recognized their real origin and purpose.

On the subject of damages, Chapter 93a does not limit itself to actual damages, but rather permits redress for incidental damages as well. Indeed, according to Leardi v. Brown, 394 Mass. 151 (1985). Chapter 93A can be used to redress any injury, defined as “invasion of a legally protected interest.” and “plaintiffs are entitled to nominal damages even where no actual damages are shown.”

For example, if a consumer sees a “Going out of business!” banner in the window of a rug store, enters the store thinking he is going to get a bargain on a rug, and discovers that in fact the rugs being sold are of poor quality and not worth even the supposedly “bargain” prices being asked for them, he may file a claim against the store under Chapter 93a even if he did not purchase a rug, citing as damages the lost of time spent determining that the store’s advertisement was deceptive.

I assert time damages resulting from lost time spent opening your client’s deceptive advertisements before realizing their deceptive nature, as well lost time spent attempting to get your client to stop sending me these advertisements. I further assert damages resulting from emotional distress: since purchasing a vehicle from your client, I have become disgusted by their deceptive and dishonest practices and intensely ashamed that I ever did business with them, and I am forced to relive these painful emotions every time I receive another advertisement from your client. I further assert damages from invasion of privacy resulting from your client’s failure to stop sending me the advertisements when I asked them to do so. By the way, thank you for confirming that your client received that request, thereby making it impossible claim that they did not, should this matter go to trial.

Even if you are correct that my request was passed on to a vendor who failed to act on it, that does not diminish your client’s liability. The vendor was acting as a paid agent of your client, and it was incumbent upon your client to ensure that the vendor had proper procedures in place to ensure that requests such as mine were properly handled. Furthermore, concerning the nature of the advertisements, your client obviously worked with the vendor to design them and is thus liable for the intentional deception. Nevertheless, you can be sure that if a class action is initiated against your client for employing these deceptive practices, the advertising vendor through which the mailings were sent will be named as an additional defendant.

I have now demonstrated that the actions of your client were both unlawful and injurious under Chapter 93a. I include here by reference, without modification, the demands I enumerated in my last letter. I look forward to your prompt reply.

January 22, 2010

Ray Ciccolo
Village Automotive Group
75 North Beacon Street
Allston, MA 02134-1912

Dear Mr. Ciccolo,

Once again, I find myself sending you a M.G.L. Chapter 93a letter because of Honda Village’s deceptive trade practices.

In June 2009, Honda Village started sending me promotional materials in envelopes that look like this:

[image elided; see my previous blog posting]

I am not going to waste my time explaining why this is clearly intended to deceive the recipient about the source, importance, and content of these mailings. I know this is so; you know this is so; the methods of deception and intent to deceive are obvious. I’m quite certain that a judge will agree.

I received a number of these mailings before I finally decided to ask you to stop sending them. On October 15, I sent a message through the contact form on your Web site which read as follows:

(Do not add my email address to any bulk email lists as a result of this submission. I am providing you with my email address only so that you can respond to this request. NO OTHER USE OF MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS AUTHORIZED.)

(Do not add my postal mailing address to any direct-marketing lists as a result of this submission. I am providing you with my postal address only so that you can remove me from your direct-marketing list as described below. NO OTHER USE OF MY POSTAL ADDRESS IS AUTHORIZED.)

For months now, you have been sending me junk mail in envelopes that you have intentionally designed to deceive recipients. You’ve made them look like some sort of official certified or registered mail, and you’ve intentionally left your company name and return address off of the envelopes. These envelopes are clearly designed to get people to open them, when they would just throw them in the trash if it was obvious they were from you.

This kind of deceptive direct-mail advertising is exceedingly slimy. It is distressing to me that I purchased a vehicle from a company that employs such slimy tactics. You have proven to me, unfortunately not for the first time, that my initial impression, that you were different from all the other slimy car dealers out there, was wrong.

Whatever mailing list I am on to be sent these slimy mailings — please get me off of it. Right now. And leave me off of it. Permanently.

Honda Village did not have the courtesy to reply. Furthermore, since I sent the message quoted above, I have received at least two more of these offensive mailings, the most recent one today.

If you had stopped sending these when I asked you to stop, I would have left it at that. But since you didn’t, I have decided to teach you a lesson not only about not sending junk mail to people who have asked you to stop, but also about engaging in deceptive trade practices.

Chapter 93a stipulates that individuals may sue businesses which engage in deceptive trade practices for the greater of actual damages or $25. The law further stipulates that double or even triple damages shall be awarded for willful violations and/or when the violator refuses to grant relief. Finally, the law stipulates that a claim for damages may be made by the plaintiff for each separate violation.

At first glance, $25, may not seem like a lot. However, I have documented at least four such mailings, which increases the damages to $100. Given that your attempt to deceive is clearly willful, and that you failed to grant relief by stopping the mailings when I asked you to, triple damages are warranted, i.e., $300. And of course there’s also the filing fee.

But wait, there’s more. Chapter 93a (Section 9) also has this to say:

(2) Any persons entitled to bring such action may, if the use or employment of the unfair or deceptive act or practice has caused similar injury to numerous other persons similarly situated and if the court finds in a preliminary hearing that he adequately and fairly represents such other persons, bring the action on behalf of himself and such other similarly injured and situated persons; the court shall require that notice of such action be given to unnamed petitioners in the most effective practicable manner.

In other words, I can and will argue, if you force me to take you to court, that every single recipient of these mailings is entitled to $25 in damages, tripled to $75, for every single one of the mailings they received. That will obviously bump the case out of Small Claims Court and into Superior Court. That’s fine with me, since I have no doubt that I’ll be able to find a class-action lawyer willing to take the case on contingency.

How much do you reckon it’ll cost you to defend against this lawsuit, even if by some miracle you are successful?

As required by Chapter 93a, here are my demands for an acceptable settlement to this matter:

1. You will pay me $200 (two hundred dollars), i.e., double the minimum damages to which I am entitled under Chapter 93a, as compensation for the time I’ve spent publicizing and trying to stop your deceptive practices. This is a fair compromise to save us both the trouble of going to court, where I would surely be awarded triple damages.
2. You will permanently cease and desist from sending promotional postal and electronic mailings of any sort to my wife or me.
3. You will agree in writing that any future promotional mailing sent by you to my wife or me will ipso facto cause us undue emotional distress, and that you will pay damages to us in the amount of $500 (five hundred dollars) for each such mailing.
4. While not admitting fault, you will agree in writing to permanently cease and desist from sending promotional mailings, to anyone (i.e., not merely to my wife and me), that are designed to deceive the recipient as to their contents. Furthermore, you will agree to always identify Honda Village or Village Automotive Group by name on the outside of all future promotional mailings.
5. You will agree in writing that any future promotional mailings from you which do not identify Honda Village or Village Automotive Group by name on the outside shall ipso facto constitute a deceptive trade practice under Chapter 93a.
6. You will agree in writing to allow me to publish your response to this letter, including but not limited to the commitments enumerated in the previous two paragraphs, on my blog.

As required by Chapter 93a, I will await your response for 30 days from the date of this letter before initiating legal action.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Kamens

More junk mail arrived in late March, so I asked him again, this time using both the form and a phone call.

He sent me back a snarky response.  I, in term, sent him an equally snarky response.  He responded a second time, and this time he was somewhat less snarky and more conciliatory.

Conciliatory though he may have been, he didn’t actually do what I asked.  Since then, I have received at least five pieces of junk mail from him, and one from another Realtor in his office.

It seems that refrigerator magnets are Frank’s gimmick, since several of the junk mailings have contained them — the Patriots schedule, the Red Sox schedule, a 2010 calendar, etc.  I have no use for any of these, and they are far worse for the environment than simple paper junk mail.

Vanguard Realty is right in my neighborhood.  When my wife and I decide to sell our house, using a Realtor near us would be quite convenient both to us and to potential buyers.  But we’re not going to use one who ignores the most basic of requests (“stop sending us junk mail!”) from potential customers, and in the process damages the environment.

One cannot help but wonder why Frank doesn’t seem to understand that alienating potential customers is bad for business.

It is worth noting that a complete inability to handle unsubscribing people from their mailing list is not this organization’s only problem with bulk mailing. I also had problems with them back in 2007 when they added me to a bulk email list without my consent and it took several requests over the course of several months to get them to remove me.