===
Update: It seems like people want the short-version of the story.
Here it is:
A few weeks ago Commission Junction sent me an email saying I was in violation of their terms and conditions and that I needed to take down a specific webpage at www.incomemax.com or they would close my Commission Junction account.
The webpage they wanted removed framed a page from the babycenter.com website. I guess there’s a relationship between babycenter.com and Commission Junction. However, the page at Incomemax.com doesn’t use a Commission Junction link and was created back in the year 2000 in response to a request (presumably from babycenter.com). So the page was created before the account that Commission Junction was threatening to close even existed!
When I raised this point with Commission Junction they agreed that I was not in violation of their agreement. They didn’t apologise for being wrong. I think they used unnecessary bullying tactics and should take longer to investigate each incident before threatening to close accounts.
===
If you’ve got a few minutes, here’s the movie version…
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
(for a much larger version, click here)
I don’t think it’s right that Commission Junction can try to bully me into taking down a webpage when they were 100% absolutely, categorically, in the wrong.
What do you think? Should Commission Junction have done just a little bit of research before firing off a legal email threatening me with account closure? How long would it have taken them to work out that the incident they were complaining about didn’t even use a Commission Junction link?
Am I right to get worked up about this? Is it an important principle to defend, or am I over-reacting?
It usually takes a lot to get me into “rant mode”, but Commission Junction managed it!