The Entertainment Auction Association’s Auditing Process

Since yesterday’s posting about the Entertainment Auction Association a few readers have asked whether or not the association’s required audit will only be an audit of financial statements.

So to find out more about the audit, this morning I spoke with Neil Gonsalves Director of A-lign CPAs, LLC (www.aligncpa.com), listed on the EAA’s site for an audit contact. According to Neil, the audit would be an attestation engagement performed under guidance issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The engagement would begin with the company’s/penny auction site’s management first signing an assertion, this would entail written statements made by management in terms of their website and that they are maintaining effective controls that bids are only being placed by real bidders, to prevent fraudulent bidding such as shills/bots and employees from bidding on their site and also that winning auctions were fulfilled (i.e., shipped).

The audit entails looking at past auctions, for a period of a minimum of 6 months but no more than a year. At a high level, the auditing firm will take a look at actual bidding and shipping records to ensure that real bidders have been bidding and items were actually shipped to winners and other controls that the company/penny auction site has in place that may be relevant to support their assertions. There may be other procedures performed as deemed necessary around the company’s / penny auction site’s business process controls and information technology general controls.

So basically, Align or any other auditing firm with the AICPA, would receive the assertion letter and then go out to the penny auction’s office and stay there for about a week to understand the site’s processes and controls and also perform tests to see if the site can prove that they have controls in place. They would then go ahead and audit the controls and determine whether or not they agree with the assertions made. Afterwards, if the site passes the audit a report will be issued and placed on their website.

A preferred pricing for an audit with A-lign has been negotiated by the EAA. Initial membership dues are $5,000.

In my opinion, it is imperative that a penny auction site be audited by a 3rd party,  and there needs to be set rules and regulations that are followed.

Enough is Enough

Discuss penny auctions in our forum!

That’s why online pharmacies is becoming more popular over the last years. Well-known are remedies which are used to reduce inflammation caused by inflammation of the skeletal muscle etc. There were only few examples. Did somebody tell you about canadian generic Viagra? Maybe you already know about the matter. Sexual disfunction can be a result of a physical condition. Even when it has a physical reason, psychological problems can make the disorder worse. Sex drive problems are so commonly a product of how you feel that there is something to that “headache” saying after all.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
About the author: Connect with me on Google+
40 comments… add one
  • Hari Seldon December 9, 2010, 4:49 pm

    Looks good but what about companies located outside of the united states?

    I guess new legitimate businesses will get penalized since they have to wait 6 months before being reviewed

    Reply
    • Amanda December 9, 2010, 5:34 pm

      Hmm, according to the press release it sounds like it’s worldwide:http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101209005781/en/Entertainment-Auction-Association-Founded-Promote-Integrity-Rid “SAN FRANCISCO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–The Entertainment Auction Association, a new independent trade association dedicated to offering penny auction players safe and ethical bidding experiences, announces today its call-to-action for penny auctions world-wide to adhere to the practices, governing bylaws and ethics of the association to offer fair and just play to customers nationwide.” Not sure about that.

      Reply
  • Chris December 9, 2010, 7:21 pm

    I am not sure what others might think, yet I find it a bit unethical that three bidding websites are founders of a non-profit organization who’s sole role is to audit and decide who is entitled to their seal of approval.

    What is even more contradictory is http://www.swoopo.com, considered to be a founder, is a website known to fraud users, use in-house bots, and have their staff bid against members. Numerous statements all over the web have been posted by previous employees attesting this fact.
    Even members have shown proof of fraud and use of shill bidding on swoopo by the use of video and photo evidence.

    Chris

    Reply
    • Amanda December 9, 2010, 9:52 pm

      Really, can you post the evidence?

      Reply
    • Amanda December 11, 2010, 4:37 pm

      Post the proof Chris

      Reply
      • Chris December 12, 2010, 6:24 am

        There are billions of websites out there. When I found the evidence it was in 2009 (on the web one year is a long time) and at the time there were only a few pages of complaints made against Swoopo. There was photo, video, as well as written evidence from users, members, previous employees, who had no problem in divulging their identity. At the time I was only browsing the idea of trying swoopo and was doing some research on them.
        I should have kept the link’s as bookmarks but did not.

        Since then, thousands of complaints have flourished. When you search Google or Binge for complaints made against swoopo, the amount of pages that appear can discourage one to pursue on.

        I can only encourage you to also take the time to find out for yourself and ‘Post the proof’… as you say, on PAW.

        Reply
  • Chris December 10, 2010, 5:50 am

    Just Google it.

    It was a while back, but I’ll see what I can find.

    Reply
  • Hari Seldon December 10, 2010, 8:35 am

    LOL Swoopo created this business, you can’t just come here and pretend they are fraudulent.

    Reply
  • james December 10, 2010, 10:15 am

    Lol 5000, looks like The Entertainment Auction Association’s Auditing Process are the scamers

    Reply
  • Mark T. December 11, 2010, 2:12 am

    Lets not forget that Bidcactus is accredited and Audited and a founder of the new EAA but yet they own multiple fake sites that are news sites like penny times daily etc ..

    Also you had a post a while back for http://www.pennyauctionwatch.com/2010/05/bidcactus-proves-legitimacy/ Does this mean if I start a penny auction site and have it audited then i can advertise on this site and it wont be bad mouthed.

    Amanda, I am sorry but I see it all and it all smells the same. Bidcactus has so many complaints of charging without notice, about billing disclosures, etc etc etc., that it stinks. So the credibility of the EAA stinks of collusion.

    Forming an organization to legitimize an industry is been around for a long time like the DMA or ETA etc which are real. However When its based on the three involved and PAW being so pro 3 that it does not make sense.

    Listen Frank Han is a man who has made success and done very well and I cant say anything negative about someone who works hard and makes success for themselves.

    But I am starting to doubt who is really behind PAW. Who owns it, and who is really calling the shots, Bidcactus Swoopo or what?

    I have watched this all evolve and have taken more interest in all of it more than I should since my time is valuable but it blows my mind on how people react to posts and how this site is used. I dont think the EAA is going to really make a difference. I think your gonna see people fight it out period.

    Your gonna see some sites pony up and start kicking back from all the posts and bad press from paw and an organization who is founded by companies who have hundreds of complaints but yet they are heavily advertised on this site.

    More and more companies are launching and some of them are using personalities like Skoreit and Jim Rome. However when people or venture capital groups see the potential in it they will rise. I highly suggest you use this site as a review site and allow it to be for that purpose, but you are loosing all credibility by pushing, posting comments without full facts and advertising for others, and earlier above you state that too many people have been scammed, But what about Bidcactus and there 300 plus complaints online about there practices. and countless others who didnt complain. Plus the other sites who have complaints, yet they are left alone

    Come on lets be honest and call a spade when we see one, bad mouthing every single new penny auction when we see one pop up is becoming a little weird dont you think?

    If we call for regulation dont worry its gonna happen, but it wont be PAW or the EAA who does it.

    Reply
    • Chris December 12, 2010, 2:43 pm

      I second this

      Reply
    • JM December 15, 2010, 4:49 pm

      third

      Reply
  • Who said it all December 11, 2010, 2:40 am

    Who said Swoopo Created Penny Auctions, Dont make me research it from the beginning and make you look like a fool Cuz!

    I been playin Da shiz for a long time and they all the same, you gotz to be skilled in da play. But the EEA sounds like the NWA which wasnt around to long cause Dr Dre and Ice Cube left.

    Battles on—— East Coast West Coast, What up Fools BIDITUP187

    Reply
  • Chris December 11, 2010, 6:08 am

    Hari Seldon > Whether swoopo created this business or not, when I mentioned that they have swindled members with auctions that were never specific to a country, and also control auctions via whatever means they have at their disposal, whether it be via an automated system or manually via their employees, they do so.

    Why do previous employees whom are or were in litigation with swoopo, have had no fear in divulging their identity and publicly announce the unethical practices of swoopo.

    It is a fact that a foundation (based in the US, under US law) who’s aim is to be transparent and control and regulate auction websites worldwide… this will be difficult to apply as the law per country differs drastically… cannot have as founders auction websites. It is in total contradiction to the principle itself.

    Furthermore, a foundation requesting an adhesion sum amounting to 5,000 USD is ludicrous. On what grounds, especially taking into account that no governmental institution, unless proved otherwise, recognizes this said foundation.

    FYI: the BBB is not the police for the Web, they do their best with the means at hand, their adhesion does not cost 5,000 USD.

    Reply
  • AKQJforme December 11, 2010, 1:59 pm

    The report that Bidcactus got for substantiation cost upwards of $40,000.

    Reply
  • Chris December 12, 2010, 6:13 am

    I am confused, why would BidCactus (the same applies to Swoopo and BigDeal) shell out $40.000+ USD to a non-existent ‘foundation’ that has no real authority nor legitimacy whatsoever within the US/Canada, not to mention worldwide, to obtain a report + seal to seem to prove their legitimacy to the eyes of the public… Have they not already done this with the BBB (Better Business Bureau) by obtaining accreditation?

    The fact is Swoopo, BidCactus and BigDeal have united with this latest coup by establishing a pseudo foundation on the sole premise to attempt to control the penny auction market by all means, for this all they have to do is simply deny competitor websites to become members of their ‘select VIP club’.

    This pseudo foundation EAA is a Sham.

    Fact is, there are numerous complaints that have been made against swoopo, bidcactus and bigdeal, by users, for numerous reasons, and some of these complaints are posted on PAW.

    In light of this, why does PAW continue to allow these fraudulent websites (swoopo, bidcactus and bigdeal) to advertise on PAW knowing that there are hundreds if not thousands of complaints made by users, not only on PAW, but elsewhere too? Is PAW deliberately misleading its users? I have asked myself this question over and over, and judging by the posts made on this topic, apparently I am not the only one.

    With regards to my allegations regarding the numerous complaints posted throughout the web against swoopo, bidcactus and bigdeal whom are the founders of EAA, if you have the time, I would recommend reviewing the links below, especially the one’s for BigDeal. There is far more, just do a ‘Bing’ or a ‘Google’.

    BidCactus
    http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/bidcactus-c394297.html
    http://www.complaintsboard.com/?search=BidCactus&everything=Everything

    Swoopo
    http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/scam-c176091.html
    http://www.complaintsboard.com/?search=swoopo&everything=Everything

    BigDeal
    http://newspapertiger.com/2010/01/18/bigdeal-little-more-than-scam-says-techcrunch/
    http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/17/ending-our-advertising-relationship-with-bigdeal/
    http://www.watchpennyauctionscams.com/2010/06/10/bigdeal-com-pennyauctionwatch-com-scam-reviews/

    PAW (the ‘watchdog’ for penny auction websites) by promoting and advertising the services of the three founders of EAA (swoopo, bidcactus and bigdeal), as for any other fraudulent penny auction website, are simply promoting scam sites to just make money – this contradicts the whole concept of a ‘review site’.

    If PAW is impartial this post and its content will not be deleted nor modified.

    Reply
    • Amanda December 12, 2010, 1:16 pm

      No, I will not promote SCAM sites to make money. Prove to me that Bidcactus, BigDeal and Swoopo are acting fraudulently or else you’re just spreading libel.
      “In light of this, why does PAW continue to allow these fraudulent websites (swoopo, bidcactus and bigdeal) to advertise on PAW knowing that there are hundreds if not thousands of complaints made by users, not only on PAW, but elsewhere too? Is PAW deliberately misleading its users? I have asked myself this question over and over, and judging by the posts made on this topic, apparently I am not the only one.”

      Reply
      • Chris December 12, 2010, 2:36 pm

        So if I read correctly… you find it normal and just that the three (3) penny auction websites, which have hundreds if not thousand of complaints from dissatisfied customers worldwide, (complaints which are verifiable on the web) and are also founders of a pseudo ‘foundation’ EAA that has a sole purpose to regulate the penny auction market, is the appropriate course of action and everyone should say “AMEN” to this?!?
        Unless I have suddenly landed in the twilight zone, I ask of you Amanda to please refrain from trying to take people for fools… any monkey can see that something is rotten in all of this.

        The fact is hundreds of complaints have been made by hundreds of users against Bidcactus, BigDeal and Swoopo, and posted on numerous recognized anti-fraud websites, which is all the evidence one need’s to comprehend that something is wrong in the business, of which most is being caused by the infamous trio. They are polluting this market.

        The fact is Amanda, you, hence PAW, are well aware of the amount of complaints against Bidcactus, BigDeal and Swoopo of which are increasing daily, yet, you act as if nothing and continue to promote their websites on PAW? This is not normal. In a way I do sympathize and understand your actions, PAW is a business first. Yet, as a site that is to denounce fraudulent websites you should normally cease promotion of any site that has received numerous complaints. Especially if these complaints are repetitive, for whatever specific reasons, are worldwide, and are made by more than a single user.

        TechCrunch, which is a worldwide renown website, they immediately ceased all promotion of BigDeal once they had been notified of the number of complaints, and other unorthodox modus operandi by BigDeal. They even donated all earnings from BigDeal to charity! That says it all. I know that PAW is not of the same caliber as TechCrunch, yet the principle should be the same.

        Now with regards to your allegations of me spreading “libel”, I doubt so… How can I be posting a false and malicious statement about a person (the infamous trio), when I am not the one who is the initial instigator of the said posts “libel” but am only repeating what I have ‘read’ elsewhere and have provided ‘links’ corroborating what I have written on PAW. Any person who wishes to read these complaints, that are posted all over the web, can do so by simply doing a simple Google or Bing search.

        On the other hand, there are hundreds of users, if not more, that visit your site daily for information on penny auction websites, and you Amanda are doing more harm than good by misleading these users with false information regarding certain websites. As a ‘review site’ your sole role and modus operandi is to promote fact not fiction. So between you and I, who is spreading “libel”?

        As I wrote in a previous post, when searching the web you can stumble on many interesting topics related to the penny auction market, for example:
        http://www.watchpennyauctionscams.com/2010/06/10/bigdeal-com-pennyauctionwatch-com-scam-reviews/

        Reply
        • Amanda December 12, 2010, 2:44 pm

          Excuse me!!? TechCrunch removed their relationship because consumers do not understand the concept of a penny auction site, which is where many of the complaints come from. I do not believe that they are acting fraudulently, if I’m wrong please show proof. Whereas I do believe that there are sites that are and those Sir, are the ones who find it a hobby to attack me and post defamatory libel on my comments and elsewhere. WatchPennyAuctioNScams.com is wrong about me, in fact they’re Sonik Technologies, time & time again the only people who attack me have been found to be the shady/dishonest sites themselves that my site has exposed.

          http://www.pennyauctionwatch.com/2010/05/sonik-technologies-penny-auction-watch-penny-auction-scams-shill-watchdog-bot-bidding-auctionwebsitescript/

          Reply
          • Chris December 14, 2010, 8:08 am

            Amanda,

            I was out of town and could not reply to your post dated December 12, 2010 at 2:44 pm.

            I read your post, and again wish to say that I maintain my views regarding the ties between PAW and Bidcactus, BigDeal and Swoopo. My overall opinion is similar to what Jim and Blaw took the time to write. I need not say more on that topic.

            However, it would be welcomed if you could give a reply to at least one of my questions I posed:
            “Do you Amanda find any logic in the fact that Bidcactus, BigDeal and Swoopo (which have hundreds if not thousand of complaints from dissatisfied customers worldwide, complaints which are verifiable on the web) and are also founders of this pseudo foundation ‘EAA’, are attempting to impose their views on the market, their business ideal, their business model, by attempting to regulate a penny auction market via this foundation of which they are founding partners.
            How can a foundation function as such and remain impartial on a market, when it is clear as day that the sole purpose of this pseudo foundation (which has no legal binding authority in the US/Canada, not to mention worldwide) is to shut down or tarnish the reputation and credibility of smaller websites and any existing competition by refusing adhesion to their program and by doing so control the market for their own profit. Do you honestly think that everyone should have to abide and say “AMEN” to this?”

            Chris

      • BLaw December 14, 2010, 2:19 am

        Amanda,

        Got to call you out on this one from Chris. Your reply was to post the facts or proof. Questions I have for you is What proof is needed? And the second one is Your comment about “Spreading Libel”

        Are you sure you know this Definition? Your comments and site has plenty of it, directly coming from you meant with no disrespect. Here is the definition for Libel.

        a.
        defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
        b.
        the act or crime of publishing it.
        c.
        a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.

        anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.
        –verb (used with object)
        3.
        to publish a libel against.
        4.
        to misrepresent damagingly.
        5.
        to institute suit against by a libel, as in an admiralty court.

        I have seen multiple companies on this site that you have mislead consumers or made comments that are considered Libel or actually I would call them Rumor, innuendo and gossip which all three are suitable. You have acted in a way of your mere comment of stating that this company may be doing this or may be doing that, in itself is libel or redirect from the actual proof without facts.

        You have made multiple companies Guilty before knowing the truth, you are constantly telling people to Go to the FTC or BBB about companies, yet you have never said it ONCE in your whole site when someone posts about swoopo, bidcactus or Bigdeal.

        This is a fact and your site is full of bad about others, your forums are full of CONTACT THE FTC, CONTACT THE BBB about everyone and anyone YOU deem to be bad. Your comments alone and prodding customers to make or take action are libel and tort and then some.

        However as seen above in the links above show hundreds of complaints that are proof enough, and you still have nothing on your site. Why is this? Truly Amanda Your goal in telling people to contact the FTC and Complain to authorities shows what is really going on. Is it Nothing but to shut them all down except the few in my opinion or at least suspicious. In fact I found 8 companies that you immediately tell people to contact the FTC and provide a link from the very first post from a consumer. Sure you can do this but you better think about ramifications and the implication of it.

        So I ask You to prove to me and all of us, How is it or where is it on your site, that You have said in a comment or reply to a user who felt scammed by the three above, and you have posted CALL THE FTC and HERE is the link??? You show me it, Cause i spent the last 4 hours on your site with Jing and I could not see or copy one single instance, but over 20 companies that have started in the last 2 years have you said this about. Including a wall of Out of Business Penny Auctions and then I look those up on google and complaints from your site come up, and comments from you again., Its CRAZY , it reminds me of a Belt that someone puts notches in to keep track of there score

        I am a 3rd year law student and although not an attorney yet, my friends and I all play Penny Auctions and we have learned plenty about Libel and the freedom of speech. Conducting research, I find this site more than interesting and going to use it for my paper because, it is full of Copyright infringement, Libel, Tort, Misrepresentation of Material Facts, you name it even from consumers. Also Do you have all these companies permissions to use there images, logos or copyright text?

        One thing that review sites like this use is something called the burden of truth or more less Benefit of Assumption, and the SLAPP Law does not work in these instances I stated above.

        He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party. This means, Your simple comments or starting of something or subject or comment to file complaints passes it off to others leaving you without blame. However Proof resides within your own house, by way of consistency and evidence or I could even say plausible agenda. Either way my point is that you shouldn’t use the word Libel ever unless you clean your own house. Second the SLAPP law does not protect you since you are the writer and commenter of the site and owner, if comments were made by a third party then in itself may be precluded, however your personal comments leave plenty of grounds and merit for suit. If you want to be a review site then it should be of that and you asking for someone to provide proof when they post links of complaints and the argument is about whether your site is biased or not or why these three or more sites have no derogatory comments from you or statements that say “Contact the FTC” raises some legit questions. Reasons why Yelp or other open forums do not comment themselves.

        My last note is this Misrepresentation of Material Facts! Making sure what you post is in fact the truth, not implied or left to consumer to be assumed as fact based on your statements if they are not biased and factual, if you as a review site want to be protected by the Free Speech, or Anti Slapp.

        I see you are in a suit currently and the funny thing is that in the same threads I was scanning and reading I see you state that you had to remove someones ad from the forum do to a fake news site seen here http://www.pennyauctionwatch.com/forum/penny-auction-site-bidder-reviews-experiences-discussion/9876-paw-sued.html

        So safe to assume you will be contacting bidcactus as well and removing there ads ???

        Bottom line is points and links have been posted as to question the ethical practices of Bidcactus and others and you ignore this and ask for proof, however you promptly reply on other companies to question there legitimacy or call for consumers to contact the FTC etc, Yet a post in this thread i now see you state “Of course you should contact the site directly to first resolve your issues” And of course its about bidcactus? I scanned multiple pages and you said nothing like this, You said CALL THE FTC! So this looks weird again

        You don’t need to post the below if you dont want to

        Either way this suit your in is perfect example, however after logging into the Georgia courts and seeing the response I see you have filed for dismissal based and using this Anti slapp. I can assure you if its dismissed its because they didn’t do it the right way.. Your site has better claims to it then Swipebids purported in there case. If it was me as there attorney I clearly would have used what I have seen for my own eyes, but in federal court. Your site clearly amanda has got some major faults, whether or not a business is in the wrong, you can not write or post topics and then lead consumers into false impressions or direct to cause harm to a business without the facts.

        If your stories are fact then they are fact and after that you leave it to all consumers to post, however you have left a huge wide door open as soon as you tell or direct consumers into doing things. Also you should clean your site of Copyrights or screen shots or Images of companies, all of these are infringements of laws regardless of what you think this is why you don’t see main street news companies using logos without Consent or images or copyrighted material.

        Furthermore is your house clean. If an Attorney General or FTC called to have your records, payments from advertisers and ownerships, transcribes of all emails between you and them, would they be clean,, I ask this cause lots of people on this site are questioning the coalition between Penny Auction Watch and some of the other sites.

        Reply
  • jim December 12, 2010, 1:45 pm

    http://consumereditorial.com/ConsumerTips/bidcactus.html
    http://www.pennytimesdaily.com/

    The links above leading to bidcactus from these fake news pages are NOT via any affiliate program, which means they themselves created them.

    In the association’s code of conduct category it clearly states that a site will NOT create fake news sites..Yet they are among the founding members..

    You removed us from our forum due to an affiliate who created a fake news site, whom we have removed from our program.. Yet you still want to stand by bidcactus?

    Why is there two sets of rules?
    You said….
    “Prove to me that Bidcactus, BigDeal and Swoopo are acting fraudulently or else you’re just spreading libel”

    The writing is on the wall and its pretty well been proven. I think for some reason you are just choosing to ignore it..

    Those fake news links are proof that this association is either worthless and has approved bidcactus without investigating them, or they are being paid off by them OR created BY them..

    With such a huge amount of money for this audit ($5000) id like to know whos getting paid to promote it.

    $5000 a drop in the bucket for big sites like swoopo, but if a smaller site doesnt have that kind of cash are they not legit just because they dont have the ability to signup? To me this is a ploy to wash out smaller sites and competition that is digging into thier profits… big fish eats little fish with big fish spending a ton of money to get the job done.

    The report on them from earnest & young appears to be no more that bidcactus telling them what they wanted to hear.. There were too many places in that report that suggest they did not have access to the database itself and was relying on bidcactus to provide this information ..

    I really didnt mean to get so involved with this note, but for some time ive been seeing two sets of rules and i dont think its right.

    Reply
    • Chris December 12, 2010, 2:40 pm

      I second this.

      Reply
    • Amanda December 12, 2010, 11:40 pm

      Jim are you sure they aren’t affiliate links? I see these all over the place for miracle coffee diets, acai, etc.
      http://consumereditorial.com/ConsumerTips/bidcactus.html
      http://www.pennytimesdaily.com/

      Reply
      • Jim December 13, 2010, 1:02 pm

        yes, im sure..
        http://www.pennytimesdaily.com/
        If it were an affiliate, it would have a code in the link or they would not get credit for the traffic or sale.
        In the above link, right click and “copy link location” on any bidcactus link on that page.. then paste it anywhere. You will see absolutely nothing but a direct link to bidcactus.
        Which means nobody is taking credit for this traffic.

        Just like your links to bigdeals have something on the end of the link http://bigdeal.com/?partnerid=paw

        This signifies somebody is getting credit.. no code.. no credit

        Reply
        • Amanda December 13, 2010, 1:38 pm

          Thank you Jim

          Reply
          • Fontana December 13, 2010, 6:20 pm

            Also Why does this seem so surprising to you Amanda, You have known Bidcactus for a while and have been biased against them, and so to see this link is not surprising to me or others about there news blogs.

            They have hundreds of complaints from my research and nothing about them on your site why is this?? You tell users to contact the FTC about any other company and Jump on it before you know anything about them, Why is this??? What is your motive?

            Maybe its cause they scammed me, but now thinking about it I signed up and made that decision, even if I missed something or maybe they did scam me, and maybe I should contact them directly and then if they dont help me then I should make a complaint. HUM, Maybe something to think about!

          • Amanda December 13, 2010, 7:10 pm

            Of course you should contact the site directly to first resolve your issues. Please post proof that these 3 sites are committing fraud. How did they scam you?

          • JM December 15, 2010, 2:44 am

            But you yourself direct people to go elsewhere to get results Amanda, for every other company other than the ones who advertise here. Interesting wouldn’t you say?

          • Amanda December 16, 2010, 2:28 pm

            If you have problems with ANY penny auction sites report them. This is my blog, if I don’t like what someones doing I won’t feature them or let them advertise. Show me proof of an advertiser committing fraud and I will remove ads.

          • Chris December 17, 2010, 7:18 pm

            As far as most have been trying to attempt to explain to you, all are knowledgable of how penny auction websites operate and function, and all recognize that to bid you have to pay for bids. One cannot argue or even complain this point, for the simple reason that whilst signing up to any penny auction website, a user agrees to the Terms, hence the purchase of bids to bid.

            The topic(s) that is raising numerous concerns, is that of the EAA, the fact that the three websites commonly known Swoopo, BidCactus, BigDeal are founders of this non-profit organization which has been recently established to supposedly regulate the penny auction market. There are many that find this contradictory to the principle itself, especially being that the three founders of the EAA have hundreds if not thousands of complaints that have been brought against them by their own members, of which some have even recently claimed and posted in the topic(s) re the EAA to have been scammed by one of the said aforementioned websites.

            Fact is fact, it is undeniable that the three companies are attempting to impose their monopoly, their business ideal, and control the penny auction market by the means of a foundation of which they are founding partners. As such, do you Amanda, consider it normal that Bidcactus, BigDeal and Swoopo, which have hundreds of complaints from dissatisfied customers worldwide, complaints which are verifiable on the web, are founders of this foundation EAA?” Yes or No? What are you real views on this?

            Many are questioning the integrity of PAW as you continuously refuse to acknowledge the facts and/or refuse to reply to simple questions posed.

            These three websites are framing members, it has been proven over and over. Despite the numerous comments and complaints brought forth by users of your own blog and ‘review site’, by people posting comments and evidence on various specialized sites throughout the web, and most importantly by users lodging official complaints at the BBB and/or equivalent, you persist to agree in the pseudo innocence of Bidcactus, BigDeal and Swoopo and continuously request to see proof of an advertiser committing fraud?

            What exactly do you Amanda define as Proof?

            Would you not take into consideration a complaint by a person if lodged with an appropriate non-profit organization, such as the BBB and/or other? Taking into account that the BBB works closely with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, providing them with valuable information on potential frauds. The BBB not being partisan of false complaints made. This is why any person placing a false complaint against Swoopo, BidCactus, BigDeal or any other website is ‘liable’ for a defamation suit by the said aforementioned. So, please enlighten me, why would a person be stupid enough to take the risk of making an official complaint within the US/Canada, in a country where the BBB operates and against a company that is also operating in the same country as the BBB?

            The only reason a person would truly lodge a complaint ‘officially’ is if they have truly been scammed, framed, etc, and have proof.

            Now I have to ask, the fact that a complaint, if not numerous complaints, have been lodged basically everywhere, should this not wake your curiosity and have you doubt the seriousness and integrity of Bidcactus, BigDeal and Swoopo?

            Just because Bidcactus, BigDeal and Swoopo received accreditation from the BBB does not mean that they have the green light to do whatever they choose to their members. Their status within the BBB is not permanent, hence their accreditation can be reconsidered just as easily as it was awarded.

  • Jim December 13, 2010, 1:11 pm

    Reply
  • Fontana December 13, 2010, 5:59 pm

    This is interesting, I am not happy about any of it. I have been scammed by all three especially Bidcactus of almost 400 bucks. I felt ripped off in many ways. I think everyone should file a complaint to the FTC against any one of these companies Swoopo, Bidcactus, Bigdeal etc. http://ftccomplaintassistant.gov

    Also Amanda, your site advertises for them and others, Why dont you become strictly a review site?

    Reply
    • JM December 15, 2010, 2:42 am

      Fontana in my experience it’s usually the customer who feels wronged simply because they don’t feel the need to take responsbility for themselves. I am not suggesting this is true in your case, however the responsible thing is to first make attempts to contact the company you feel has wronged you and explain what has happend and ask what they can do to help you, generally most companies (good ones) will resolve the issue with you. It is irrisponsible to fly off the handle and jump to conclusions when the issue may be a misunderstanding.

      Chargebacks, FTC complaints, BBB complaints etc all so that one doesnt have to take responsibility for themselves puts companies and individual employees of these companies lively hoods at risk (something PAW doesnt seem to consider when directing people to commit such acts).

      In the case of Penny Auctions. Fact is you dont bid for free. If you are bidding it means you’ve bought bids. Most people feel its a scam simply because the company makes tons of money. Well that’s the goal of the company guys, as is the goal of every for profit company in the world. But if you use it right and you understand the methods, you can actually win, and you can get awesome products at amazing prices. Everyone wins in this scenario. It’s a win/win/win. The company wins by making a great profit, you win by getting a product cheap whe you win, and the product is being purchased by the company from another company at the cost that they wish to sell it at. Nobody gets hurt. If a site offers a “buy it now” feature. Regardless of anything else, it eliminates risk. You should only participate in an iPad auction if you want to buy an iPad tomorrow. This way you first have a chance to win it, and if you don’t, you can still buy (most of the times at a discount) without losing ANY MONEY.

      Bottom line. Fontana. Do your due diligence before writing a post like you just did that can ultimately hold you libel in court (believe it or not).

      Reply
  • Jim December 13, 2010, 7:09 pm

    Anytime

    Reply
  • Chris December 16, 2010, 4:40 am

    Amanda,

    I was out of town and could not reply to your post dated December 12, 2010 at 2:44 pm.

    I read your post, and again wish to say that I maintain my views regarding the ties between PAW and Bidcactus, BigDeal and Swoopo. My overall opinion is similar to what Jim and Blaw took the time to write. I need not say more on that topic.

    However, it would be welcomed if you could give a reply to at least one of my questions I posed:
    “Do you Amanda find any logic in the fact that Bidcactus, BigDeal and Swoopo (which have hundreds if not thousand of complaints from dissatisfied customers worldwide, complaints which are verifiable on the web) and are also founders of this pseudo foundation ‘EAA’, are attempting to impose their views on the market, their business ideal, their business model, by attempting to regulate a penny auction market via this foundation of which they are founding partners.
    How can a foundation function as such and remain impartial on a market, when it is clear as day that the sole purpose of this pseudo foundation (which has no legal binding authority in the US/Canada, not to mention worldwide) is to shut down or tarnish the reputation and credibility of smaller websites and any existing competition by refusing adhesion to their program and by doing so control the market for their own profit. Do you honestly think that everyone should have to abide and say “AMEN” to this?”

    Reply
  • Steve January 17, 2011, 12:15 am

    Yep, all the so-called “penny” auction sites as I have noticed, which there is well over 100, lie/cheat/steal and deceive people out of their money.

    There is a class-action filed in Oklahoma against Quibids, and I have initiated one in Connecticut against Bidcactus. Working toward federal legislation to ban ALL such websites.

    I sure hope all of these people get everything taken from them, end up in orange jump suits, and learn a valuable lesson.

    IF anyone has had a negative experience including any former employee(s), and wants to offer assistance and/or be included in the class-action, please E-mail ijusthuman@gmail.com at your earliest convenience.

    Thanks.

    //Steve

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.