Apple Says That You Can't Give Away A 'Free' iPad Or iPhone In A Contest
from the first-sale? dept
Apparently, Apple has recently decided to start trying to enforce its official "Guidelines for Third Party Promotions," meaning that they're telling people they can no longer offer contests and promotions where the prize is a "free iPad" or something of that nature. Specifically, the "guidelines" state:- iPad, iPhone and the iPhone Gift Card may not be used in third-party promotions.
- iPod touch is only allowed to be used in special circumstances and requires a minimum purchase of 250 units.
- You may NOT use the Myriad Set font on or in connection with web sites, products, packaging, manuals, or promotional/advertising materials.
- The use of "free" as a modifier in any Apple product reference in a prominent manner (headlines, call- outs, etc.) is prohibited.
- You must submit all marketing materials related to the promotion of Apple products to Apple for review.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: first sale, giveaway, ipad, iphone
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's because Steve is the new Messiah
By divine right, Steve can do and say what he wants, and we all have to go along with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's because Steve is the new Messiah
Well that may apply to sheep.
Steve can do what he wants, but we certainly do NOT have to go along with it.
Leave that to the sheep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's because Steve is the new Messiah
Only God and Steve nowadays...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple can refuse to sell to you.
Seems to me that this rule is primarily enforceable against institutional purchases, where the purchases can be made subject to Apples TOS.
I can see why Apple wants to stop those sketchy Win a free iPod" scams but it seems like Apple's Steve Jobs control freak mentality may make it go overboard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.
> allow that
No, they don't allow that. At least for some products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.
See how fast that legal tender law was worked around?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.
you want to sell products ? then you MUST sell them to anyone who has the money.
try saying you refuse to sell to someone because you do not like their race and see if the cops will back you up on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.
This sort of thing is yet another in my growing list of reasons that I refuse to purchase or recommend Apple products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.
No, dollars are legal tender. They have to accept dollars but are not legally required to accept them in form of cash.
http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/legal-tender.aspx
Is it Legal for Airlines to Refuse to Accept Cash?
Fred asks whether American Airlines was acting lawfully when it recently announced that it would no longer accept cash for “in flight” purchases, such as food and drinks. As Fred notes, “All passengers are trapped -- there is no means of egress during a flight, unlike a ground-based transport system, or other 'brick and mortar' retail store.” In other words, the passengers can’t defect to a rival airline in mid-flight.
That’s a great point, Fred -- and thanks to my recent six-hour delay on the tarmac at LaGuardia, I can confirm that airline passengers are, indeed, trapped. But unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that the airlines have to accept our cash. The short answer is that federal legal tender laws require creditors to accept payment denominated in dollars, but generally do not require businesses to accept any particular form of payment -- such as cash. Federal legal tender laws require creditors to accept payment denominated in dollars, but generally do not require businesses to accept any particular form of payment -- such as cash.
Cash is King
When we use the term “cash” in the United States, we generally mean coins minted by the US Treasury, and dollar bills, which are actually called “Federal Reserve notes.” Some people think that cash is dirty stuff, but I confess to being rather attached to the stuff. So are a lot of people, apparently, because no-cash policies tend to raise a chorus of protests.
A couple of years ago, many consumers were frustrated when Apple announced that it would not accept cash for iPhones, and would only accept payment by credit card. In an earlier episode, we explained that Apple was probably within its rights as a private business to require payment by credit cards.
And now American Airlines’ policy -- which some expect other airlines to follow -- is raising a similar round of protests. It just goes to show how much people like cash. I mean, I could understand making a fuss about iPhones but airplane food?
What is “Legal Tender”?
Oh well. What has people confused is the notion that cash is “legal tender.” If you look at a dollar bill -- er, Federal Reserve Note -- in your wallet, you’ll see that it says “this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.”
“Legal tender” is what makes an official currency official. It means that a creditor must accept federal reserve notes in satisfaction of a debt. If you get to the checkout line at the local Piggly Wiggly and the cashier demands payment in rubles or pesos you have every right to say “Sorry buddy, but I’ve got some Federal Reserve notes burning a hole in my pocket.”
You have that right under the "legal tender" statute which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
Businesses Must Accept “Dollars,” but Not Cash
This means that US notes and coins are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. However, although businesses must accept dollars, that doesn’t mean they literally have to take your big wad of bills, which is bulky, difficult to make change for, and, frankly, a breeding ground for germs. A vendor can usually put reasonable conditions on the manner in which they will accept dollars, and one of those conditions can be that they’ll only accept dollars electronically, via credit card. Or, as the US Treasury explains on their website, “Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.”
So far, Legal Lad has yet to find a state law that mandates payment in cash. In fact, as we discussed in our earlier episodes, courts in a number of states have dismissed challenges to various no-cash policies. But Fred, if you can find a state that forbids no-cash policies, then you can certainly try to get the airline to accept your cash -- of course, you’ll have to wait until the plane is flying over that particular state. On second thought, if you really have a hankering for rubber chicken, soggy sandwiches, and teeny-tiny bottles of chardonnay, play it safe and bring your plastic on-board.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple can refuse to sell to you.
You can't buy an ipad with cash... Hipsters can't fit more than 3 bills into their tight girl pants. It just isn't physically possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What, with no data plan? Where you do get a free iPhone with a $40 per month plan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because Apple wants complete control over everything related to Apple.
Including its customers' minds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Including its customers' minds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've been waiting for them to do this.
Sorry to be such a realist, but that's the way I see it going. In fact, similar dynamics may have already established helpful precedent – I haven't researched the case law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've been waiting for them to do this.
Trademark claim nullified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've been waiting for them to do this.
You're missing a huge step.
The scammers only need lawyers if Apple can find them, and manage to file suits in their home country.
They're already hacking and committing fraud and pretty much getting away with it. Why would Apple's TOS bother them in the slightest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've been waiting for them to do this.
there is the thing called simply describing the prize and is not a trademark or copyright issue -- simply describing the prize is not a thing they can win since it is reasonable to say if you give a ipad as prize you tell people what the prize will be under consumer protection laws so people do not show up thinking they can win a new mercedes when the prize is a hershey candy bar and yes you are required to describe the prizes being given under the sweepstakes and lottery laws as well as consumer protection
so - apple suing for giving away their product is nothing more than a delusional mind by apple since it is not legal to tell people what they can do with things they legally bought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While supplies last!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: While supplies last!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
does that make me a criminal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How would Apple even know I won it?
Are they planning on tracking individual unit sales linked to bank account and credit cards?
I have to agree that I do not see how they could even enforce this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Long time lurker here...
Most likely, the prince currently known as Steve Jobs(tm)(r)(c), is wanting to always elevate the price point and value point of the product. He probably was yelling at someone that a free iPad seemingly devalues the product, as does any other kind of promotion in his(sm) mind. So in a vain (valiant?) effort, he's going to try to stifle competition and continue to use and enforce copyrights, trademarks and other blunt instruments on the consumers of his products.
After a while, folks are going to get headaches (like they did on Blackberries) and go to other places where there is more freedoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple Giveaway!
Have Techdirt acquire some damaged apple products and feature them as a give away on your website. Apple's response to that should be ever so amusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 2nd, 2011 @ 2:50pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're telling us what FONT we can and cannot use now? Feel like making a webpage that says "Win a FREE iPod" in Comic Sans now, just to piss them off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Note: A font is a file type with the vector expression of a set of particular characters, and adding a single point to the vector component is all one needs to get around it. A typeface is what the font looks like, usually referring to how the type looks printed. Yes, it is a technicality - but one Apple's well-paid legal team is willing to hammer people with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
because the product is desirable . Why fight that?
Apple is doing a good enough job of fighting it.
They don't want assistance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contract law
I'm not 100%, but that's the explanation I saw elsewhere. I hate Apple as much as the next guy, but I don't want to hate them for a non-reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contract law
(IBM man) "You can't resell a PS/2 you purchased."
(Us) "Yes we can, we own it, we can do as we like with it"
(IBM) "No you can't"
(Us) "Then we don't own it"
(IBM) "Yes you do"
(Us) "Then we can sell it"
(IBM) "No you can't"
Turned out the BIOS firmware was LICENSED not SOLD, based on a shrink wrap agreement that nobody reads, and the license was not transferable. I'm certain you'll find the same clause somewhere in the Apple product literature.
It actually points up a bigger problem than just Apple - software can be protected by copyright, patents and licensing all at the same time. No other goods have such unwarranted privileges. It's about time they were cut back and vendors forced to pick just one of the three.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contract law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contract law
And I've been an Apply loyalist since 19-fucking-83.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm with you on this one...
I'm sure that Apple could restrict the ability to use their copyrighted brand images in promotions, but other than that I think they're out of luck.
The arrogance of this makes me want to go purchase a handful of Shuffles and run a giveaway campaign on Facebook for 'FREE shitty Apple-manufactured music players.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm with you on this one...
I'm sure that Apple could restrict the ability to use their copyrighted brand images in promotions, but other than that I think they're out of luck.
The arrogance of this makes me want to go purchase a handful of Shuffles and run a giveaway campaign on Facebook for 'FREE shitty Apple-manufactured music players.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm with you on this one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a Minute
At least, that's what I thought of when I first read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a Minute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Changing times
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all Apple don't mind competition do they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FREE IPAD! FREE IPAD! FREE IPAD!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can I give a Human CentIpad away?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prepaid Credit Cards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Concept of "Sale" Vaporizing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consideration
And to further the point, if consideration is failing at the outset to enforce the contract at the time you purchase the iPad, then only valuable consideration would make any "ratification" of the agreement binding. Therefore, Apple would have to pay (or transfer some other benefit to you) for the ability to enforce the additional agreement you "sign" when you open the box and start the thing up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consideration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consideration
Some courts have found otherwise regarding software EULAs. Since iStuff comes with software on it, I assume it has such agreements that you are (in some jurisdictions) bound by whether you want to agree to them or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Consideration
But if you're buying the iPad to give away for free in a contest, you're not going to open the box or start the thing up, so you never even *get* to the point where you're "agreeing" to a EULA. Even a EULA has to presented to the consumer to read before it can be deemed to be "agreed to".
All you're doing is forking over your money at the Apple store for the packaged product, and unless they present you with some contract to sign there at the register, you've agreed to nothing other than the exchange of money for iPad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Consideration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Consideration
If there's a court out there that's held that people are contractually bound to agreements they're not even allowed to see until they agree to them, I'm not aware of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consideration
Even worse is many retailers won't accept a return on opened software, so if you don't agree to the terms, you would have to seek a refund from the manufacturer, or try to get the retailer to make an exception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
links or it didn't happen
That edited down pdf on fortune's blog (dated april 2010) looks like it's pulled from the terms for discount bulk buyers. It's not in any of the terms for retail consumers.
Can someone please point to the documentation on an apple website that actually says this, or link to a complete version of the pdf?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://get-free-ipad2.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple Inc Mobile Promo
Obviously, I am VERY sceptical about all of this and I am thinking that it may be a "Scam", so won't be tendering any information on myself (won't even reply to the Text).
Has anyone out there heard of this happening to them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no free iPads--EVER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have 10 Ipads and 20 iphones 4s'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Promotional Gifts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]