Criticism of AOL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Vincent Ferrari)
Jump to: navigation, search

AOL followed a variety of practices in its early incarnation as a "walled garden" community and service provider that have provoked criticism of the corporation. These practices include its community policies, marketing tactics, terms of service and customer service.

Community leaders[edit]

Prior to mid-2005, AOL used online volunteers called Community Leaders, or CLs, to monitor chatrooms, message boards, and libraries. AOL's use of remote volunteers dated back to the establishment of its Quantum Link service in 1985. Most content maintenance was performed by partner and internal employees. Community leaders were recruited for some content design and maintenance, for which they used a proprietary language and interface called RAINMAN. Other community leaders hosted chat rooms and provided online help. During the time that AOL customers paid by the hour, chat room hosts were compensated in free online time for each hour they worked, though of course any banked hours became worthless once fixed-rate payment was introduced.

Two former community leaders, Brian Williams of Dallas and Kelly Hallissey of New York filed a class action lawsuit against AOL, citing violations of U.S. labor laws in its use of community leaders. The lawsuit was filed in the United States Federal Courthouse, New York City on May 25, 1999, and was followed shortly by the dismissal of all community leaders under the age of 18 years, as well as a reorganization of the community leader program as a whole. The Department of Labor was also investigating AOL's alleged labor law violations, but came to no conclusion, closing their investigation in 2001.[1] AOL began drastically reducing the responsibilities and privileges of its volunteers in 2000. The program was eventually ended on June 8, 2005. Current Community Leaders at the time were offered 12 months of credit on their accounts in thanks for their service.

Within one decade of the class action lawsuit being filed, the class had grown to over 6,000 members, comprisinging the largest class action lawsuit ever filed against an internet based company. Currently it is the third largest class ever involved in any lawsuit on a federal level in the United States, affecting ultimately the employment eligibility of individuals in an online environment.

In February 2010, a settlement was approved by the Courts in the class action suit. The settlement included a $15 million USD payment. This payment was then divided into thirds, the first of which was attorney and legal fees. Five Million was then divided among the included members of the class which consisted of more than 7,000 individual former Community Leaders. The final five million dollars was donated to charities hand picked by Hallissey and Williams, and then approved by the Courts for distribution. One such charity, the Remote Area Medical Foundation (, received payments in excess of $1.2 million USD for the provision of medical services, supplies and medication for those in need within the more rural areas of the United States and beyond.

Prior to the 1999 class action lawsuit, the community leaders were informed of a change in compensation for duties performed by AOL. Community leaders would be charged a reduced rate per month for their accounts, and would no longer be given unlimited access without invoice. During this live announcement via an online meeting of all community leaders in a virtual arena, Brian Williams of Dallas led many community leaders in a virtual "strike" or "sit-in" to protest the new charges the community leaders were now being asked to pay. This protest or strike is noted as the first of its kind for an online environment and was nicknamed for the row of the arena it was held in: Row 800. Following the protest, AOL terminated the online working relationship between itself and several of the Community Leaders involved. Quickly following the release of these community leaders, each was reinstated, with the exception of Williams, due to his role in the protest. During this time, Williams' role on AOL was that of Guide XNT (Guide Program), CB Naked (Crystal Ball forum), VnV Naked (iVillage's Vices and Virtues Forum) and JCommBrian (Jewish Community Online Forum).

Billing disputes[edit]

AOL has faced a number of lawsuits over claims that it has been slow to stop billing customers after their accounts have been canceled, either by the company or the user. In addition, AOL changed its method of calculating used minutes in response to a class action lawsuit. Previously, AOL would add 15 seconds to the time a user was connected to the service and round up to the next whole minute (thus, a person who used the service for 12 minutes and 46 seconds would be charged for 14 minutes). AOL claimed this was to account for sign on/sign off time, but because this practice was not made known to its customers, the plaintiffs won (some also pointed out that signing on and off did not always take 15 seconds, especially when connecting via another ISP). AOL disclosed its connection-time calculation methods to all of its customers and credited them with extra free hours. In addition, the AOL software would notify the user of exactly how long they were connected and how many minutes they were being charged.

AOL was sued by the Ohio Attorney General in October 2003 for improper billing practices. The case was settled on June 8, 2005. AOL agreed to resolve any consumer complaints filed with the Ohio AG's office. In December 2006, AOL agreed to provide restitution to Florida consumers to settle the case filed against them by the Florida Attorney General.[2]

Account cancellation[edit]

Many customers complained that AOL personnel ignored their demands to cancel service and stop billing. In response to approximately 300 consumer complaints, the New York Attorney General's office began an inquiry of AOL's customer service policies.[citation needed] The investigation revealed that the company had an elaborate scheme for rewarding employees who purported to retain or "save" subscribers who had called to cancel their Internet service. In many instances, such retention was done against subscribers' wishes, or without their consent. Under the scheme, customer service personnel received bonuses worth tens of thousands of dollars if they could successfully dissuade or "save" half of the people who called to cancel service.[citation needed] For several years, AOL had instituted minimum retention or "save" percentages, which consumer representatives were expected to meet. These bonuses, and the minimum "save" rates accompanying them, had the effect of employees not honoring cancellations, or otherwise making cancellation unduly difficult for consumers.

On August 24, 2005, America Online agreed to pay $1.25 million to the state of New York and reformed its customer service procedures. Under the agreement, AOL would no longer require its customer service representatives to meet a minimum quota for customer retention in order to receive a bonus.[2] However the agreement only covered people in the state of New York.[3]

On June 13, 2006, Vincent Ferrari documented his account cancellation phone call in a blog post,[4] stating he had switched to broadband years earlier. In the recorded phone call, the AOL representative refused to cancel the account unless the 30-year-old Ferrari explained why AOL hours were still being recorded on it. Ferrari insisted that AOL software was not even installed on the computer. When Ferrari demanded that the account be canceled regardless, the AOL representative asked to speak with Ferrari's father, for whom the account had been set up. The conversation was aired on CNBC. When CNBC reporters tried to have an account on AOL cancelled, they were hung up on immediately and it ultimately took more than 45 minutes to cancel the account.[5]

On July 19, 2006, AOL's entire retention manual was released on the Internet.[6] On August 3, 2006, Time Warner announced that the company would be dissolving AOL's retention centers due to its profits hinging on $1 billion in cost cuts. The company estimated that it would lose more than six million subscribers over the following year.[7]

Direct marketing of disks[edit]

A few promotional CD-ROMs distributed in Canada.

Prior to 2006, AOL was infamous for the unsolicited mass direct mail of 3½" floppy disks and CD-ROMs containing their software. They were the most frequent user of this marketing tactic, and received criticism for the environmental cost of the campaign.[8] According to PC World, in the 1990s "you couldn't open a magazine (PC World included) or your mailbox without an AOL disk falling out of it".[3]

The mass distribution of these disks was seen as wasteful by the public and led to protest groups. One such was No More AOL CDs, a web-based effort by two IT workers[9] to collect one million disks with the intent to return the disks to AOL.[10] The website was started in August 2001, and an estimated 410,176 CDs were collected by August 2007 when the project was shut down.[10] AOL CDs were recognized as No.1 on PCWorld's top ten list of most annoying tech products.[11]


  • In 2000, AOL was served with an $8 billion lawsuit alleging that its AOL 5.0 software caused significant difficulties for users attempting to use third-party Internet service providers. The lawsuit sought damages of up to $1000 for each user that had downloaded the software cited at the time of the lawsuit. AOL later agreed to a settlement of $15 million, without admission of wrongdoing.[12] The AOL software then was given a feature called AOL Dialer, or AOL Connect on Mac OS X. This feature allowed users to connect to the ISP without running the full interface. This allowed users to use only the applications they wish to use, especially if they do not favor the AOL Browser.
  • AOL 9.0 was once identified by Stopbadware as being under investigation[13] for installing additional software without disclosure, and modifying browser preferences, toolbars, and icons. However, as of the release of AOL 9.0 VR (Vista Ready) on January 26, 2007, it was no longer considered badware due to changes AOL made in the software.[14]

Usenet newsgroups[edit]

When AOL gave clients access to Usenet in 1993, they hid at least one newsgroup in standard list view: AOL did list the newsgroup in the alternative description view, but changed the description to "Flames and complaints about America Online". With AOL clients swarming Usenet newsgroups, the old, existing user base started to develop a strong distaste for both AOL and its clients, referring to the new state of affairs as Eternal September.[15]

AOL discontinued access to Usenet on June 25, 2005.[16] No official details were provided as to the cause of decommissioning Usenet access, except providing users the suggestion to access Usenet services from a third-party, Google Groups. AOL then provided community-based message boards in lieu of Usenet.

Terms of Service (TOS)[edit]

AOL has a detailed set of guidelines and expectations for users on their service, known as the Terms of Service (TOS, also known as Conditions of Service, or COS in the UK). It is separated into three different sections: Member Agreement, Community Guidelines and Privacy Policy.[17][18] All three agreements are presented to users at time of registration and digital acceptance is achieved when they access the AOL service. During the period when volunteer chat room hosts and board monitors were used, chat room hosts were given a brief online training session and test on Terms of Service violations.

There have been many complaints over rules that govern an AOL user's conduct. Some users disagree with the TOS, citing the guidelines are too strict to follow coupled with the fact the TOS may change without users being made aware. A considerable cause for this was likely due to alleged censorship of user-generated content during the earlier years of growth for AOL.[19][20][21][22]

Certified email[edit]

In early 2005, AOL stated its intention to implement a certified email system called Goodmail, which will allow companies to send email to users with whom they have pre-existing business relationships, with a visual indication that the email is from a trusted source and without the risk that the email messages might be blocked or stripped by spam filters.

This decision drew fire from MoveOn, which characterized the program as an "email tax", and the EFF, which characterized it as a shakedown of non-profits.[23] A website called[24] was launched, with an online petition and a blog that garnered hundreds of signatures from people and organizations expressing their opposition to AOL's use of Goodmail.

Esther Dyson defended the move in a New York Times editorial saying "I hope Goodmail succeeds, and that it has lots of competition. I also think it and its competitors will eventually transform into services that more directly serve the interests of mail recipients. Instead of the fees going to Goodmail and EON, they will also be shared with the individual recipients."[25]

Other members of the antispam and blogging community were broadly critical of and the EFF's attempts to characterize this as a "shakedown".[citation needed]

Tim Lee of the Technology Liberation Front[26] posted an article that questioned the EFF's adopting a confrontational posture when dealing with private companies. Lee's article cited a series of discussions[27] on Declan McCullagh's Politechbot mailing list on this subject between the EFF's Danny O'Brien and antispammer Suresh Ramasubramanian, who has also compared[28] the EFF's tactics in opposing Goodmail to tactics used by Republican political strategist Karl Rove. Spamassassin developer Justin Mason posted some criticism of the EFF's and Moveon's "going overboard" in their opposition to the scheme.

The campaign lost momentum and disappeared, with the last post to the now defunct blog—"AOL starts the shakedown" being made on May 9, 2006.

Comcast, who also used the service, announced on its website that Goodmail had ceased operations and as of February 4, 2011 they no longer used the service.[29]

Search data[edit]

On August 4, 2006, AOL released a compressed text file on one of its websites containing 20 million search keywords for over 650,000 users over a 3-month period between March 1, 2006 and May 31, intended for research purposes. AOL pulled the file from public access by August 7, but not before its wide distribution on the Internet by others. Derivative research, titled A Picture of Search[30] was published by authors Pass, Chowdhury and Torgeson for The First International Conference on Scalable Information Systems.[31]

The data were used by Web sites such as AOLstalker[32] for entertainment purposes, where users of AOLstalker are encouraged to judge AOL clients based on the humorousness of personal details revealed by search behavior.

User list exposure[edit]

In 2005, an AOL employee was convicted of stealing America Online's 92 million screen names and selling them to a known spammer.[33][34]

In February 2005, the employee pleaded guilty to violations of the US CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.[35] He was accused and convicted of illegally selling approximately 92 million AOL member screen names, belonging to 30 million AOL customers, to a third party, who then sold the list to many spammers.[34]

AOL's Computer Checkup "scareware"[edit]

On February 27, 2012 a class action lawsuit was filed against, Inc. and partner AOL, Inc. The lawsuit alleged and AOL's Computer Checkup "scareware" (which uses software developed by misrepresented that their software programs would identify and resolve a host of technical problems with computers, offered to perform a free “scan,” which often found problems with users' computers. The companies then offered to sell software—for which AOL allegedly charged $4.99 a month and $29—to remedy those problems.[36] Both AOL, Inc. and, Inc. settled on May 30, 2013 for $8.5 million. This included $25.00 to each valid class member and $100,000 each to Consumer Watchdog and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[37] Judge Corley wrote: “Distributing a portion of the [funds] to Consumer Watchdog will meet the interests of the silent class members because the organization will use the funds to help protect consumers across the nation from being subject to the types of fraudulent and misleading conduct that is alleged here,” and “EFF’s mission includes a strong consumer protection component, especially in regards to online protection.”[36]

AOL continues to market Computer Checkup.[38] It is not clear if this latest Computer Checkup continues to use scareware techniques.[citation needed]


  1. ^ Postigo, Hector (2009). "America Online volunteers". International Journal of Cultural Studies (SAGE Publications) 12 (5): 451–469. doi:10.1177/1367877909337858. 
  2. ^ a b "AOL". Better Business Bureau. Retrieved January 22, 2008. 
  3. ^ a b Tynan, Dan (May 26, 2006). "The 25 Worst Tech Products of All Time". PCWorld. Retrieved April 15, 2012. 
  4. ^ "Cancelling AOL". June 13, 2006. Archived from the original on 31 December 2010. Retrieved November 28, 2010. 
  5. ^ Wells, Jane (June 21, 2006). "How hard can it be to cancel an AOL account?". CNBC. Archived from the original on 22 July 2006. Retrieved July 24, 2006. 
  6. ^ Popken, Ben. (July 19, 2006) America Online: AOL Retention Manual Uploaded in Full. Retrieved on July 8, 2011.
  7. ^ AOL: TimeWarner Dissolves AOL Retention Centers. (August 3, 2006). Retrieved on July 8, 2011.
  8. ^ Rusty Dornin (October 18, 2002). "Campaign: Send AOL CDs back". CNN. 
  9. ^ What to do with those AOL CDs, a March 2003 CBC News article
  10. ^ a b Internet Archive Wayback Machine 2007 Aug 20 archive of main page. (August 20, 2007). Retrieved on July 8, 2011.
  11. ^ "Your Top 10 Most Annoying Tech Products". PCWorld. April 16, 2007. Retrieved June 26, 2009. 
  12. ^ (PDF). Retrieved on July 8, 2011.
  13. ^ Archived February 20, 2007, at the Wayback Machine.
  14. ^ (January 26, 2007). Retrieved on July 8, 2011.
  15. ^ "The Making of an Underclass: AOL" net.wars Chapter 3, Wendy M. Grossman, NYU Press, 1998.
  16. ^ AOL Pulls Plug on Newsgroup Service. BetaNews. Retrieved on July 8, 2011.
  17. ^ AOL Member Agreement Archived November 2, 2007, at the Wayback Machine.
  18. ^ Conditions of Service – AOL Help
  19. ^ (July 25, 1996). Retrieved on July 8, 2011.
  20. ^, The Truth Seeker – Internet Censorship
  21. ^ Censorship on AOL Late 1998–1999. (March 9, 1999). Retrieved on July 8, 2011.
  22. ^ Archived July 6, 2010, at the Wayback Machine.
  23. ^ Cindy Cohn (February 8, 2006). "AOL, Yahoo and Goodmail: Taxing Your Email for Fun and Profit". EFF. 
  24. ^ "Stop AOL's Email Tax". Archived from the original on January 4, 2007. Retrieved November 28, 2010. 
  25. ^ Dyson, Esther (March 17, 2006). "You've Got Goodmail". New York Times. Retrieved July 24, 2006. 
  26. ^ Retrieved on July 8, 2011.
  27. ^ "Debate over between Suresh Ramasubramanian and Danny O'Brien". Retrieved November 28, 2010. 
  28. ^ Ramasubramanian, Suresh (May 12, 2006). "EFF and Its Use of Propaganda: Could Karl Rove do better? Probably". CircleID. Retrieved November 28, 2010. 
  29. ^ Archived March 19, 2012, at the Wayback Machine., February 4, 2011
  30. ^ (PDF) . Retrieved on July 8, 2011.
  31. ^ Retrieved on July 8, 2011.
  32. ^ "AOLstalker homepage". 
  33. ^ "Ex-AOL worker who stole e-mail list sentenced". MSNBC. , August 17, 2005
  34. ^ a b "Pair Nabbed in AOL Spam Scheme". June 23, 2004. 
  35. ^ Ex-AOL employee pleads guilty in spam case CNN, February 4, 2005. Retrieved 2007-03-07.
  36. ^ a b Davis, Wendy (May 20, 2013). "AOL, Support.Com Settle Scareware Lawsuit For $8.5 Million". MediaPost. Retrieved October 7, 2014. 
  37. ^ "FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 5/30/2013". 
  38. ^ "AOL Computer Checkup: Clean & Speed Up Your Slow PC - Try It Free". AOL Inc. 2014. Retrieved October 7, 2014. 

Additional sources[edit]

External links[edit]