Earlier this week the domain name industry was rocked by a shill bidding scandal at SnapNames. The company made the right early moves by admitting the problem and promising refunds, plus interest, to customers. Now, though, they are forcing customers to release them from liability to get the refund. We think this this is a mistake.
SnapNames acquires expiring domain names from registries and then auctions them off to interested buyers. When everything goes well people are happy. SnapNames gets a good return on investment, and the domains go to the buyer who values them the highest.
But it turns out things most certainly have not gone well. Since 2005 a substantial number of domain auctions had shill bidding by a SnapNames employee.
This isn’t run of the mill eBay shill bidding. On eBay a seller may try to participate in the auction to drive overall bidding higher. But for the most part pricing doesn’t get out of control because most stuff sold on eBay isn’t particularly unique and price boundaries are well established.
What happened at SnapNames is much worse. The company is the seller and has the most to gain by shill bidding. And the company is also in control of all auction information. Sometimes an auction may have two bidders, with one bidder putting in a maximum bid of $100,000 (yes, they go this high sometimes). Another may bid just $10,000, and so the winning buyer would just pay some small amount over $10k. From SnapNames perspective that isn’t a $10k gain. It’s a $90k loss.
So SnapNames “fixed” the problem. An executive with the company simply bid on those domains. He could bid up to, say, $90,000 with full certainty that he wouldn’t be burdened with actually winning the auction and having to pay up. SnapNames made lots of extra money. And if the top bidder backed out and the executive accidentally won, SnapNames was secretly reimbursing him on the back end. Zero risk.
SnapNames said only about 5% of total auctions were affected, but this is misleading. The top domains make up a substantial proportion of total revenue. So that 5% could easily have accounted for, say, much more than 50% of revenue. SnapNames was careful not to disclose the total dollar amounts involved, or even what percentage of overall auction revenue was affected.
That was their first mistake. Not being open and honest.
Now they’re demanding that customers sign an agreement waiving any rights they may have to sue SnapNames in exchange for the refund. That’s a big problem – some customers are complaining that auction data has been erased from their accounts, so they don’t even really know how much they were affected. And SnapNames isn’t making any promises that the reimbursement offers are complete. Once a customer signs the release, even if the settlement amount was calculated incorrectly, they have no further recourse against the company.
A typical comment from a customer: ““Please be prepared to provide detailed information and data regarding your bidding and purchase activity to the extent that it differs from the information we have provided to you.”Pretty hard to do since Snap took down a large portion of bid history!”
SnapNames is making exactly the wrong moves here. They need to return this money to customers immediately with no conditions attached. And they need to provide full and accurate reports to those customers along with the refund. Anything short of that is just shady.
I’m a long term SnapNames customer. I never got an apology from the company. There is no public apology on their site… In fact if it were not for Tech Crunch, I would be oblivious to what amounts to fraud.
Most domain auctions are for much lower numbers than are being mentioned here… regardless, what you describe is a close-your-account-and-never-return type of deal.
You know some attorney is going to get a hold of this.. nasty business.
“Most domain auctions are for much lower numbers than are being mentioned here” – absolutely. but there are a few big ones every day that total hundreds of thousands of dollars in value. those are the ones that they’d be targeting with shill bids.
Not only an attorney…the state/feds should get involved. People should go to jail for this.
yes. there should definitely be criminal charges.
unless they’ve been using their auction process to make political donations.
process = proceeds
This is akin to your babysitter calling you and saying,
“I stole a few thousand dollars from you and I feel really bad. So, you can have most of it back if you promise not to tell the cops.”
The audacity.
I hope they get everything fixed for the best, for everyone. So they can continue with their business.
One of my domains, BOILEDFOOD.COM, was part of last week L.I.V.E New York Auction, but it didn’t sell.
maybe it will sell now that you spammed the board with an ad for your awful domain name
You couldn’t give me that name for free. Pathetic!
What is trash to someone; is treasure to someone else.
I like it.
Boiled food? mmm I’m in the mood for some pasta!
Wow, that would be a really good name for my business!
I mail people boiled food.
They’ve acted fraudulently and they should be held liable for the outcome of their actions.
The flipside of them trying to force refundees to release Snapnames from liability is that Snapnames is admitting there is liability on their part that they need the customer to give up. So, it should be a short few days until a class-action is put together and Snapnames is forced to take a nice nap in the bed they’ve made.
That’s very standard procedure.
Shady business. An unfortunate but recurring theme in the tech industry.
I am afraid that it is just going to continue to get worse as the technology and innovation improves and as customers put more trust in technology.
But, what can we do?
Hi James,
Better not to tar the (tech) industry over this. Compared to old fashioned businesses – Oil, Retail come to mind, its mind-blowing the level of transparency and ethical values in the tech industry. And even in the case of bad apples, problems are not allowed to fester and become endemic in the system, instead you have people exposing and getting rid of the problems.
So yeah, there are quite a few bad apples out there, but in the tech industry, there is a far better chance they will get found and stamped out.
Cheers,
Krishna
“And even in the case of bad apples, problems are not allowed to fester and become endemic in the system…”
That is the problem entirely. We have yet to witness a scam of such magnitude to affect us all.
This is nothing compared to what could possibly happen.
However, I love Twitter, Facebook, Google, and everything in between just as much as the next guy (probably way more than the next guy, actually).
But, I don’t yet think we have seen what is possible from a determined and organized group of scammers who can find ways to trick even the most tech-savvy among us all.
I just hope everyone thinks twice before entering that credit card number.
Then again, maybe I have just been listening to Steve Gibson’s and Leo Laporte’s Security Now far too much lately. I can understand why some people are so paranoid. But, it does make you think.
There is something fishy in the rebate process. A lot of auction data is missing. If TC wants to be BCC on one case – just say so.
yes please. tips@techcrunch
Don’t forget to share guys ! :)
editor@domainnamenews.com
I always thought domaining, drop domain catching, domain parking, etc are not right.
all good domains are gone now, and most of them are parked or sth, not used for what they could be right for. What is my guilt if I came to this world in 1987 and entered this domain business in 2005, when most of domains were gone? what will happen in 2025? people will have to start businesses with domains like asfdnabfafbasdlbasjk.com ?
new TLD’s are no help, majority sticks with .com. someone should free .com for this big scam game.
I always thought real estate, agriculture, billboards, parking lots, etc. are not right. All the good land is gone now, and not used for what I want to use it for. What is my guilt if I was born in 1987 and entered the real estate business in 2005 when most of the land is gone? What will happen in 2025? People will have to start businesses in the boondocks? New land in Siberia or Africa is of no help, majority sticks with Manhattan or other great cities.
Someone should free Manhattan land for this big scam game!
(above is a joke, for the humour impaired)
LOL George, they still won’t get it because they’re fast asleep :) … snooze ya loose, snnnzzzzz
ok I guess u r right :)
but still, i have this feeling that something has to be fixed :)
What needs to be fixed is all the attitude on the part of people who sanctimoniously put down domain investors all the time, pushing their misguided morality with respect to the domain game.
Beautifully said! Touche’.
I agree with you elvirs. Something needs to be done about this whole domain trading thing or whatever you wanna call it.
Domain squatting or I should say “domain trading” business is no where near what it used to be almost 10 years ago. Within few years it will get much more worse, which is good. Just see how many domains were sold over $5k in 2008 and how many were sold over $5k in 1998.
So, why the big decline? Here’s a few reasons:
1. Back in the day, squatters ruled the domain land because not many domain disputes or claim disputes ended up in court. So, companies or celebrities found it easier to settle with the squatter than take their chances in court. But today things are different. You can be sure that a trademark name or a celebrity domain name can easily be snatched back from a squatter through legal process. So, its lot harder to squat a high value trademark name these days.
2. Back in the day, general trend was you had to have a domain that had a meaning or that was an actual dictionary word. So, thats why people who could afford it , they were paying squatters to get the desired name. Thats not the case now. Look at all the high profile sites or services that have silly names or names that doesn’t mean anything. Like gigya, meebo etc etc. So, instead of paying a big amount to squatters , compnies and start ups usually make a word up and build a brand identity.
3. Back in the day, Search engines were not as effecient as today. So, knowing the name of the actual domain was very important back then. So having a name which was easily spelled and pronounced was absolutely critical in those days. Things are different these days with google and social networking etc etc.
While its true that a generic domain still has a high value but the demand or desperation for a generic name has fallen dramatically over the years.
Domaining is not domain squatting. Wikipedia has recently corrected this (finally)
Didn’t SNL do a skit 10 years ago about a bank with the domain monkeypenis.fart ??
it was “clownpenis.fart”; I always thought that the genius of that was the .fart TLD…
I received one of the apologies and instructions on how to claim my ~$50 “Rebate”.
The domain I won started at $60 (as all of them do) and then I won it at $150.
I’m fairly certain that:
a) they were well aware of this. It’ just too obvious of a thing to do in this business.
b) they purposely had this “executive” bid on small priced domains like mine as well to conceal the true nature of the scam – earning tens of thousands extra on high value domains.
they’re basically trying to pay you $50 to not sue them (or join the inevitable class action) and easily win more.
Michael, SnapNames did disclose the amount of revenue involved. They said it was about 1% of revenue:
“The incremental revenue from the bidding represented approximately one percent of SnapNames auction revenues since 2005.”
Did they put a $ figure on that Andrew ?
No, as a private company I’m sure they don’t want people to know their revenue.
Then there you go. We still don’t know do we?
Nobody does illegal stuff like this for 1% additional revenue.
Class action.
I have to agree, someone stole @zaggle on twitter and not giving it back means we lose that ID.
Just want to say how impressed I am by Techcrunch’s recent efforts to clean up various shady practices that are taking place in the online space….someone has to report these fraudulent practices as there really is little or no oversight or regulation.
Journalism at its best…keep fighting the good fight!
First, I don’t think TechCrunch was anywhere near the first to report this.
Second, when they did they pretty much screwed it up by calling domain investors squatters.
His post was more sensationalism than accurate journalism.
If this happened for an offline business the feds would be all over this. So my question is, do you think any major legal action will come of this case?
domain brokers are like the gold rush morons the 1800s. they whore up everything, thinking they’ll get rich like a lucky few, and the result is a much weaker online economy because many good ideas cannot get an easy to remember name.
some ass wants $3k for my personal name dot-com. my name is no business entity, i just want to post pics of my family and keep a blog. that domain has been parked for 11 years – never used for anything.
how many similar cases of dumbasses losing money on domains will go on before usefulness can finally proceed?
lowlife losers.
You want to post pics of your family and keep a blog and at the same time you said the domain has been parked for ELEVEN years?
Scum, I think DBATSOD’s saying the 11-year old parked domain name still belongs to that other party, not his or hers. Still, a point has been made by the subsequent commenters, although obviously no one’s required or forced to agree or accept it.
I guess the people that own the corner lot at a major intersection are scum for owning high value real estate?
I buy domains, someone owned my first and last name .com, I did not whine, I made an offer of over $1K because it had value to me just like a piece of real estate does, he was just faster to buy it than I was, that is my bad not his.
Really, you say low life losers? I say smart real estate investors.
My Grandfather owns over 1000 acres of real estate, much of it in high value areas, people come to him frequently trying to acquire acres of it. Is he a low life loser for having the foresight to buy the land before someone else. Nope, he is considered a smart business man.
You would think people connected with technology enough to read TechCrunch.com would be intelligent enough to understand why generic domain names have value.
Please explain to me how purchasing an asset that is being used for nothing, proceeding to do nothing with the asset, and then selling it for a higher price adds value for the end consumer.
It is a pure value skimming activity, just like holding real estate.
To quote the great Bill Hicks (he was talking about marketing, but I feel comfortable applying it here):
“By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself. Thank you, thank you. Just a little thought. I’m just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day they’ll take root. I don’t know. You try. You do what you can. Kill yourselves. Seriously though, if you are, do. No really, there’s no rationalisation for what you do, and you are Satan’s little helpers, OK? Kill yourselves, seriously. You’re the ruiner of all things good. Seriously, no, this is not a joke.”
@JP Kab – Last I checked it is pretty much a requirement for any business to make a profit to be sustainable (except for those that milk VCs and never get a penny of revenue, but that is a story for another day….)
So, JP, now not only is it wrong to make a profit on online real estate because it has not been developed, it is even wrong to hold a piece of real estate (the offline kind) and let it appreciate in value and then sell it. Sheesh, I guess I should start selling everything at below cost and tell the people that rely on my business or myself for their paycheck or food that we are not allowed to make a profit on an asset after it appreciates because it does nothing to add value for JP.
There are plenty of pieces of quality real estate, both virtual and tangible that are not developed. Should they just be handed to someone????
I saw an office building the other day that was virtually empty due to down economy, it is doing nothing for the consumer right now, I wonder if they should just give it to me.
Oh yeah, and on another note, your nice little quote about advertising or marketing people killing ourselves, ummm, the customers that I have telling everyone lately about the business they have received based on the marketing we do for them may be upset about that.
Man, give me a harder argument next time.
I will explain. It is very easy.
Think “outdoor advertising”. Great business. Here is how it works. A bunch of energy goes into looking for sites where there is traffic, and doing deals to acquire rights to those sites, eg side of roadways, on buildings etc. And then there is a bunch of energy expended on getting ads on those sites.
That is how the domain business works.
And just like in the outdoor ad business, every now and again, someone comes along and buys your site.
I’ll try to explain it to you.
Domain names have value because they are limited. Good domains have value because they are especially limited and more people want them. It’s that simple.
Nowhere is it written that “end-consumers” (whatever the heck that means to you) are entitled to free or low priced things of value. The person with the foresight to buy good domain names is as much an “end-consumer” as every other person who buys domain names.
Yes, it can be unfortunate… like that sweet piece of real estate you couldn’t get in on. As an “end-consumer”, of you want a domain name that someone else owns, you must either negotiate a deal if possible or find something else. You are not entitled to anything unless you have strong/obvious trademarks. You are also not entitled to know why the other person keeps the name (hint: probably because it has value and/or because he/she might have plans for it in the future). Either way, it’s all on a first-come-first-served basis on the same market, like most things in life. It’s fair unless you have a false sense of entitlement.
“Is he a low life loser for having the foresight to buy the land before someone else.”
No, but your grandfather DOES have to contribute to society via property taxes. And if/when he can’t afford the taxes because that property is not being used productively, well then that’s how properties get moved from low-value uses to higher-valued uses. The whole point of property taxes is to raise revenue while insuring that land is put to its highest and best use.
If domain names had a significant “property tax” component, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Go Bruce Marler!
I bet other extensions are available or for sale much cheaper, but this bloke is not happy with that. He wants the .com but does not want to pay for it. Like a child complaining.
Does he call Microsoft and ask if he can have their software cheaper because he only wants to use it for “my family”? Grow up!
When I come across people like this, I charge them a $2K “handling fee”, in addition to the capital value of the name.
If its not a porn site you should count your blessings :) could be worse, thats what a real squatter would do.
Oh, great. It’s another person with a false sense of entitlement.
Let me guess. You’re the only one in the world with your name too, right? I don’t know the details of your situation because you haven’t shared any.
That said, I do sympathize with you not being able get the name you want — especially if it’s your actual name — but don’t let it stop you from using other names or alternative TLDs. My advice: focus on getting your name into the top result of Google with your separate site and politely try to negotiate a deal for a lower price if you still want yourname.com… but never come in with the attitude that you deserve it… unless you’ve got some heavy trademarks.
Ummm…. “never used for anything”?? Parking is a completely legitimate use of a domain name. If your personal name is popular, chances are the registrant has been making some decent coin from parking it over the years. Why should s/he simply hand it over to you because you were too late to the party?
You should have registered your “personal dot-com name” before someone else got it. Now you can either hand over the $3K or simply find a different domain to use. Your choice.
I would hardly call it “shady” – I would call it criminal. These guys had the inside view of the max bids. This is not even shill bidding because they knew the magic number. I think you should call it what it is – stealing / grand larceny.
They should go to prison…no doubt about it.
Oh…and kudos for all of the house cleaning you have been doing Michael – calling out all of these people/scammers lately cannot be an easy thing to do. I am sure you are pissing some people off (beyond the obvious). Thanks for doing the right thing.
I agree Dave, its far more than shill bidding
real-life auctions are highly regulated in detail, does anybody know if online auctions are beholden to the same laws? UCC, maybe?
The company is the seller and has the most to gain by shill bidding. And the company is also in control of all auction information. Sometimes an auction may have two bidders, with one bidder putting in a maximum bid of $100,000 (yes, they go this high sometimes). Another may bid just $10,000, and so the winning buyer would just pay some small amount over $10k. From SnapNames perspective that isn’t a $10k gain. It’s a $90k loss.
That’s the best explanation I have heard so far…thanks.
Paul
“So SnapNames “fixed” the problem. An executive with the company simply bid on those domains. He could bid up to, say, $90,000 with full certainty that he wouldn’t be burdened with actually winning the auction and having to pay up. SnapNames made lots of extra money. And if the top bidder backed out and the executive accidentally won, SnapNames was secretly reimbursing him on the back end. Zero risk.”
Everybody needs to calm down and let things play out…
One thing is for certain, this is going to be a wild ride.
Aaah !
” SnapNames is making exactly the wrong moves here. They need to return this money to customers immediately with no conditions attached. And they need to provide full and accurate reports to those customers along with the refund. Anything short of that is just shady.”
I am not sure it is shady but it is cynically tactical.
For example what about situations where people were the immediate under-bidder (second only to Halvarez) in an auction? What recompense is being offered for that? None. For example the capital loss (of the domain name that people do not own but would do if Halvarez was not a bidder) and, also, the corresponding ad revenue that people would have earned if they had owned the domain.
it’s true: they have a lot of exposure over an extended period.
A few years ago, I had a terrible time trying to wrestle an obscure .org domain for our non-profit that SnapNames somehow had taken over. They wouldn’t sell it to us, and though they promised to let it expire so that we could register it, each year they renewed it again. Perhaps they were hoping that after several years, interest would grow leading to an auction…
Whatever their motives, the folks I dealt with at SnapNames definitely gave off a dodgy feeling and in the end we gave up.
Thanks for the article.
The name was probably earning more than the yearly fee to keep it, domain investing is not a not for profit business :)
In a recent purchase (last 3 months) I set up a high, arbitrary amount for a domain name I really wanted; the only major bidder in the race stopped a few dollars shy of that arbitrary amount, as if he knew exactly what it was. My first concern was that some people had access to the bidding amount (either through a weakness in the system or collusion), but now I understand better.
Frankly this is revolting. As they know which accounts were involved they should process those refunds much faster; any day wasted on paying what is obviously due (and can be calculated with a few simple SQL queries) adds to the impression that the company isn’t fully forthcoming.
Now that’s a whole other level of scam. If they had insiders bidding up to just below your proxy bid…
How to prove it? Perhaps just talking about it will bring others to whom that happened out of the woodwork.
If it was Halvarez at snapnames then you will get your money back, you will recieve an email from them.
Of course It could have just been another bidder with a set limit in their mind (or budget).
Or it could have been another fraudulent snapnames bidding account.
Well said. In case you have no clue what’s going on, the synopsis in the form of a Comic at Halvarez – The Comic edition for the busy domainer! http://domaingang.com/?p=1005
Thanks for the spam.
absolute jail time for some of these guys.
I am luck, I came within minutes of submitting my entire domain portfolio for their NY Traffic auction.
I chickened out last minute, and glad I did.
There you go again, tarring everbody with the same brush.
One corrupt individuals does not mean everyone is corrupt, same goes for auction houses…or politics, police, teachers, lawyers…
There was the recent TwoCows.com ‘domain warehousing’ scandal where it was discovered they were keeping the choice domains that were expiring from their registry.
There was the recent NetworkSolutions.com ‘front running’ scandal where it turned out they were holding available domains available for 3 days after someone searched availability through their site.
There was the GoDaddy.com scandal where it turned out they too were warehousing expiring domains and taking precautions to cover their tracks.
In all the above cases the companies made good and corrected these practices after they were discovered and called out. Go internet!
A pity this fellow (pics of perp here: http://www.dnjo...ts/20091104.htm) wasn’t discovered earlier.
Back in the day a domain could be caught around 5:02 am ET. A clever fellow with a list of domains he’d found didn’t resolve could catch something now worth millions. These days you have to backorder domains at ALL the dropcatchers in order to stand a chance of catching it. Actually, SnapNames is good at it. Of the 8 or so domains I’ve had backordered over the last 5 years, SnapNames got me 5 of them.
All these domain scandal totaled up do not come to one CEO of a major company screwing over stockholders and customers.
MCI-Worldcom?
Tyco?
Bern Sterns?
http://www.hrwo...losions-042808/
You got that right !
What’s the point ? It is not as bad as something else so it is ok ?
Damn lets see where this all ends.
There needs to be criminal charges here.
Wow, can’t believe this story. I can think of a few deep pocketed major domainers who would have been hit hardest by this scam who might want some blood. If Namejet didn’t drive Snap out of business, I think this certainly will.
I cant believe that 5% either. I saw this halvarez during that time in pretty much every auction i was in. I’ve also got a lot of $1 refunds.
Come to think of it, I had to threaten them with legal action when a .net domain I was the only bidder on slipped through and I “won” it for $60. They tried to say that I hadn’t won for some BS reason. After enough angry emails and one CC’d through my attorney they handed it over. I don’t know how it got through for only $60, because the .com sold for $200k. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are tons of cases of people winning domains for $60 and someone inside noticing how much more they could go for and then giving that person some line about why they didn’t actually win it. There’s actually a podcast where Frank Schilling mentions that he felt like someone was running up rumcakes.com on him on a drop auction.
Where is this podcast?
It is a lie and I can prove it.
It was probably you Bonkers ! :)
You are correct, it was me. Everyone buys rum cakes as gifts, I don’t know anyone who eats the things, much like peeps.
@MichaelArrington
Snapnames has RESTORED the history all the way back to sometime in 2004.
I just got an email about this from snapnames. Just about every domain I bought through them had the shill bidding them up.
Hey Matt I would like to talk to you more about your specific run in with snapnames. You can get back to me at jonathon@withvic.com
Mike,
In 2006 you spoke at a domain conference where ALL the attendees were domain owners. Your blog was already VERY successful. Why did you choose to speak to a select group of people you compare to the mafia? You even agreed to have them pitch you ideas on sites. It was obvious at that time you were disconnected from the domain space as I recall you asking about a research tool saying nothing existed and one had been around for several years. Ironically, that same guy is another legal battle for the sale of his business.
This is not the first post you have made comments about the Domain Business as a bunch of crooks and compared it to the mafia. However, I have never read anything with specifics about those things. Can you support those allegations about the industry? Why not shed some light to domain investors and outsiders of this mafia like business. I became interested in the domain market in 2003 so maybe i missed it and would love to hear how some of the people are dirty and made their money. Shed some light….inform those of us that are “clueless”. You were in the industry a long time but without supporting your statements it makes you look like you have “extreme hostility” towards industry you were quite active in.
By the way, snapnames is not the only domain auction company that has engaged in this practice of running up prices if you agree with this definition:
At an auction during a conference, where the paddles in the room aren’t raised, yet the auctioneer points to the audience for the camera and increases the bids, having the bidders online believe there is interest and bids on a domain, yet no one has bid, other than the company holding the auction.
I personally could not attend a live Moniker auction, I put in a proxy bid with a signed letter authorizing my max bid.
I find out i won the name at my max proxy bid. I asked some of the bidders who were in the audience later that day how the bidding process ended at exactly that number and no one knew. No one remembered the name having any real bidding on it. The name sold for more than it’s reserve range would would suggest at least another interested party was bidding. In my case, it was the house and against my proxy bid.
Are you willing to talk about some of things you saw over the years?
One has to be clear that domain names are assets. It is a space, an address. A digital one. But in the next 10 years, domain names could get as pricey as real estate and family homes. A .com is sort of a big mall everyone wants to be in, because all the potential consumers flock to their favorite mall. The .com mall.
But there is one paradigm in the making. Better search, semantic search, trust agents, (social) networks.
One who starts a business, a start-up has to ask himself, ‘Do I invest upfront +$XXX.000 for a favorable domain name, or do I invest this money in a community manager, media relations, and a good product?’ I hope for any future start-up, the last will be the case.
What goes around, comes around. Domainers getting fucked by one of their own in their own game.
What are the chances domainers will stop doing business with Snapnames? Zilch. Zero. Nada.
The whores needs da pimp. The customer needs da whores.
This seems a perfect opportunity to use the dreaded Google Sidewiki at the SnapNames.com site…
+1
I just Googled in UK SnapNames, and the two TechCrunch news posts are on top. That is how a company kills itself nowadays.
Snapnames are scammer. They captured a domain name in my name. The lady emailed me and said they had my domain and i could buy it back.
the next day I answered the email and they lady did not respond. She replied a few days later and said she had been on holiday BUT now the domain had been sold to somebody else.
The domain wasnt even put up for auctions.
Some three years later the domain is still in whois by snapnames and there is no website on it.
SCAMMERS THAT SNAP NAMES ARE.
@mikae
what you have described is the phantom accounts at snapnames that bid on domain names.
snapnames has lots of accounts setup to shill bid on domains and when they win, they simply hang on to it.
since they don’t have to pay for winning domains, they keep them. that is the ultimate fraud. they use their fake dollars to bid against your real dollars.
The management that made these decisions and took these actions should all go to jail.
Well, whats with the board of directors and investors?
Corporate Governance anyone?, it’s the same with the recent ‘Scam News’ of the Zynga & Co.
As long as the money is coming, nobody is asking questions.
Snapnames and their parent Oversee.net are trying to spin this as a civil dispute when in fact it is a criminal proceeding.
Snapnames is trying to sweep things under the rug, so Oversee can go public. They did not even press charges agains their alleged shill bidder executive, Howard Nelson Brady! It’s an outrage.
Until the California attorney general files suit against Oversee and Snapnames, this matter is simply unresolved. As far as I can tell, the only way victims will get justice is if Michael continues to fight for us victims.
For once I agree with Michael. Snapnames should just give back the money. There may well be a class-action that solidifies, but I think I will probably settle directly. Class actions typically benefit the counsellors the most. Nelson Brady did a lot of good at Snapnames (and for the industry). While I’m shocked and deeply hurt by all this, I forgive him and hope he gets through the mess he created. Domain names are invaluable and the industry is going to be a lot stronger and cleaner in the aftermath of this episode.
Who do we complain to – the CA attorney general or the AG in our own state? That is how we will get them to actually do something about this.
Frank,
Have you gotten a total on how much you’re owed because of this?
Tens of thousands of dollars. Less than 100k
Frank, will you still buy in the drops at snapnames or do you think there may be other shill bidders still there ?
There are shill bidders at christie’s auction, remember shill bidding doesn’t have to be the house, it could be a friend of the person who is putting the domain/car/painting up for sale.
Kruse Auctions in Auburn Indiana, selling the “batman” car, a few people know the reserve and bid to just below to get attention, and to hold up there paddle and get people to say “who is that” wow he just bid $250,000, he/she must be very important.
Shill bidding term has been around for over 20 years before domain names were even around.
So get a life.
Executives in jail and a company bankrupted by customer lawsuits is the correct outcome…
Wow, a lot of indignant defensiveness from those in the “industry”, which says a lot.
Quite apart from all the other domain-related practices from the sellers, buyers and holders… these actions by SnapNames are a disgrace! I would find it amazing that this company is allowed to continue functioning.
They’ve used the classic “rogue employee” ruse, treasured by banks and crooked online poker operations. I hope someone digs further on that.
Well done to TechCrunch for highlighting this. I agree with DaTruff’s remark just above.
“Wow, a lot of indignant defensiveness from those in the “industry”, which says a lot.”
Maybe. But there’s also a lot of indignant insinuations, attacks, whatever from those who feel people should do what they expect or believe, which also says a lot.
Depends on what lots of people agree and/or disagree with.
If they are honest and upfront and provide all the details in the refund process, then I would have no problem signing an agreement waiving any future legal action against them. Are there any details on how many accounts the employee who was bidding had? Did they disclose their username/s?
Michael Arrington
Can you please answer the question on your previous “squatters” post and tell us what the 43 domains you own are and what you are using them all for.
Does McCain has to disclose that he owns 7 houses across America?
Does Senator Dodd needed to disclose that he got VIP financing from Freddy and Fannie for his 2 homes? Sits on the Finance Committee and said yes to save them? And I read somewhere that he even received money from them (Lobby). I call that ‘biased’.
To all the indignant “domainers” who suggest that domains are simply “real estate”. Here’s your mistake – valuable items like real estate and domains should not simply be available on a “first come/first served” basis at equal cost regardless of value.
This is as if an acre of desert in the middle of nowhere and a lakeside lot in the suburbs were sold for the same cost – a cost preset by the “property registrars”. And the properties are simply available on a first come/first served basis.
It was and is obvious to everyone that simple generic domains like cooking.com or realestate.com were ALWAYS of much greater value in the online economy, and that they (and other generic terms) should never have been sold on a “first come, first served” basis.
In order to represent a true capitalistic economy, they (and other one or two word generics) should have been sold at auction to the highest bidder. And to keep value in the online economy, the people who hold these domains should pay a “property tax” to hold onto these domains, or else release them for others who will pay the “taxes” and/or develop them for greater economic use.
Our society demands that those who own items of great exclusivity (like LAND and DOMAIN NAMES) which cannot be recreated or duplicated by any means, should either develop these items for the greater benefit of society, or give them up to those who will.
Selfish domainers see only a few pennies of profit as being more valuable than the opportunity for a business to build an online prescense, create jobs, and build our economy. Parking domains for intermittent PPC traffic rarely achieves any of that.
Another solution (though I do not know the technical implications of it) would be to remove the outdated “.com” suffix or ANY suffix from website addresses, and have domain registrations based on plain word phrases like company names and locations.
No one really wants to shop at “cheap suitcases.com” or “Hywingo.com” if they can do a websearch and find the best deals at “Acme Suitcases” like they do in their community. And geolocation functions in their web browser/ISP could help restrict them to the “Acme Suitcases” in their area. For an international retailer like “Amazon.com” they could type in “Amazon Superstores” or something and again, drop the silly .com which adds artificial value by restricting competition.
“Our society demands that those who own items of great exclusivity (like LAND and DOMAIN NAMES) which cannot be recreated or duplicated by any means, should either develop these items for the greater benefit of society, or give them up to those who will.”
Our society? I’ve seen some people who don’t necessarily own items of great exclusivity (land or otherwise) state they want to be able to get things first-come-first served, so I don’t know where one gets the idea that “society” demands such.
Unless I’m mistaken, a capitalist economy (true or not) allows people regardless of status equal opportunity to acquire something. It just depends if two or more parties are capable of meeting somewhere, and if they can afford it.
@WatchStore.com dude, if you could own 1000 domains (your cost $8,000 per year to pay for renewal fee’s) and you make $250,000 per in PPC revenue, would you do it?
It would give you freedom to build your other business, buy a car, feed your family?
Or are you just that f-stupid?
To David Zuppke,
“Shoulda, coulda, woulda…” Many losers want to steal success from winners instead of making the early investments, having the imagination, and putting in the long hours. It seems to be in vogue nowadays. I think they call it socialism.
When the curtains are lifted Oversee I would not be suprized to see a massive cyberquatting play revealed. From targeting famous brands and trademarks with sqauts and typos to monetizing absolutely horrible useless and nonsensical domains. Those who believe this is the work of one man are delusional, the company itself appears to be rotten to the core.
Is there just one honest company out there, just one who can be trusted at all?
Attention -
Present and former customers of
RegisterFly.com
Class Action Lawsuit Against RegisterFly, ICANN, and ENOM
Have you been denied or are you being denied access to your domain names that you have registered at RegisterFly.com?
Have you lost domain names despite attempting to renew them through RegisterFly.com or transfer them elsewhere?
Have you been charged for services that were not delivered by RegisterFly.com?
Was the domain contact and/or ownership information changed without your permission to either RegisterFly.com or someone else entirely?
It’s time to PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS >>
HA! XD