Kuiu vs Eastman

[dotman]

For clarification if you are going to use the numbers its like "less than 7.18mil seen each year while 9mil+ was claimed 4years in a row". Suit is claiming close to a 25% exaggeration over actual numbers each year for 4 years.

If true I can see why kuiu would be pissed. I'll let the courts decide though.

None of us have read or seen a single contract for advertising from Eastmans, this is going to be a stretch suit and will more then likely fail.

Here is my guess.

Kuiu tried to renegotiate terms and Eastmans wouldn't budge. They find one number out of many diff numbers and are trying to put a black eye on Eastmans, I also know that about the same time Kuiu left as a sponsor here they threatened to leave Eastmans if they didn't drop a certain writer.

Kuiu has had a great time selling their goods but I'm starting to wonder what spending controls they have, we see tons of discounts codes in the last few months, now they are trying to get advertising dollars back. All speculation but if they were a publicly traded company and I owned stock these are all red flags to consider dumping a stock.

You may make $500,000 at your job but you can only sustain spending at $550,000 so long. Something is up and we'll never know as it is a private company. Also customer records at Eastmans are federally protected so to get the complete list of their subscriber base will require a subpoena.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, everything we all say is speculation but Kuiu definitely has a difficult case ahead of them. Also I doubt other advertisers are jumping to follow as most have a long standing relationship with Eastmans and I'm sure they all have slightly diff contract terms.

 

[dotman]

Something Kuiu probably didn't consider, all the other places they pay for advertising are probably taking a look at their contracts and may consider to drop them to avoid future assumption suits.

 

[mmw194287]

Like others have said, I'll let the court decide--and I find the holier-than-thou press release pretty insufferable.

On the other hand, if the suit is totally groundless, it would be a laughably stupid and expensive thing for anyone to do because I'd imagine that their claims could be pretty easily disproven.

If they paid a considerable amount of money for a service (their ads to be delivered to X number of readers) for the past four years and then came upon good reason to believe that they hadn't, in fact, received that service, then I have no problem with it.

 

[bivouaclarry]

Eastman's advertises their circulation rates: http://ns2.eastmans.com/uploads/files/mediakit/2014/2014_eastmans-media-kit_ehj-ebj.pdf

If indeed their actual circulation rates are lower than advertised or claimed, it's fraud. And they have not only been ripping off KUIU, but all their other advertisers/sponsors as well. Perhaps it's Eastman's that's in a cash crunch and they had to falsify in order to stay afloat. Newspapers and magazines are failing all over the place with online becoming the primary resource. Federal lawsuits and the lawyers required to file them cannot be cheap. Your opinions of Jason aside, it would make zero sense to file this case unless you could prove it and win.

 

[davehc130]

not good

As soon as I read the article I knew this was going to turn into a poop throwing contest...man has not even gone to trail and people are picking sides....off to get some popcorn...

 

[dotman]

I'm not taking sides either way, the courts will decide but show me their circulation numbers to advertising rates and how that is related? Also just because they list circulation they Only do in a statistic sort of way.

To claim fraud is silly, many suits are brought against companies that are baseless. Sucks our society has moved to a guilt until proven innocent mentality.

If Eastmans did inflate then it'll come out if they didn't what is your thoughts on a company filing a stupid suit, will you still support them?

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

None of us have read or seen a single contract for advertising from Eastmans, this is going to be a stretch suit and will more then likely fail.

Here is my guess.

Nope we haven't, I was merely correcting the hypothetical example to match what is being claimed. The poster downplayed the situation by using a 3% inflation in his example, when in reality the fact is the suit is claiming 25% inflation. IF (big if) true then 25% inflation four years in a row is a intentional deceit and not some 3% numbers crunch squabble, that is all.


KUIU could be off their rocker, that is certainly a possibility. Another could be they called BS on eastmans and requested a refund and Eastman's told them to piss up a rope (folks don't typically jump right into lawsuits), that is also a possibility. Both possibilities are just speculations. I'll let the courts sort it out.

 

[Shrek]

I would bet this isn't about rates but about the same thing it was about with Rokslide...editorial control.

 

[jm1607]

Not knowing any facts, I'm going to make an early prediction based on reputation and past behavior:

Eastman's wins fraud suit.

Kuiu gives a big press release on how even though they didn't win the suit this is great for the hunting world and somehow Jason is the hero.

Kuiu fans/wearers agree with Kuiu that this is great for the industry and all hunters and that they are still the best company ever.

 

[jm1607]

KUIU could be off their rocker, that is certainly a possibility. Another could be they called BS on eastmans and requested a refund and Eastman's told them to piss up a rope (folks don't typically jump right into lawsuits), that is also a possibility.

I have a feeling this may be close to the truth and that we haven't heard the whole story (or most of the story).. I'm guessing somehow Eastman's pissed off Kuiu and Jason is just acting out and trying to get revenge in a childish way. His ego is too big to just let things go, as we saw with him and Rokslide. Time will tell when more facts get released and people start talking...

 

[dotman]

Fraud is very very hard to prove. Also after reading the brief Kuiu is trying very hard to keep the case in CA but I do wonder if proper jurisdiction isn't in WY. Also they keep citing CA law but defendant is a WY business. Not sure how all that plays out.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Not knowing any facts I'm not going to really say much either way... The courts will discover what they discover.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Fraud is very very hard to prove. Also after reading the brief Kuiu is trying very hard to keep the case in CA but I do wonder if proper jurisdiction isn't in WY. Also they keep citing CA law but defendant is a WY business. Not sure how all that plays out.

Could be as simple as they are based their (along with their lawyers) and were sold advertisement in the state of CA, or could be something else in the law that favors them. What did you read that shows they are trying hard to keep it in CA (I didn't read the brief)? If they filed in CA, since they are in CA, then you'd expect CA law to be cited.

 

[dotman]

Could be as simple as they are based their (along with their lawyers) and were sold advertisement in the state of CA, or could be something else in the law that favors them. What did you read that shows they are trying hard to keep it in CA (I didn't read the brief)? If they filed in CA, since they are in CA, then you'd expect CA law to be cited.

The gohunt the links the brief and read Jurisdiction, Venue and Count IV violation of CA......

I believe count IV goes away if proper jurisdiction is WY.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

The gohunt the links the brief and read Jurisdiction, Venue and Count IV violation of CA......

I believe count IV goes away if proper jurisdiction is WY.

How is that "trying hard" to keep it in CA? If you were a business that claims it was defrauded wouldn't you file in your own state (presumably were your lawyers are) so you're not wasting your own time to travel to things that require an appearance in court?

 

[dotman]

How is that "trying hard" to keep it in CA? If you were a business that claims it was defrauded wouldn't you file in your own state (presumably were your lawyers are) so you're not wasting your own time to travel to things that require an appearance in court?

Well of course I would . But I do wonder since it is advertising if CA has jurisdiction over a WY company.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Alright then. You originally seemed to be saying they were going out of their way or something to keep it in CA. They are just doing was I think most anyone would do, file initially in their state. Perhaps Eastman will file to have the case moved, who knows. The courts will figure it out one way or another. With or without us jumping to conclusions and such.

 

[Mtslackcountry]

Well if its true that Eastmans was cooking the books then they should pay. Simple as that folks. I will wait to see what the courts decide before I pass judgment. Kuiu haters

 

[rodney482]

Hmm prolly keep wearing my kuiu and reading EHJ ....

 

[Mark]

Hmm prolly keep wearing my kuiu and reading EHJ ....

Yup, me too.

But don't forget, Rodney, the sky is still falling.