[lutusp]

> So where do your very strong assertions about the folly of money-back guarantees come from?

What assertion was that? I never said what you claim. I invite you to locate me decrying "the folly of money-back guarantees", anywhere.

Try to read more carefully, before objecting to something no one said.

> your statements are testable, and if you test them, you will find them false.

Great -- you invent something I never said, then try to hold me responsible for it. Definitely science in action.

[ahoyhere]

I was simply summarizing. Here are your exact words:

"3. The problem is that the remaining 20% can take you at your word, demand a refund, explain that the book was lost in a fire, and succeed in wiping out your profit.

4. Worse, someone might say your claim moved your book from the category of an ordinary caveat-emptor purchase, to a guarantee of success, and demand consequential damages. Very bad, and you made it possible."

With your bulleted list you suggested that 20% of people would take advantage of a return policy (obliterating your presumed 20% profit margin), and on top of that, you might get sued.

If that's not "folly" by your definition, what is?

But because you cried foul, let me be explicit, step by step, with what you "actually" said:

#3. Where's your experience, evidence, or data to suggest that a 20% return rate is common or likely -- even with a results guarantee?

#4. Please provide credible examples of an (e)book author or video course producer being sued for damages above and beyond their refunded money-back guarantee, based on the premise of results promised not being delivered. (Other reasons for lawsuits wouldn't count.)

If you have evidence, I'd really love to see it, because it impacts my business.

[lutusp]

First, IANAL.

Next, how can you not see that I'm comparing the OP's performance claim ("I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates") to a simple money-back guarantee -- "If you're not happy, I'll give you back your money." I have to say there is a world of difference between the two, and others have made the same point in this thread.

> Please provide credible examples of an (e)book author or video course producer being sued for damages above and beyond their refunded money-back guarantee

Sure, no problem, since they practically grow on trees:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau

Quote: "Trudeau's activities have been the subject of both criminal and civil action. He was convicted of larceny and credit card fraud in the early 1990s, and in 1998 he was sued by U.S. Federal Trade Commission for making false or misleading claims in his infomercials promoting his book,'The Weight-Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know About [emphasis added]. In 2004, he settled that action, by agreeing to pay a $500,000 fine and consenting to a lifetime ban on promoting products other than his books via infomercials [not mentioned in this article is that he was required to be truthful about the contents of his books]. [1] On Nov. 29, 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $37.6 million fine levied against him for violating that 2004 settlement [by lying about the contents of his books]. Additionally, on remand, the district court modified its final order, requiring that he post a $2 million bond before engaging in future infomercial advertising."

The above example is someone who made performance claims about his books and lost. Second example -- Greg Mortenson:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/greg-mortenson-sued...

Quote: "Regardless of whether claims are true that author Greg Mortenson fabricated portions of "Three Cups of Tea," neither he nor his publisher can be held liable because the First Amendment protects exaggerations or lies in memoirs, his publisher's attorney said Wednesday.

Penguin Group (USA) attorney Jonathan Herman and attorneys for Mortenson, co-author David Oliver Relin and Mortenson's charity, the Central Asia Institute, asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by four people who bought Mortenson's bestselling books."

Notice about this case, that the lawsuit was dismissed because the claims are all in a book, and while fund-raising, Mortenson never claimed anything beyond the book's content, thus he is protected by the First Amendment.

I could give dozens of examples like those above. The basic thread that runs through all of them is if it is between the covers of a book, in most cases you're safe. But if you make claims while promoting the book, unless they are absolutely bulletproof, someone might sue you. This doesn't mean you have to misbehave to get sued -- people sue on bogus grounds all the time. My point is it's best to avoid opening yourself up to a lawsuit by careless "commercial speech":

http://blj.ucdavis.edu/archives/vol-5-no-2/Commercial-Speech...

I won't try to summarize the complex law on this issue, except to say that commercial speech is not First Amendment speech.

> If that's not "folly" by your definition, what is?

I never even used the word "folly". What's my incentive to let you put words in my mouth?

And I hope this helps.

[ahoyhere]

The debate wasn't, isn't, has never been about whether "commercial speech is First Amendment speech."

The debate is whether you have evidence to support your claims that it's a very risky and legally actionable idea to offer a refund if people don't see results. Assuming that the offer is truthful.

You have not offered any.

You've found one case where a person was sued for hawking a cancer cure and rapid weight loss, but even so, the lawsuits were over flat out lies inherent in the product and not any kind of results-or-money-back guarantee.

It's pretty amazing. No matter how often I ask for evidence for this assertion of yours, you manage to change the topic. I salute you. You would make an excellent press secretary.

[lutusp]

> The debate wasn't, isn't, has never been about whether "commercial speech is First Amendment speech."

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. The OP was making a mistake by making a performance claim about his book. By doing so, he abandoned the First Amendment protection of the book's contents.

If he had said "money back if you're not happy" but without referring to the book's contents, that could hardly get him in trouble. But by referring to the book's contents and anticipated effect, he opened himself up to people who might like to hold him accountable for the book's contents, something they cannot do if he doesn't refer to the book's contents.

Because of First Amendment protections, it's not possible to hold someone responsible for a book's contents, unless the person makes claims about the contents as part of his sales pitch. This is what got Kevin Trudeau in trouble, even though he was selling books (he believed he was protected, but for the reasons I have just given, he wasn't).

URL: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-16/news/30523850...

> You've found one case where a person was sued for hawking a cancer cure and rapid weight loss, but even so, the lawsuits were over flat out lies inherent in the product

No, the problem wasn't lies, the problem was the location of the lies. You can lie in a book, but you cannot lie in a sales pitch. Kevin Trudeau either didn't know this or didn't care.

Greg Mortenson wrote a book called "Three Cups of Tea," and raised millions for his charitable activities. Investigators then discovered that his book is a pack of lies, but because it's a book, he couldn't be sued (Mortenson never told the lies outside his book).

URL:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2012/0418/T...

Quote: "First Amendment expert and general counsel of the First Amendment Lawyers Association Wayne Giampietro calls those claims absurd, reports the AP.

“It’s his story. It purports to be his experiences. He can say it any way he wants to say. He has the right to publish anything he wants about himself,” Giampietro said. “The idea that you can be sued because perhaps they don’t like what you wrote, for whatever reason, is absurd.” "

My point? If it's between the covers of a book, it doesn't matter what you say, you're protected. If it's part of a sales pitch, someone can try to sue you, and not all plaintiffs are angels.

It is entirely about the difference between protected speech and commercial speech. In a book, you can say anything. In a pitch, you cannot. Very simple.

> No matter how often I ask for evidence for this assertion of yours, you manage to change the topic.

You're the one trying to change the topic. You just tried to claim this isn't about the difference between constitutionally protected and commercial speech. But that is the only issue.