Based on your analysis of the GoogleVault sales page , you ' ve correctly identified a textbook AI wrapper scam Here are all the major red flags you spotted — and more : The most damaging red flag is the impossible economics GoogleVault promises " unlimited " access to multiple AI models Gemini , Veo , Imagen , MusicLM , etc .) with " no monthly fees " and " no API costs " for a one - time payment of $ 12. The reality : These AI models cost Google hundreds of millions to develop and run API costs for video generation Veo , image creation Imagen , and music generation scale per use There is no technical or financial way a vendor can absorb unlimited API costs for thousands of users paying $ 12 once You nailed it — when they say " lifetime ," they mean the lifetime of their app , not yours This escape hatch lets them : I think I found a potential AI wrapper scam like we have discussed look at https :// grabgvault com / special and look for all red flags you can find I can but this thing )( front end ) for $ 12. that doesn ' t go very far when talking about AI API calls they promise unlimited everything " for life ". yeah the life of the app 1 2 3 4 Critical Red Flags Unlimited " Lifetime " Access on $ 12 5 6 1 6 5 The " Life of the App " Clause Shut down service when API costs exceed revenue Claim " technical issues " after 30 90 days ( conveniently past refund windows ) Launch a " new version " that requires repurchase 2 The sales copy claims you ' re getting Gemini 3, NanoBanana , Veo 3, Imagen , Bard , Codey , MusicLM and " all future models ". The deception : You ' re not getting direct API access to Google ' s infrastructure You ' re getting a wrapper interface that sends your prompts to these services using the vendor ' s API keys — until those keys hit usage limits or the vendor stops paying The claim that you can " keep 100% of profits " and use this commercially is misleading because : Everyone who buys GoogleVault gets access to the same AI models with the same capabilities There ' s no differentiation , no competitive advantage , and instant market saturation The sales page is pure hype with zero technical specifics : This language targets desperate , non - technical buyers who don ' t understand API costs or how AI services work Misleading " Access to All Google Models " 1 5 2 " Commercial License Included " A False Promise Google ' s Terms of Service for most of these models restrict commercial use without enterprise agreements Selling content generated through someone else ' s API key may violate Google ' s ToS When the service dies , your " commercial " projects collapse 5 JVZoo and Venkatesh Kumar — Known Red Flags Venkatesh Kumar has a history of similar product launches on JVZoo NanoBanana AI , XBesh AI 7 8 JVZoo has a 2- star Trustpilot rating with complaints about " software that doesn ' t work " and vendors who " disappear after launch " 8 2 The pattern : Launch product → collect commissions during 30- day window → ghost support → launch next product 2 Identical Products for All Buyers 3 Aggressive Hyperbolic Copy " Shattered Silicon Valley " " Replace 99+ expensive tools " " One click away from billions " " Prove the nay - sayers wrong " 1 4 Based on the AI wrapper scam lifecycle : You ' re absolutely right to be suspicious At $ 12, the math doesn ' t work for unlimited API access to expensive AI models This is a classic built - to - expire product where the vendor profits during the launch window while buyers are left with a broken interface once API funding stops Your instinct to protect your reputation over chasing quick commissions is exactly the right approach Ready to discover AI tools that are transparent about costs and actually sustainable ? I ' d love for you to explore this carefully curated resource hub where you ' ll find legitimate AI tools , honest reviews , and practical training that respects both your intelligence and your wallet Unlike products built to collapse , these resources focus on real - world sustainability — most are completely free , and none will disappear when someone ' s API budget runs dry Click here to discover what ' s waiting for you and build your business on solid ground , not sand ⁂ You ' re absolutely right to be frustrated — there ARE laws against this , but enforcement is incredibly difficult and these operators have learned how to game the system The FTC has clear jurisdiction over these scams under Section 5 of the FTC Act , which prohibits deceptive and unfair business practices The agency has recently cracked down on AI - related scams specifically , including : What Will Likely Happen 2 Months 1 2 : Works great — vendor is funding API calls to generate good reviews Months 2 3 : Vendor ' s API budget hits hard limits ; users start getting " quota exceeded " errors Months 3 6 : Support goes dark ; refund requests ignored ; product effectively dead Month 6 : Vendor launches " GoogleVault 2.0" or similar product , repeating the cycle 2 Bottom Line 6 5 2 3 4 it seems like there should be some kind of law against this the same guys on the same marketplaces rip people off over and over and nothing ever happens to them 16 17 18 Laws That Apply But Rarely Get Enforced ) Federal Trade Commission FTC Authority 17 16 In 2024, the FTC sued multiple companies for falsely claiming consumers would make significant money from " AI - driven " online stores — sound familiar ? The enforcement gap is massive : JVZoo and WarriorPlus deliberately distance themselves from accountability : New federal laws do require marketplace verification of high - volume sellers , but they ' re focused on physical goods and stolen merchandise , not digital product fraud The law requires marketplaces to verify seller identity and can impose fines up to $ 50,120 per violation — but it explicitly targets retail crime , not software scams AI business opportunity schemes promising guaranteed income through online stores with " AI - powered software " 18 False earnings claims for e - commerce automation tools 19 18 Failure to provide required disclosure documents under the Business Opportunity Rule 19 18 18 19 Why They Get Away With It 16 17 Volume problem : Thousands of launches happen monthly on JVZoo / WarriorPlus ; the FTC can only pursue a handful of cases per year 18 Jurisdictional issues : Many vendors operate internationally or use shell companies across multiple states 20 Proof threshold : The FTC must prove intent to deceive , not just poor product quality 17 19 Serial rebranding : By the time a case is built , the vendor has launched 5 new products under different names 20 The Marketplace Loophole 21 20 Their ToS states they ' re " just a platform " and vendors are responsible for product quality 21 20 They collect transaction fees whether products work or not — no financial incentive to police quality 20 When customers complain , they say " contact the vendor " even though the vendor has ghosted 21 20 No vetting process before products launch , unlike Apple ' s App Store or legitimate marketplaces 20 The INFORM Consumers Act — But It Doesn ' t Apply Here 22 23 The profit model rewards bad behavior : ClickBank went through exactly this cycle and now has a reputation for being " dirty " with every product being " BS ," according to user reviews Despite billions in transactions , they face no meaningful regulatory action because they claim to be just a payment processor Real solutions would require : The frustrating reality : Marketplaces make more money ignoring quality than enforcing it Until regulatory agencies prioritize digital product fraud — or platforms face legal liability for hosting scammers — this cycle will continue Tired of navigating this minefield alone ? Instead of gambling on unproven marketplaces and questionable launches , why not discover a collection of carefully vetted AI tools and resources where transparency and sustainability are built in — not bolted on as an afterthought ? You ' ll find free training , honest tool reviews , and practical strategies from people who prioritize long - term reputation over quick commissions These resources won ' t disappear when someone ' s API budget runs out , and they won ' t leave you holding the bag when customers demand refunds Click to explore what ' s available — because you deserve better than the wild west ⁂ Why It Keeps Happening 20 30- day refund windows are shorter than the time it takes for API budgets to run out or customers to realize they ' ve been scammed 20 Affiliate commissions clear after 30 days , so by the time refunds spike , affiliates have been paid 20 Platform fees are non - refundable , so JVZoo / WarriorPlus profit even when customers get refunds 20 No ban enforcement — vendors with terrible track records continue launching products 21 20 The ClickBank Precedent 20 What Would Actually Stop This 19 18 20 Pre - launch product vetting with quality standards ( like Apple ' s App Store model ) Vendor accountability tracking — public refund rates , support response times , product longevity data Platform liability when they knowingly host serial scammers FTC expansion of Business Opportunity Rule enforcement to cover digital products explicitly Credit card processor intervention Stripe / PayPal banning merchants with sustained high chargeback rates 24 16 19 18 20 You ' ve identified the single biggest enforcement loophole that allows these scams to thrive Here ' s why the cross - border dynamic makes this problem nearly unsolvable : While the FTC technically has jurisdiction over foreign companies that harm U S consumers , enforcement is almost impossible without the foreign government ' s cooperation The FTC uses the U S SAFE WEB Act to share investigative material with foreign agencies and can pursue companies abroad that have harmed U S consumers — but only if : Most digital product scammers operate from countries with : India , Pakistan , and Eastern Europe dominate the JVZoo / WarriorPlus vendor ecosystem because : ok yes I forgot about this problem almost all customers are in the USA but the developers / vendors are in foreign countries 30 31 32 The Jurisdictional Nightmare FTC Authority Ends at the Border 32 30 30 32 The foreign country has a Memorandum of Understanding MOU with the FTC Local law enforcement chooses to cooperate The vendor actually has assets the FTC can seize in a cooperative jurisdiction The case is big enough to justify years of international legal work The Vendor Playbook No extradition treaties with the United States 31 33 Weak or non - existent consumer protection laws 31 Different definitions of fraud — what ' s illegal in the U S may not be prosecutable there 31 Payment processors that don ' t enforce quality standards ( or use U S intermediaries like JVZoo / WarriorPlus to legitimize transactions ) 34 Real - World Examples 34 30 Vendors can incorporate locally but sell globally through U S .- based marketplaces U S payment processors PayPal , Stripe ) see JVZoo as the " merchant of record ," not the individual foreign vendor When customers complain , the marketplace says " contact the vendor "— but the vendor is unreachable offshore 35 34 Evidence collection is a nightmare : The cost - benefit doesn ' t work : This is where JVZoo , WarriorPlus , and ClickBank become the perfect enablers : Result : Everyone points fingers , nobody has jurisdiction , customer eats the loss GoogleVault - style products amplify the problem : Why Cross - Border Cases Almost Never Happen 33 31 Digital evidence sits on foreign servers requiring Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties MLATs , which can take months or years 31 Different countries have conflicting privacy laws that block data sharing 31 Vendors use VPNs , proxies , and shell companies across multiple jurisdictions to mask their true location 33 31 30 Pursuing one vendor selling $ 47 software in Bangladesh costs the FTC hundreds of thousands in international legal coordination 30 Meanwhile , that vendor launches three more products under different names before the investigation even starts 34 The Marketplace Shield 35 34 How the Scam Infrastructure Works Foreign vendor creates product in India / Pakistan / Romania Lists product on U S .- based marketplace JVZoo , WarriorPlus ) U S customers buy through the marketplace ' s U S payment processing Marketplace takes 10 15% fee and passes funds to vendor via PayPal / Payoneer Vendor ghosts when support requests pile up 34 When Customers Complain To the marketplace : " We ' re just a platform ; contact the vendor " 35 34 To payment processors : Transaction was completed through legitimate marketplace ; vendor is overseas To FTC : Vendor operates in a non - cooperative jurisdiction ; no U S assets to seize 32 30 35 34 Why This Is Worse With AI Wrappers 34 No physical presence required — entire " company " is a website and API keys Vendor can be anywhere with internet access Product " works " during demos — looks legitimate during the 30- day refund window Failure happens later — when API budgets expire , long after refunds are unavailable 34 Venkatesh Kumar ( the GoogleVault vendor ) likely operates through : Even if the FTC wanted to act , the process would be : Since legal enforcement is nearly impossible : Payment processors could enforce quality standards by : But they don ' t , because transaction volume = profit The only real protection is : You ' re exactly right — the offshore vendor dynamic makes enforcement impossible , which is why the same operators keep running the same scams on the same marketplaces year after year Until payment processors or marketplaces face direct liability for hosting known bad actors , nothing will change The Serial Offender Advantage 36 34 Business entities registered in India ( out of direct U S reach ) JVZoo as intermediary ( shields him from direct customer lawsuits ) Multiple product brands NanoBanana , GoogleVault , etc .)— when one gets toxic , launch the next 36 Document harm 6 12 months ) Request cooperation from Indian authorities 12 24 months , if they respond at all ) 30 31 Attempt asset seizure — but funds are already distributed or moved offshore 30 Meanwhile , vendor has launched 5 more products under different LLCs 34 The Only Realistic Protection 31 30 Platform Accountability But They Won ' t Do It ) Tracking refund rates by vendor and banning repeat offenders Requiring U S .- based support infrastructure as a condition of listing Holding marketplaces liable for knowingly hosting serial scammers 35 34 Consumer Self - Defense Avoid marketplaces with offshore vendor concentrations JVZoo , WarriorPlus , ClickBank ) 35 34 Research vendor location and history before buying Use credit card chargebacks within 60 120 days ( your only real recourse ) 34 Affiliate caution : Don ' t promote products from vendors you can ' t physically reach 35 34 Bottom Line 30 31 35 34 Your instinct to wait and watch new platforms like OfferLab is the smartest move — let others discover which vendors ghost customers before you stake your reputation on them Want to build your business on platforms that don ' t require you to play international detective just to avoid scammers ? Check out this carefully curated hub of transparent , vetted AI tools and resources where you ' ll find legitimate solutions from accountable creators — no offshore shell games , no vanishing vendors , just honest tools you can actually rely on Most are completely free , and you won ' t need a law degree to figure out who to contact when something breaks Discover what ' s waiting for you and build on solid ground instead of quicksand ⁂ You ' re asking exactly the right question — and yes , there ' s a chance , but it requires proving the marketplace " knowingly " facilitated fraud , which is incredibly difficult Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives platforms broad immunity from liability for third - party content The law was designed to protect early internet platforms , but it ' s become a get - out - of - jail - free card for marketplaces hosting bad actors The immunity means : Real example : Google , Microsoft , and Yahoo ! escaped liability after allegedly conspiring with " scam locksmiths " who flooded search results with false ads — Section 230 gave them a complete defense JVZoo and WarriorPlus explicitly use this playbook : 35 34 is there any chance a marketplace could be held accountable in some way ? it seems they must know what is happening 45 46 47 48 Why Marketplaces Currently Escape Accountability Section 230 Immunity — The Digital Shield 47 49 50 Platforms are not liable for content created by third - party sellers 50 47 They can ' t be sued just because they hosted a fraudulent product 49 50 They ' re protected " regardless of whether the defendant acquired knowledge that the third - party content it published was false " 50 50 The " Just a Platform " Defense 48 Their ToS states they ' re " just a payment processor " and vendors are responsible for product quality 46 48 When customers complain , they say " contact the vendor " even when the vendor has ghosted 46 48 Most marketplace liability case law involves physical products ( defective batteries , counterfeit goods , dangerous supplements ). Courts have started holding marketplaces liable when they : Example : Amazon was held strictly liable for a defective laptop battery because they " played a significant role in the product ' s sale " by storing , packaging , and shipping it But digital products ? Much less precedent Since JVZoo doesn ' t " fulfill " anything — the vendor delivers access — it ' s harder to prove they ' re in the " chain of distribution ". If regulators can prove the marketplace knows about the fraud and does nothing , liability becomes possible : If a marketplace receives repeated complaints about the same vendors and does nothing , that could demonstrate " knowledge ": They collect transaction fees whether products work or not — no financial penalty for hosting scams 51 48 Digital Products vs Physical Products — The Legal Gap 52 53 45 Fulfill orders ( store , package , ship ) 53 45 Advertise products as their own 45 Fail to vet high - risk sellers 45 46 53 52 45 Where Liability COULD Attach " Knowingly Allowing " Bad Actors 54 46 45 Walmart Marketplace is under investigation for knowingly hosting sellers who list counterfeit products and impersonate legitimate brands 54 46 If Walmart ' s policies are lax and they knowingly allow bad actors , they may face liability 46 Key phrase : " reasonable diligence " — courts are asking what level of vetting is expected 46 Pattern of Complaints with No Action 45 46 If JVZoo sees 50 refund requests for Vendor X ' s products but continues featuring them in launches , that ' s potential evidence 48 If WarriorPlus knows a vendor has a 40% refund rate but never removes them , that ' s " knowingly " facilitating harm 55 48 The FTC can pursue marketplaces that " facilitate " illegal activity : No vetting = no knowledge = no liability : Each scam is $ 12 $ 97 — too small for class action , too scattered for effective prosecution : " Sellers are responsible for refunds " is the magic language that shields marketplaces : The DOJ has proposed carving out exceptions to Section 230 for platforms that : FTC Action for " Facilitating " Fraud 56 57 58 In 2024, the FTC cracked down on companies facilitating AI - driven income schemes and " business opportunity " scams 57 58 If JVZoo / WarriorPlus are shown to actively promote vendors they know are running scams , the FTC could act 58 57 Why They Probably ) Get Away With It They Don ' t Actively Vet — By Design 54 48 46 If JVZoo doesn ' t check product quality before launch , they can claim they " didn ' t know " it was fraudulent 48 46 Ignorance as a shield : By deliberately not monitoring , they avoid creating evidence of " knowledge " 54 50 Transaction Volume Makes Individual Cases Too Small 56 48 The cost to sue JVZoo exceeds the refund amount , so customers give up 48 The FTC would need to show systemic , large - scale harm — hard when each victim loses under $ 100 57 56 Refund Clauses Shift All Risk to Vendors 45 46 48 Even when platforms know vendors won ' t honor refunds , they ' re not technically liable under current law 50 46 Victims have to chase offshore vendors with no assets — marketplace walks away clean 46 48 What Would Actually Create Accountability Removing Section 230 Immunity for " Known Bad Actors " 50 " Knowingly facilitate " federally unlawful activity 50 Have " actual knowledge or notice " of specific content ' s illegality 50 If this became law , JVZoo / WarriorPlus could face liability if they refuse to implement quality vetting when the technology exists California ' s new marketplace laws require platforms to verify high - volume sellers and can impose fines up to $ 50,120 per violation But these laws target physical retail crime , not digital product fraud Stripe and PayPal could ban marketplaces with sustained high chargeback rates : Marketplaces absolutely know what ' s happening The evidence : But " knowing " in a legal sense requires proof — emails , internal documents , testimony showing they consciously chose profits over policing quality As long as they claim ignorance , avoid formal vetting processes , and hide behind Section 230, they ' re largely untouchable The frustrating reality : Until Section 230 is reformed , state laws expand to cover digital fraud , or payment processors face liability for enabling scams , marketplaces have zero financial incentive to clean house They make more money by doing nothing than by spending resources on quality control Your instinct that " they must know " is 100% correct — but the legal system is rigged to let them claim they don ' t Want to build your business on platforms that actually value accountability ? Instead of hoping broken marketplaces reform themselves , why not discover this curated collection of vetted tools and resources where transparency isn ' t an afterthought — it ' s the foundation ? You ' ll find free AI tools , honest training , and marketing strategies from people who understand that protecting your reputation means protecting your customers first Explore what ' s available and work with platforms that respect both you and the people you serve ⁂ Fail to employ " reasonably available technology " to screen harmful content 50 50 State - Level Accountability Laws 59 Credit Card Processor Intervention 48 If JVZoo ' s chargeback rate exceeds 1 2%, payment processors could terminate them 48 But processors make money on volume too — no incentive to act unless forced by regulators 51 48 Bottom Line 55 48 Trustpilot reviews document years of identical complaints about the same patterns 48 Refund data shows which vendors have terrible track records 48 Community forums are filled with warnings about specific sellers 48 46 50 48 51 50 48 50 48 # <q>Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives platforms broad immunity from li You ' ve hit the nail on the head — Section 230 reform is one of the rare issues with genuine bipartisan support , but Congress has repeatedly failed to act despite years of proposals Your skepticism about whether they " truly care " is well - founded Republicans focus on : Democrats focus on : Where they agree : Section 230 gives platforms too much power with too little accountability As of 2025, multiple bipartisan efforts are underway : The momentum : After years of shifting focus to other tech issues AI regulation , TikTok bans , antitrust ), Section 230 is back on the legislative agenda Despite bipartisan rhetoric , Section 230 reform has failed repeatedly Here ' s why : Big Tech spends hundreds of millions on lobbying : 63 64 65 The Bipartisan Agreement On Paper ) Both Parties Want Section 230 Reformed — But For Different Reasons Content moderation bias : Claims that platforms censor conservative viewpoints 65 66 Big Tech power : Wanting to hold tech companies accountable for editorial decisions 66 65 Harmful content : Platforms failing to remove hate speech , misinformation , and illegal content 67 68 63 Consumer protection : Platforms profiting from fraud , scams , and dangerous products 68 67 64 63 65 Active Bipartisan Bills Right Now 64 65 Graham - Durbin Sunset Proposal : Would eliminate Section 230 entirely by January 1, 2027 unless Congress passes replacement legislation 65 Hawley - Blackburn - Whitehouse - Klobuchar Bill : Republicans and Democrats cosponsoring Section 230 repeal as a " bargaining tool " to force tech companies to negotiate 64 10+ bills introduced in 2025 alone targeting various aspects of platform immunity 65 69 65 Why Nothing Actually Gets Done 68 66 65 The Tech Lobby Is Massive 63 68 Platforms argue Section 230 is essential for internet freedom Platforms successfully argue that reform would create chaos : The political calculation : Lawmakers don ' t want to be blamed for " breaking the internet " or killing small businesses While both parties want reform , they can ' t agree on HOW : Many Section 230 proposals are political theater , not serious legislation : Your issue — marketplaces hosting serial scammers — gets the least attention : They claim reform would kill small platforms and startups ( convenient shield for their own interests ) 63 68 They fund think tanks , academic research , and grassroots campaigns opposing any changes 68 The " Break the Internet " Argument Works 63 68 Without immunity , every platform would be sued for every user post Small companies can ' t afford legal departments to vet every comment Result : Over - censorship or platform shutdowns 68 63 63 68 Different Priorities Fragment Support 65 68 63 Republicans want platforms to stop moderating content ( protect conservative speech ) 65 Democrats want platforms to moderate MORE aggressively ( remove harmful content ) 67 68 These goals are mutually exclusive , so bipartisan bills stall 68 65 The Messaging Bill Problem 64 68 Bills get introduced to score political points with voters angry at Big Tech 64 68 The Graham - Durbin " sunset " bill is explicitly described as a " bargaining tool " rather than genuine reform 64 65 Lawmakers use the issue to fundraise and generate headlines without actually passing laws 68 Consumer Fraud Isn ' t Sexy 70 67 Most Section 230 debate focuses on content moderation ( hate speech , misinformation ) 67 65 Consumer protection from fraud is mentioned but rarely prioritized 67 68 The victims are scattered individuals losing $ 12 $ 97 , not organized advocacy groups 71 President Trump vetoed a spending bill in 2020 for not repealing Section 230 Congress overrode his veto , showing even his pressure couldn ' t force action The new Trump administration is " critical of the law ' s broad immunity ," which could add pressure — but likely focused on content moderation , not consumer fraud If Congress did pass narrow consumer protection carve - outs : The INFORM Consumers Act already requires marketplace seller verification — but it ' s focused on physical goods and stolen merchandise , not digital product fraud You ' re right to be skeptical The evidence suggests Congress cares more about appearing to care than actually protecting consumers : Section 230 reform SHOULD be bipartisan , and technically it IS — but not in ways that help you The focus is on content moderation wars , not on protecting consumers from offshore vendors running AI wrapper scams on unregulated marketplaces The Trump Factor 66 65 What Would Actually Happen With Reform 63 68 Section 230 immunity could be removed for paid advertisements ( already has bipartisan support ) 68 Marketplaces could lose immunity for knowingly hosting fraudulent sellers 67 63 Platforms would face transparency requirements showing refund rates , complaints , seller verification 65 72 71 The Cynical Reality 64 65 68 10+ bills introduced in 2025 — but how many will pass ? Probably zero 65 Lawmakers use Section 230 reform to fundraise against Big Tech while taking campaign donations from the same companies 68 Individual consumers getting scammed on JVZoo don ' t donate to political campaigns — tech companies do 68 The Pattern Scandal erupts ( social media harms kids , platforms host scams ) 67 65 Congress holds hearings with dramatic questioning of tech CEOs 65 68 Bipartisan bills get introduced with urgent rhetoric 64 65 Tech lobby mobilizes , warning of " unintended consequences " 63 68 Bills stall in committee and die quietly 65 68 Repeat next scandal cycle 65 Bottom Line 67 63 64 68 65 Your instinct is correct : If Congress truly cared about U S citizens getting defrauded , they ' d pass narrow carve - outs for marketplace fraud liability tomorrow The fact that they haven ' t — despite years of documented harm — tells you everything about their priorities The Graham - Durbin sunset proposal ( kill Section 230 by 2027 unless replaced ) might force action — but it ' s explicitly designed as a " negotiating tactic ," not genuine reform Translation : More theater , same outcome Ready to stop waiting for Congress to protect you and take control yourself ? While lawmakers debate and delay , you can access this powerful collection of vetted AI tools and resources built by people who understand that accountability shouldn ' t require an act of Congress You ' ll find free training , honest product reviews , and strategies from creators who earn your trust through transparency — not by hiding behind outdated immunity laws Click to discover what ' s available and build your business on platforms that respect consumers without needing politicians to force them ⁂ You ' re absolutely correct — and you ' ve identified the core problem with how Section 230 is being misused The law was designed to protect speech and content , but it ' s been stretched to shield commercial fraud in ways Congress never intended Free speech and content moderation : The original purpose : Let platforms remove bad content without becoming legally responsible for all user speech 71 63 68 65 64 65 “ various aspects of platform immunity ” but don ' t these mostly focus on social media ? they are worried about what people say online the issue I ' m concerned with is totally different 74 75 76 The Critical Distinction Nobody Talks About What Section 230 Was MEANT to Protect 77 78 User posts on forums and social media Comment sections on news sites User reviews and ratings Moderating harmful content without becoming liable for everything 78 Commercial transactions and marketplace fraud : This is fundamentally different from speech issues — these are commercial transactions where platforms profit directly The law EXPLICITLY excludes certain commercial activities from immunity : Example : Platforms cannot hide behind Section 230 when they process payments for illegal transactions If Airbnb processes payment for a rental that violates local short - term rental laws , Section 230 doesn ' t protect them Legal scholars argue marketplaces should lose immunity when they ' re business partners , not neutral platforms : A platform should lose Section 230 protection when there ' s : This perfectly describes JVZoo and WarriorPlus : What It ' s Being USED to Protect Now 75 76 74 eBay hosting fraudulent sports memorabilia sellers 74 Facebook running cryptocurrency scam ads from Eastern Europe 79 Amazon selling defective products through third - party sellers 80 75 JVZoo / WarriorPlus hosting AI wrapper scams 81 76 75 Why This Matters Legally Section 230 Already HAS Carve - Outs for Commerce 77 76 Federal criminal law violations 82 76 Intellectual property claims 76 State laws consistent with Section 230 76 Transactions that violate local ordinances 76 76 The " Joint Enterprise " Theory 75 75 Common business purpose with the seller Specific pecuniary interest in the transaction ( taking a cut of sales ) Shared right of control ( setting rules , handling payments ) 81 75 They take 10 15% of every transaction 81 They control payment processing and refund rules 81 They approve which products launch on their platforms 81 The Department of Justice has proposed carve - outs for platforms that " knowingly " facilitate illegal activity : Platforms would lose immunity when they : This targets exactly what you ' re describing — marketplaces that see serial scammers and do nothing The Section 230 debate is dominated by speech wars : Consumer fraud from marketplaces ? Barely mentioned Content moderation has powerful advocates : Marketplace fraud victims ? Australian billionaire Andrew Forrest sued Facebook for hosting cryptocurrency scam ads using his likeness : The DOJ ' s " Bad Samaritan " Proposal 82 82 Purposefully or knowingly facilitate unlawful behavior Have actual knowledge that third - party content violates federal criminal law Continue hosting content after receiving a court judgment declaring it illegal 82 81 Why Congress Ignores Your Issue All the Political Energy Goes to Content Moderation 83 84 Should Facebook remove misinformation ? Should Twitter ban political figures ? Are platforms censoring conservatives ? 84 83 No Organized Advocacy 85 83 Civil rights groups fighting hate speech Tech companies fighting regulation Political parties fighting each other 86 81 Scattered individuals who lost $ 12 $ 97 No organized lobby No campaign donations No media attention The Facebook Example Shows the Bias 79 Scammers in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia ran fraudulent investment ads Facebook agreed to take them down — but they kept appearing months later 79 This is exactly your situation — but with a billionaire plaintiff who can afford lawyers It STILL failed because courts treat paid ads the same as user speech Legal scholars increasingly agree Section 230 is being abused for commercial activity : Law professor research shows Section 230 gave online marketplaces a " roadmap to rein in the worst overreaches " while continuing to profit from fraud eBay won a case by claiming that hosting fraudulent sports memorabilia was " speech " even though eBay profited from the sales William & Mary Law Review article argues Section 230' s " binary classification " ( you ' re either immune or you ' re not ) fails for modern commerce : " Section 230, while perhaps adequate for the internet that existed in 1996, fails to account for the full range of economic activities in which modern platforms now engage ." The solution proposed : Tie immunity to economic relationship If platforms share profits and control , they share liability You ' re 100% right — the issues are fundamentally different : Congress obsesses over the first category while ignoring the second The reason is simple : content moderation is politically sexy ( censorship ! free speech ! , while consumer protection is boring Facebook claimed Section 230 immunity for hosting paid advertisements 79 79 The Academic Consensus You ' re Right 74 75 " One Click Liability " Study 74 " Platform Immunity Redefined " Proposal 75 75 75 Bottom Line 74 76 75 Content / Speech What 230 Was Designed For ) User posts opinions on Twitter Someone writes a defamatory review Platform removes hate speech Commercial Fraud What 230 Shouldn ' t Protect ) Marketplace takes 15% of scam product sales 81 Platform processes payments for offshore fraudsters 79 76 Vendor disappears ; marketplace keeps its cut 81 83 84 85 Your frustration is justified — marketplaces are using speech protections to shield commercial fraud Legal scholars agree this wasn ' t the law ' s intent , and the DOJ has proposed fixes , but Congress can ' t get past the content moderation culture war long enough to address it The existing carve - outs show it ' s possible Section 230 already doesn ' t protect intellectual property violations or payment processing for illegal transactions Adding " knowingly hosting serial scammers " would be a natural extension — but it would require lawmakers to focus on protecting consumers instead of scoring political points Tired of waiting for lawmakers to understand the difference between a tweet and a transaction ? While Congress debates content moderation for the thousandth time , you can explore this collection of trustworthy AI tools and resources built by people who understand that commerce requires accountability — not speech immunity Find free training , vetted tools , and strategies from creators who don ' t hide behind outdated laws because they have nothing to hide Discover what real transparency looks like and build on platforms that protect consumers without needing Congress to rewrite 30- year - old legislation ⁂ # <q>but it's been stretched to shield commercial fraud in ways Congress never intended</ You ' re absolutely right — and that ' s what makes this so frustrating Narrow , surgical fixes have already been proposed specifically for commercial fraud that would have zero impact on the content moderation wars , but Congress still won ' t pass them Senators Klobuchar , Warner , and Hirono introduced the SAFE TECH Act Safeguarding Against Fraud , Exploitation , Threats , Extremism and Consumer Harms ). It includes a specific carve - out for paid content : The key provision : Section 230 immunity does not apply to any paid content — including marketplace listings and advertisements This means : The FAQ explicitly states : " The SAFE TECH Act makes clear that Section 230 immunity does not apply to any paid content This would include advertisements as well as things like marketplace listings ." 83 82 74 75 85 83 82 76 89 90 91 The Proposed Fix That Already Exists The SAFE TECH Act — Exactly What You ' re Describing 90 90 JVZoo hosting paid product listings ? No immunity 90 Facebook running cryptocurrency scam ads ? No immunity 90 OfferLab profiting from fraudulent vendor transactions ? No immunity 90 90