News Brief: Statement from Overstock Regarding California Bill AB 1625

Yesterday Overstock announced its intention to terminate California affiliates should AB 1625 pass. In a  letter to all of its affiliates, Overstock urge opposition to AB 1625 stating that:

There is a measure under consideration in California, likely to be voted on tomorrow, which, if it passes, will likely result in the termination of our business connection.

The letter goes on to urge California affiliates to oppose the passage of the legislation and specifically calls out Section 1 as being the point of contention.

In reading AB 1625 (PDF) the measure is essentially a motion by the Budget Committee to allow changes to the Budget Act of 2010. The section Overstock identifies as being problematic, Section 1, reads:

SECTION 1.  It is the intent of the Legislature to enact statutory
changes relating to the Budget Act of 2010.

In the bill itself there are no definitive statements as to the Legislature’s intentions. The only clues to what changes might be enacted are based on the political climate within California. AB 178 was only stopped by a veto from Governor Schwarzenegger. Odds are that proponents of that bill will use AB 1625 to enact measures supported in AB 178 including California’s version of the so-called Amazon Tax.

We queried Overstock as to its specific concerns over AB 1625 and received the following response from their PR department:

It is the end of the California legislative session and the budget isn’t done. We continue to learn that those who seek to impose this tax measure have some new strategy. Yesterday, we learned more new information (in regards to AB 1625) on which we acted. We don’t want to be forced to terminate our affiliates, and we are glad those most affected are responding and their voices are being heard by senators who need to understand the strong counterpoint to this unwise tax legislation.

So it would appear that Overstock is leveraging their affiliates to act as a counterpoint to a bill they see as threatening, even if the actual purpose of the bill is nebulous. Rebecca Madigan, Executive Director of the Performance Marketing Association,  posted an excellent synopsis of the politics of the situation.

Although we don’t necessarily agree with Overstock’s tactics we do feel that any enactment by California of an Affiliate Nexus Tax is a terrible decision. There is still time for California affiliates to contact their representatives. The PMA has a great resource that provides a painless guide on how to find your representative including suggested email templates for you to use.

  • Rebecca Madigan

    We met with a legislative aide yesterday who said he didn't believe advertisers would actually terminate. He said he was following guidance that in New York, advertisers did not terminate. I had to adamantly correct him that only one advertiser did not terminate, Amazon, who only collected taxes so they could litigate.

    So from a strategic point, this letter was well timed. It proves that advertisers mean business. I've been holding back on asking other advertisers to send out similar letters because of the chilling effect it can have on publishers and their business. We may come to a point where we'll need those letters to go out as proof, but I'm not sure we're there yet.

    The good news is that they're hearing us, they're beginning to understand the devastating impact this will have. Now it's political, so we have to make this issue a political headache for them and we do that by staying in their faces. Death by a thousand paper cuts. :-)

  • Pingback: Affiliates Needed News & Business Opportunity Blog - | AffiliatesNeeded.Com What's New In Affiliate Marketing