Stay away from LunarPages
Posted by cagataycivici on April 25, 2007
I’ve got this funny email from lunarpages who is the service provider of my homepage; cagataycivici.com;
Hi,
JSP has been disabled from your account as you are running the following:
http://www.cagataycivici.com/facestrace/
Running Java Server Faces (JSF), which is a disallowed framework.
Please remove your jsf apps or we’ll do it, blabla.
Have a nice day!
I’ve deployed a couple of JSF applications to cagataycivici.com some time ago but lately lunarpages stuff removed all of them because JSF is a disallowed framework(tapestry, webwork, etc also not allowed). Unfortunately I’ve learned this after purchasing the service so too bad I’m stuck with them for now. But actually I’m busy with a lot of things in my life nowadays so I just don’t care.:) Just wanted to warn J2EE developers about LunarPages.
April 25, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Darn,
There goes my jsf-comp example webapps too then..
If Anyone knows a decent hosting JSF, drop a comment..
April 25, 2007 at 10:02 pm
What a sleezy practice!
April 25, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Hi Cagatay,
It is pure coincidence that we have recently been working with LunarPages on other issues, but I have found them to be highly responsive and very decent and pleasant to work with. I have brought your posting to the attention of our contact at LunarPages, and I will follow up if I receive more information that may help clarify or resolve the problem.
LunarPages has been great to us, and not because of anything related to JL or DZone, our business with them was far away from the developer marketplace. Their dedicated servers have been fast and stable, and our experience has been entirely different from yours. Maybe your JSF app was beating up the other processes in a shared environment, or maybe they had bad experiences with poorly written JSF apps on other accounts?
Anyway, let’s see if we can get to the bottom of this. I have personally found LunarPages to be exceptionally good. Maybe this is a situation that could have a happier ending than where you have been left so far?
Cheers,
Rick
April 26, 2007 at 11:15 am
Thought you might like to read this:
http://www.diagnose-me.com/sucks/lunarpages.html
April 26, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Henry, excellent example of how much lunarpages suck, also googling “lunarpages sucks” returned thousands of results btw.
April 26, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Lunarpages has a 30 day money back guarantee, y’know. If you’re still w in that time frame, you can definitely get your money back.
Though, honestly I think it’s an issue w a shared environment for what you’re trying to do and you might be better off giving LP a call and seeing if you can resolve it that way. They’ve been an awesome host for me, and I’ve never had a single instance of downtime or trouble running my own stuff.
Also, no offense, but you have to take every complaint w a grain of salt. That diagnose-me site is pretty skeevy. I’m sure they had some issues, but who goes to that kind of a length but a competitor to diss a company? It looks to me like they were just doing their job keeping the shared environment stable.
Anyway, good luck w this and keep us posted.
April 27, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Hi,
Your frustration is understandable. However, since Resin stability was affected and thus all customers who use JSP were experiencing sporadic outages of JSP service, we had to take an immediate action. After that, Resin stability has become significantly better.
The JSF framework was observed causing stability issues with Resin in shared environment and so Lunarpages had to prohibit it on shared servers and include in the list of the disallowed frameworks in the shared environment.
I would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused and hope you understand the reasons why we was forced to take off your domain from Resin until JSF application is removed from your account.
If you have any further questions, please update your ticket and we will be happy to answer them.
May 10, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Actually,
Lunar pages really does suck. They have not been able to give me a straight answer, they keep saying check out the forum at http://www.lunarpagesucks.com They also will not refund my money, even though I’m within the 30 days. They suck,suck,suck.
That felt good, maybe they help now?
May 12, 2007 at 12:12 am
I have been running a dedicated server with LP for a while, and so far only problem I have is with my own screwups.
To the guy who said that putting in lp sucks into google…. did you read any of the articles?
A lot of them are just because lunarpages and the word sucks were on the same page.
If a page says bluehost sucks, lunarpages rock, it will come up in a search of lunarpages sucks in google.
June 16, 2007 at 11:52 am
Cagatay,
This is very funny.
hahahahahahahahaha.
June 18, 2007 at 5:51 pm
i found lunarpages’ guys reply every “sucks” posts ranked high in google!
funny!
it proofed how bad the services they are, even themself worried!!! and look the complaints up through google!
June 18, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I finally got rid of lunarpages and switched to “devisland” and they rock! Excellent service for developers. Hope they keep up the good work.
August 29, 2007 at 7:03 am
I am leaving Lunarpages.
When I ask the same question to 3 different people I get 3 different answers.
I agree, Lunarpages sucks
October 24, 2007 at 12:40 pm
[...] No J2EE here [...]
November 5, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Lunar Pages sucks. Stay away. Lots of downtime, rude service personnel, aggressive hosting-plan upgrade tactics, server issues, bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad hosting company. DO NOT GIVE THEM ONE PENNY OF YOUR MONEY.
November 15, 2007 at 6:44 am
Well.
Only one case cannot make the decision final. One cannot blame the webhost if he goes far against the rules or any policies.
As far as I know, Lunarpages ranks in the world’s top hosts.
Thanks.
November 21, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Add2Net, Inc. d/b/a Lunarpages.com has been sued for Ten Millions Dollars ($10,000,000.00).
You can read the Summons and Complaint here:
http://www.badisse.com/LunarpagesLawsuit/Complaint.html
November 21, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Add2Net, Inc. d/b/a Lunarpages.com has been sued for Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00).
You can read the Summons and Complaint here:
http://www.badisse.com/LunarpagesLawsuit/Complaint.html
November 24, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Guys, you need to know a very important fact about Lunarpages UserAgreement. It is illegal (unconscionable).
The contract violates multiple State and Federal statutes. For example, it provides attorney fees only for Lunarpages.com, which is against State and Federal consumer protection Acts. It prohibits punitive damages, which is against State and Federal law. It exempts Lunarpages from “intentional” misconduct, which is also against State and Federal law. It fails to provide sufficient notice on contract amendments, which again is against the law. It provides no compensation for month to month subscribers if Lunarpages causes them damage. It also prohibits Federal lawsuits by forcing “any and all” lawsuits to be filed only in California’s Superior Court, which is not only illegal as it violates a substantial right of a person given to them by law; but it is also unconstitutional as it prohibits a person from bringing certain claims against Lunarpages.com. For example, a claim under the RICO act, which is under Federal jurisdiction.
Lunarpages User Agreement is so foul that it calls for the rescission of the entire contract by law.
Here is another thing you should know. First, it is illegal to exempt itself from “intentional” misconduct. Second, because Lunarpages intentional misconduct harms members, Lunarpages cannot be protected by their “limited liability” clause. Lunarpages can be sued for Millions and be subjected to large punitive damages. For example, each contacts carries a legal duty of “reasonable care”. By showing a “reckless indifference to someone’s rights”, for example, suspending their website without giving them advance notice so they can move their website and wrongly deleting or modifying their website files that causes damage, Lunarpages has committed “gross negligence”, which will circumvent the limited liability clause and subject them to large compensatory awards and large punitive damages. If they have insurance, their insurance will cover these damages.
These young people at Lunarpages.com are a bunch of idiots. Can you believe they actually inserted in their User Agreement that if they “intentionally” cause you to lose your business, they are not liable. What a bunch of retarded idiot fools they are…. Good luck in trying to enforce that clause in court dummies.
December 1, 2007 at 9:23 pm
LAWSUIT UPDATE:
The Summons and Complaint has been served on Lunarpages.com. Chad Riddle, the son of the owner, sent me an email and now he wants to hand over our website files. This guy is nuts. He even opened the door for a cause of action personally against him for defamation when he lied about me making threats of bodily injury against his staff. I think I will be amending the complaint and adding a cause of action personally against him later. I want to get his lie down on paper in a recorded deposition. I will then expose his lie in open court.
If anyone wants to submit their horror stories with Lunarpages.com, you can send me an email at David@ezLawsuits.com. These people are crazy and they must be held accountable for their habitual bad behavior in harming consumers.
December 1, 2007 at 11:56 pm
LAWSUIT UPDATE:
One other thing I wanted to add, which is really funny and proves that Chad Riddle is NOT a smart guy at all. If lunarpages.com thinks they are going to win this lawsuit with a mind like Chad’s, they are about to lose big. I’ll give you an example…
Chad’s Comment:
Chad sent me an email and made the following statement: “We contacted you by telephone leaving a message on November 16,2007 to once again advise you that without payment your account would be suspended. Having not received payment by November 19, 2007 your account was suspended per paragraph 8.1 of our terms of service” (November 16th was a Friday).
Chad’s Confused Logic:
Besides the fact that I did call on Friday to tell them I was mailing the payment as allowed by their User Agreement and I have proof; but I also have proof that they suspended our account on or before 5AM PST on Monday, November 19, 2007. So logically, they violated their own User Agreement where it allows the payment of hosting fees by check. The law requires that they give “reasonable” time to allow for the receipt of checks by mail. The courts give five(5) days for mailing as being reasonable. Lunarpages’ failure to provide at least that amount of time for mailing is “unreasonable”. Heck, even if we overnighted the check to them, their accounting offices are closed on the weekend and the first they would have got it was Monday. Basically, they were negligent in failing to give ample time to allow for checks to be mailed as per their own User Agreement. This gives evidence of their reckless behavior and indifference to a person’s rights. Due to their negligent and reckless behavior, they have caused a forceable harm to us when they suspended our website. Lunarpages will be held legally liable for their negligence. We will hit them with a summary motion on liability to get that out of the way. The only remaining issue is damages. First of all, they damaged our #1 page rankings on top search engines like Google.com that we established over a 3 year period. How much do you think that costs? Lunarpages.com is now responsible for that cost. Plus, punitive damages for their malicious behavior in refusing to send us our website files so we could mitigate our damages. Not to mention that Chad made another comment after they were sued that is going to put him and his company in a lot of personal legal trouble for defamation.
This is the type of company you will be dealing with when you host your website with Lunarpages.com. They are a danger to a person’s business and you use their services at your own risk.
December 2, 2007 at 1:30 am
LAWSUIT UPDATE:
Here is another example of Chadd Riddle’s illogical mind. Which gives more proof that this guy is an idiot. He claimed that I made a threat of “bodily harm” against a Lunarpages.com employee in a voicemail. What an idiot. I said “I’m going to f…king sue you!”. That clearly is not a threat of bodily injury. It’s a threat of a lawsuit.
Here is the kicker and why I think Chad is an idiot. He just gave me another cause of action for defamation because he posted that false statement on the website of the Better Business Bureau in attempting to cover his bad conduct.
What’s even better and worse for Lunarpages.com is that it now gives me more legal power to keep the lawsuit in New York because it is a tort that was committed outside the contract and because it was committed within the “scope of his employment”, Lunarpages.com is now liable for his defamatory statement.
Chad Riddle admitted that my statements were made in a voice mail on November 19, 2007. He has to now produce that voicemail.
Since Chad accused me of a crime,I don’t need to prove damages. It’s called “defamation pro se”. All I have to prove is that his statement was false and I win.
Here is some of the questions that will be directed toward Chad at trial.
Attorney: Mr. Riddle, after listening to that voice message here in court today, did you hear any threats of bodily injury?
Chad: No
Attorney: So, when you informed the Better Business Bureau that my client left a voice message that contained a threat of bodily injury that was a false statement was it not?
Chad: Uuuuummmmmmm. Ummmmmmmm.
I will immediate move against Chad for defamation in a summary motion. He will have to provide the voice mail. If he fails to do so and claims it was destroyed, the Judge is not going to believe him because he made multiple statements claiming that he has the voice mail and that he could produce it. So, what do you think will happen if he fails to produce it? The judge is going to think he got rid of it because it provides evidence against him.
What an idiot this guy is. It now doesn’t surprise me why Lunarpages treats consumers so badly. It’s being run by a real idiot named Chad Riddle.
Thanks for helping me out chad with the forum selection clause. You now gave me more power to keep the case in New York due to your defamatory statement committed within the scope of employment.
December 2, 2007 at 1:34 am
LAWSUIT UPDATE:
Correction:
That’s “Defamation Per Se”.
December 2, 2007 at 4:42 am
LAWSUIT UPDATE:
You should follow this lawsuit. It is really going to get interesting against Lunarpages.com. These guys are in big trouble right now. They really did it this time.
You can follow the case from New York’s court website. The case will appear once the Defendant responds to the complaint and an RJI is filed (Request for Judicial Intervention). Just enter the parties name or court index number.
New York Supreme Court Website:
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASMain
Chad Riddle made a defamatory statement that I threatened an employee of theirs with “bodily injury”, which is a crime of aggravated assault in the second degree in New York. He claimed that it was recorded on their answering machine. This is absolutely false. And he will not be able to produce a voicemail with such a threat from me. That means he will be subjected to damages for defamation, which will include a heavy punitive award against them. Since it was made within the scope of employment, Lunarpages is legally liable and since it is a separate tort outside the contract, that cause of action is not subject to the contract forum selection clause.
If Chad fails to produce that voicemail, the law then will sanction lunarpages.com and hold that if the voicemail was produced it would have supported my claim that no threat of bodily harm was ever made and it will award me liability and damages against Lunarpages.com. And the law will not allow Chad to say he made a mistake. It will treat it as him being reckless and rule against him anyway. Catch 22. You can read the law for yourself and see that Lunarpages.com is in big trouble. In fact, one company was sanctioned $500,000.00 for its failure to produce evidence.
In May v. Pilot Travel Centers, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94507 (S.D. Ohio 2006),
The plaintiff sought sanctions against the defendant for failing to produce electronic evidence. The court found the defendant altered its computer system by destroying or losing invoices relevant to its decision to terminate the plaintiff after it knew litigation was pending. The defendant had no satisfactory reason for its failure to produce the requested information. The court ordered the defendant to produce the requested information, or account for its absence, and warned that failure to abide by the order would result in further sanctions.
In In re September 11th Liab. Ins. Coverage Cases, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43734 (S.D.N.Y. 2007),
an insurance company deleted an electronic version of a document that it was obligated to produce during discovery. The court found the insurance company exercised control over the document, was obligated to produce the document, and, with a culpable state of mind, failed to produce the document in a timely fashion. The court also found the document relevant to the opposing parties’ claims. In granting the application for sanctions, the court ordered the insurance company to pay $500,000 to its adversaries to cover costs related to the company’s failure to fulfill its discovery obligations and to deter future discovery violations.
In Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48309 (N.D. Cal. 2007),
the plaintiff was awarded $15,000 in monetary sanctions because the defendant did not conduct an adequate search of its e-mail system for documents requested during discovery. The court reasoned that the penalty should reimburse the plaintiff for a portion of its expenses in bringing the action and deter future violations while avoiding an undue financial hardship on the defendant.
In Claredi Corp. v. SeeBeyond Tech. Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16593 (E.D. Mo. 2007),
the defendant failed to produce certain electronic communications between the defendant and various third parties. While the plaintiff was able to retrieve the communications from third parties, because the communications were important pieces of evidence and the defendant failed to satisfy its discovery obligations by not preserving the communications, the court awarded the plaintiff $54,000 in costs. Moreover, the court ordered the defendant to pay the court an additional $20,000 for abusing the discovery process as its actions “unnecessarily prolong[ed] and increase[ed] the expense of this litigation.”
THE FOLLOWING CASE SHOWS THAT THE COURT WILL HOLD THAT THE VOICEMAIL GIVES EVIDENCE AGAINST LUNARPAGES.COM IF THEY FAIL TO PRODUCE IT. WHICH MEANS THAT IF PRODUCED, THE VOICEMAIL WOULD HAVE SHOWN THAT NO THREAT OF BODILY INJURY WAS EVER MADE AND CHAD RIDDLE WILL BE GUILTY OF DEFAMATION PER SE AND DAMAGES WILL BE AWARDED.
In Teague v. Target Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25368 (W.D.N.C. 2007),
the plaintiff alleged the defendant terminated her because of her gender. She sought damages, including lost wages, against her former employer. The defendant claimed the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages by seeking employment after her termination. During discovery, the plaintiff admitted that she recently discarded the home computer on which she conducted her job searches for nearly ten years. Thus, the defendant was unable to corroborate the plaintiff’s representations regarding her job search efforts. It asked the court to sanction the plaintiff for spoliation of evidence. The court granted the defendant’s request and issued a jury instruction adverse to the plaintiff’s interest. The court found the plaintiff had a duty to preserve such evidence, that she had a “culpable state of mind” in not preserving the evidence, and that the evidence could have supported the defendant’s mitigation of damages defense.
December 2, 2007 at 11:35 pm
LAWSUIT UPDATE:
I uncovered that New York considers the accusation made by Chad Riddle as a crime under Penal Law Sec. 240.30 “Aggravated Harassment in the second degree”. Therefore, all that needs to be proven is that Chad Riddle’s statement is false and he loses because under “Defamation Per Se” there is no need to show damages as they are presumed to have occurred.
Plus, his defamatory statement falls outside the User Agreement, which was terminated by then and it is not subject to any forum selection clause, which allows that cause of action to remain in the Supreme Court of New York. It basically gives the court more power to keep the entire lawsuit in New York. Boy, the Judge is going to be pissed off when s/he realizes that Chad Riddle of Lunarpages.com is a liar. And forget about him testifying at trial. No juror is going to believe him because they now know that he’s a liar and his testimony can’t be trusted.
I’m hoping that my example will educate and motivate you to take legal action against Lunarpages.com if they wrongly harm you. I’ve learned that their bad behavior is habitual and that they have intentionally harmed many consumers who used their hosting services.
December 8, 2007 at 4:19 am
David,
I think there have been enough people affected by LPs misconduct to merit a class action law suit against them. I have had monetary loss as well as loss of business goodwill and reputation because of their behavior. Are you considering or do you know of any class action efforts against them?
Regards,
Mike
December 8, 2007 at 5:28 am
Mike,
Not yet; but I feel that a class action against Lunarpages may be around the corner. I have read how Lunarpages has even refused to release website files belonging to other business people. This is absolutely against the law. Regardless what their TOS states. Anything that is contrary to the law is illegal and thus voids that term and condition. These guys at Lunarpages are young and very ignorant to the law. Can you believe the son’s ower Chad actually gave us a defamation cause of action after we sued them. Now that’s stupid. He even claimed it was recorded, which he now has to produce. He can’t because it never was.
Anyway, let me leave you with a little law so you can see that these guys at Lunarpages are breaking the law with their malicious and reckless behavior:
CASE LAW:
Overreaching
“under general New York contract principles, a covenant of good faith and
fair dealing is implied in all contracts. Van Valkenburgh, Nooger & Neville, Inc. v. Hayden Public
Co., Inc., 30 N.Y.2d 34, 281 N.E.2d 142, 330 N.Y.S.2d 329 (N.Y.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 875, 93
S. Ct. 125 (1972); 1-10 Indus. Assoc., LLC v. Trim Corp. of America, 297 A.D.2d 630, 631, 747
N.Y.S.2d 29, 31 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002); Friedman v. Egan, 64 A.D.2d 70, 82, 407 N.Y.S.2d 999,
1006 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978). This leads to an implication of various negative covenants in each
contract, such as:
neither party will do anything which will have the
effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other
party to receive the fruits of the contract, that one
party will not intentionally and purposely do anything
to prevent the other party from carrying out the
agreement on that party’s part, and that an innocent
party will be protected from overreaching
adversaries.
Just to add one other allegation against Lunarpages. People are complaining that Lunarpages is committing false advertising. They advertise a certain GB of usage; but terminate accounts that use too much space.
February 4, 2008 at 1:22 am
Invoice Factoring: A Little Known Way To Finance Your Business
Every day many business owners hit a wall. That wall prevents them from growing their business, or at least, severely limits the speed at which they can grow their companies. Sometimes, and especially for small and mid size businesses, the wall appears…
April 19, 2008 at 7:07 pm
For those of you who are still reading this old post, beware of looneypages’ 30 day return policy. Yes they will return your money within the agreed period, but they will not give you credit for the $30 processing fee. As you can see, LP stands to make a huge chunk of change from this little, clever scam. Crooks!!!…Plain and simple.