Not sure about that but I assume the Australian laws only apply to businesses registered in with the Australian regulator. So amazon.com.au, if there's such a thing, is probably subject to the Australian consumer laws, but not amazon.com. I'm only guessing here, though

And Olympic gold medals, and speaks five languages and has a string of other accomplishments. The only thing that dude can't do is act

For exactly this reason. If an item has an RRP of $10, but you mostly sell them for $5, it's deceptive and misleading to advertise "was $10, now $x"

Oh no, that's the mum

Tom Hanks has a profound learning disability. He's just found out that he has an infant son in this scene

That's a valid first reaction

The uh.. *beefeater*

*Bean Carson

It's father's day in Australia :)

And you're welcome :) debate is good

The site was huge because demand was huge. We please ourselves to insist that polygamy is immoral, but 30 million people obviously don't feel that way. The stigma about it means that yes, single people etc do have to worry, because their names are now publicly associated with this "disgusting website that promotes immoral values".
I have an open marriage. My wife knows I'm on the site - but her parents don't. My employer doesn't, our friends don't. Now tell me - should I shell out $100 to an anonymous extortionist in hopes they'll prove honourable? AM is awful but its users, whatever you might think of them, have been violated.

At the risk of this conversation blowing out:
* they gave the people one last chance to not have it exposed - *by them*. The people wouldn't have been in this situation if it hadn't been for the hackers in the first place
* I've said this elsewhere, but there were plenty of singles and people in open relationships using that site. AM is built on a disgusting premise, but many members were legit
* The hackers posted info on the deep web knowing that it was valuable enough that it would be only a matter of days before it was retrieved and made public
I don't mean to defend AM. There's a lot of bullshit talk about ethics going on about this, and I think the mob mentality that wants to attack the members for having used the site in the first place is *exactly* the reason that they felt the need to use an anonymous service in the first place - our culture is so insistent on uphold monogamy as a virtue even in the face of endless proof that many, many people are not monogamous by nature.

Do they seem like very trustworthy people to you?
Besides, the difference is that AM was failing to provide a service for which they'd been paid; they were never threatening to publicise sensitive information. "Give me money or I'll do X to hurt you" is blackmail. I don't think there's any confusion about that.

http://redlikeme.ca/ashley-madison-members-pressed-for-immediate-payment-by-hackers/
http://infidelityrecoveryinstitute.com/2015/08/26/the-ashley-madison-extortion-continues/

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that it failed. I guess I just assumed that the vast majority of victims would have refused to pay.

Did it fail? They would have only needed to persuade a small percentage of the members to pay up, and they would have found themselves with a couple of millions dollars in bitcoins

Wholesale cost - the amount the dealership originally paid to the manufacturer