WWE: The Legal Reason Why Power to the People Was Not Rigged
Many people have been complaining about Monday's RAW show, Power to the People, being rigged and WWE not caring for the fans, namely the IWC as one person commented.
Another person said that WWE is a money-grabbing company who scammed the audience into getting quite a hefty amount of dimes. However, I am one of those people who strongly believe WWE's three hour event on Monday was for real, and I don't even need to take their word for it.
The large British company, BBC, has been known for their many legal battles. However, the one that relates to this topic is a voting session they did. It was a sneaky ploy to garner some extra cash by putting up a false poll on one of their TV shows, where thousands of people cast their votes.
Once it came to light that the poll had one definitive answer, not influenced whatsoever by the votes, BBC ran into legal trouble. You see, they had taken money from viewers by convincing them to vote in a poll which already had a sure answer before it was even announced. A lawsuit was filed and the BBC lost a few million pounds.
Now, fast forward a couple of years to 2011. WWE held the Power to the People event, where nearly every match was decided by the crowd. Or, so it was said.
You see, once Mason Ryan was announced as Evan Bourne's opponent, many people cried foul. They harboured the statement that the show was rigged. WWE hit back by saying an overwhelming back-log of votes for Kelly Kelly streamed into the Bourne vote, leading Ryan to be chosen instead of Cara, the latter supposedly receiving 90 percent of the votes.
Whether or not that last claim is true, by law WWE cannot hold a rigged vote and gain money from it. If it was a free poll on the website, sure as hell they can do anything they damn well please, but it's a pay to vote poll and cannot be rigged.
If it had a definitive answer, regardless of the vote, WWE would be entering a similar battle that BBC did and would also probably lose the same amount of money. WWE, if they truly are a money-grabbing company, would see that it would be more cost-effective to actually give the fans a choice rather than scam their money and enter court. No lawyer can save them from a skirmish like this.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?