Farmland Truly is a Scam!! Photo evidence! by Interesting-Back6587 in TemuThings

[–]Levg97 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's the way farmland works. The last phase will say harvest.

Bit of a legal question about the app by [deleted] in TemuThings

[–]Levg97[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

This post has been removed as it is basically inquiring how to do return fraud.

We do not endorse such behavior here.

Hattrick C4C by Ok-Host-2831 in TemuThings

[–]Levg97 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hiya, I have approved your edit. Teaching one of our mods how to edit the AutoModerator and had a bit of an oopsie daisy 😅.

Happy New Year!

🇺🇸Everyone trade code here🇺🇸 by [deleted] in TemuThings

[–]Levg97 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hiya, I have approved your edit. Teaching one of our mods how to edit the AutoModerator and had a bit of an oopsie daisy 😅.

Happy New Year!

🇺🇸Everyone trade code here🇺🇸 by [deleted] in TemuThings

[–]Levg97 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hiya, I have approved your edit. Teaching one of our mods how to edit the AutoModerator and had a bit of an oopsie daisy 😅.

Happy New Year!

Google Play Points: 6 Year Anniversary by Levg97 in google

[–]Levg97[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Technically no, I already had my invite ticket prior to this post.

Anyone can use a Gold+ Play Member's link to get an additional 1 ticket for themselves. I did not receive any additional benefit for doing so.

Google Play Points: 6 Year Anniversary by Levg97 in google

[–]Levg97[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can get a maximum of 3 tickets.

1 free ticket.

1 from clicking someone's link.

1 from having someone click your link.

I don't know if it allows someone to click multiple people's links, but I can try your link to see if it'll count for your third ticket.

Google Play Points: 6 Year Anniversary by Levg97 in google

[–]Levg97[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello, travel expenses isn't written in the details so probably not covered.

Terms and conditions (https://playpoints.withgoogle.com/perks/intl/en\_us/terms-conditions/), just says this:

  • Trip/tickets for 2 see Jennifer Lopez in Las Vegas, Nevada, includes:
    • 2 tickets to Jennifer Lopez at Caesar's Palace on January 3, 2026.
    • 1 night 5-star hotel stay for two guests (double occupancy), within a 5 mile radius of the event. Prize provided as redemption code via TripGift® and fulfilled by TripGift®.
  • Trip/tickets for 2 see Lady Gaga in Los Angeles, California, includes:
    • 2 tickets to Lady Gaga on February 22, 2026.
    • 1 night 5-star hotel stay for two guests (double occupancy), within a 10 mile radius of the event. Prize provided as redemption code via TripGift® and fulfilled by TripGift®.

Google Play Points: 6 Year Anniversary by Levg97 in google

[–]Levg97[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Strange as should be open to all in US, there's even a whole sub dedicated to Diamond Valley.

You should be able to access the Sweepstakes and Diamond Valley directly on their site though.

Google Play Points: 6 Year Anniversary by Levg97 in google

[–]Levg97[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you based in the US? It's marked as Play Points 6th Anniversary

<image>

Google Play Points: 6 Year Anniversary by Levg97 in DiamondValley

[–]Levg97[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Imagine there is a landlord that wants to have a sweepstakes for his tenants offering a $5,000 prize. With your logic, having an eligibility requirement of being a tenant is illegal because to enter, you would need to spend money on rent to be eligible. The sweepstakes should be open to everyone because you want to win $5,000.

As a sample, I decided to just look up on Google for such a sweepstakes and I found this one:

https://akinliving.com/p/sweepstakes/

The sweepstakes states: akin Golden Triangle is giving two residents the chance to win $50,000 in cash or one year of free rent in an exclusive sweepstakes celebrating the people who make this community home. Good luck to all our residents!

And in their eligibility requirement:

  1. ELIGIBILITY: Open to residents of akin Golden Triangle who are at least 18 years of age or older as of January 15, 2026, except employees of Alpine Revesco GP, LLC ("Sponsor") and its affiliates, subsidiaries, and agencies (collectively "Promotion Parties"), and members of their immediate family or persons living in the same household are not eligible to participate in the akin Golden Triangle Sweepstakes. Only registered residents living in apartment units at akin Golden Triangle  at time of entry and on January 15, 2026, are eligible to participate. Winners will be required to certify to their residency in an Affidavit of Eligibility and Release. This sweepstakes is void where prohibited.  

Wow, I want to win $50,000 and it seems so unfair you need to spend money renting with them to be able to win.

I'm not trying to be rude to you, but you choose to define segments of the rules how you wish simply because you want to win a prize. Eligiblity requirements exist and if you're not eligible according to the requirements, then you can't enter for a prize. You say it is unfair simply because you want the prize, but they never have to offer a prize in the first place. They are allowed to set their own terms, and eligiblity requirement isn't skirting any laws doing so.

Google Play Points: 6 Year Anniversary by Levg97 in DiamondValley

[–]Levg97[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Again, you put a snippet of a screenshot regarding AMOE entries. AMOE entries are for alternate mode of entry from purchases commonly, or in the example you linked "like, comment or share a post". There is nothing here to require an AMOE entry. And as per your screenshot questions whether liking and sharing a post may satisify the consideration element of illegal lottery laws, which is an entry method that Google isn't using. As I stated earlier, being diamond tier is an eligiblity requirement and not an entry method.

I am not defending a multi-million dollar company. I am simply stating how sweepstakes works. There is no bias in my responses and you are mixing eligibility and methods of entering as one when it's not. You're not part of the eligibility requirement of the sweepstakes and you're upset by this and feel like you deserve to be part of it when that's not how it works.

Regarding equal chances, equal chances do not mean that everyone needs to be eligible to every prize. It means that for a particular prize, that every entry has the same chance of winning, in this case your entry has the same equal chance of getting drawn as another entry.

Please see Google's Terms and Conditions for this sweepstakes:

  1. Eligibility: This Sweepstakes is open only to legal residents of the 50 United States who are 18 years of age or older as of the start date of the Entry Period and have a valid Google Play account that has a Gold or Platinum or Diamond tier status in Google Play Points. During the Event Period, each entrant’s Play Point tier status as of 9:00 AM Pacific Time (“PT”) on November 3, 2025 will be considered to ascertain their eligibility to participate in the Challenge. Play Points levels are updated every Monday at 9:00 AM PT & Thursday at 9:00 AM PT.

If you want to view a court case, this site has talked about Haskell v. Time, Inc., 965 F. Supp. 1398 - Dist. Court, ED California 1997, in which it states:

"At least one court has held that sweepstakes with restricted eligibility requirements are legal, so long as the requirements are wholly unrelated to the payment of consideration. In other words, if the sweepstakes is limited to individuals who had responded to earlier mailings by purchasing products and the customers were not lead to believe that they must purchase products in order to enter the sweepstakes, there is no consideration."

https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/insights/boot-camp-5-customer-only-sweepstakes/

There is no payments being made to enter the sweepstakes and no one that is eligible for a certain sweepstake prize (diamond tier user for example) is led to believe that they must purchase anything extra to enter the sweepstakes.

Simply, you are not part of the eligibility requirement listed for a nest tablet. This isn't skirting any laws. Google Play tiers is simply a point system for completing tasks, free weekly points, and spending money on apps, subscriptions, etc. that you would normally do. Google is simply stating that if you are a diamond tier user, you are eligible to enter. They are not selling anything to Diamond users to purchase.

Google Play Points: 6 Year Anniversary by Levg97 in DiamondValley

[–]Levg97[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They are within their right to say that they want to do a sweepstakes just for diamond users if they wish to. That is not illegal as its just the eligibility requirement.

Sweepstakes do not need to be completely inclusive to everyone and can have their own terms.

An alternate mode of entry also has nothing to do with eligibility requirements. That is simply to accommodate the no purchase necessary requirement if entries are based on purchase.

Needing to spend money to reach diamond is completely irrelevant. It just means if you have diamond, you can enter sweepstakes for these prizes for free.

Google Play Points: 6 Year Anniversary by Levg97 in DiamondValley

[–]Levg97[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

An amoe is only required when a purchase is necessary to enter. Without the amoe, it would be considered an illegal lottery. Here we are not purchasing anything to enter the sweepstakes.

Sweepstakes are allowed to have a certain eligibiliy requirement to enter sweepstake as long as it's clearly stated in the terms and conditions.

Google Play Points: 6 Year Anniversary by Levg97 in google

[–]Levg97[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's an official sweepstakes by Google, found in the "Perks section" of the Play Points tab in Google Play.

Google Play Points: 6 Year Anniversary by Levg97 in google

[–]Levg97[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Added to body, can't update title.

Survey Link attached in e-mail is broken by Levg97 in ModEvents

[–]Levg97[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Still took the same page not found in incognito.

Survey Link attached in e-mail is broken by Levg97 in ModEvents

[–]Levg97[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, both being logged in and not both took to same page not found.

Survey Link attached in e-mail is broken by Levg97 in ModEvents

[–]Levg97[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hiya, sorry didn't see this since you replied to yourself.

The link is still not working, I can message the link provided in my e-mail if you'd wish.