Company Tries Strong-arming Brian's Platinax

To be fair, Aaron, there are times when people are perfectly justified in suing over defamatory comments and when forum admins negligently allow defamatory comments to be made.

The fact that many of the victims are often unaware that they are made, even if the forum is known within a certain niche, does not constitute a reliable legal defence.

I have no idea or interest whether Brian's forum members were or were not making libellous comments - but too many web inhabitants mistake the benefits of obscurity with an assumed right to act as they please.

Hey Stever
The company may run a legitimate business model and what you are saying there could be 100% true.

My comment is not about weather or not the comments are in any way damaging (especially since I don't see them). My point is more that I think the business owner is an asshole for threatening to sue right out of the gate and saying that Brian owes their legal expenses thus far. For having that sort of tact amd business practice I think it is reasonable to reveal their business name and talk about how they try to strong-arm people.

Lets say I get really greedy and really motivated for about a year, and start screwing over all customers because I just want the $$$$$$. Get plenty in the bank and will let nothing stop me from getting more more more etc. What is to prevent me from hiring my brother to prepare a bogus legal bill and then kick that threat around for everyone who has any posts about me in less than favorable ways?

Most times a polite hello is all that is needed if the claim is legitimate. Honest businesses should not have to start off with lawsuit threats right out of the gate...to me that tactic is far more likely to be associated with dishonest and/or sleazy businesses.

The only way to fight back against sleazy dishonest corporations is to ensure they have a large potential cost associated with threatening bogus / dishonest lawsuits. If they want to take the low road then give it to them, and ensure they leave a trail others can see.

I understand that you feel strongly about this, Aaron, but - to act as a devil's advocate - why should businesses (or individuals) lay back and try the "polite hello" approach when someone is potentially (and possibly maliciously) doing concrete damage to their business?

Bloggers and other website owners like to jump up and down about how they are not treated as seriously as traditional media. If they want to play in the grown-up world of real publishing then they should accept the consequences and not leap around wrapping themselves in a bogus flag of free speech.

If I publish 50,000 flyers (or allow someone to publish them under my imprint) and then distribute them to my local neighbourhood saying that the local KFC is serving rat then I expect to have to answer for those claims.

In most countries there are perfectly good defences to libel (last I remember, in the UK, they were truth, honest belief and understandably misguided belief). But in real life if I don't want to be involved in libel actions, I don't go around making or allowing potentially libellous statements.

Aaron,

Are you absolutely sure that this company didn't try the "Hello" strategy first? You may only know half the story..no matter what has been posted.

With current ongoing litigation I do realize that my perspective is biased :)

I don't go around making or allowing potentially libellous statements.

Right. You think you don't. But what is libelous to one is not the same as what is libelous to another. And don't forget that many of the people doing the suing are not doing so grounded in honestly...many of them are just trying to shut out public participation.

In a case very similar to my own, a new lawyer for the prosecution argued that the original lawsuit the same plaintiff filed was generic garbage, and did not even have a replacement suit in hand.

That has a rather salty feel to it. I hope that lawyer is disbarred or put on notice for filing a shitty bogus lawsuit.

My point is that outside of the ability to comment on the web I think many of the laws are favoring those with money and I think the web is vital to kicking that trend.

The company involved received a number of apparent customer complaints in the Platinax forums - about 8 people, from different ISPs.

There was common expression of feeling misled by the company sales process - a discount is promoted, but the small print auto-renews the subscription at an inflated price - court action immediately following if contested.

Complaints in themselves should have been fine, but some of the posters questioned the motives of the company - and *that* is what was deemed defamatory.

I did receive two phone calls, and originally edited out comments as requested that the company deemed defamatory.

Then they decided they simply wanted the whole material pulling, which I did only accepted after receiving a letter from their solicitor threatening a defamation suit.

The company behaviour seems uber-aggressive - they're currently seeking to take legal action against their customers who complained, and are trying to hold every business interest I have as liable.

With an apparent turnover of a couple of million, the company seems very keen to throw their weight around.

It's a case not over yet.

I make these comments not in regards to the Platinax forum as I dont know enough about it to make sensible comment but I disagree, in general, to say that "the (a?) business owner is an asshole for threatening to sue right out of the gate". I'm a lawyer and if someone slaps me in the face for no reason then I'm not going to be polite or reasonable when I ask him to stop. Being polite does have its place but why on earth should I waste my time on people who want to cause me harm. I spent a lifetime putting wrongs right on behalf of clients and cynical though I may have become I no longer waste my time politely requesting anything that I'm entitled to demand by law. A lot of these people only understand the threat of overwhelming legal force and OK, if I'm wrong I may have to pay.

its a shame society in general has gone down the route of "if I can nail his hat on I will" approach, these things have always gone and you being a solicitor will know so well

I do agree that a lot of people only understand the threat of legal action but if action is taken to remove the problem what ocurred in the first place then it should end, not carry on because suddenly it was noticed they can make money out of someone's mis fortune, lets make no bone about the fact the only winners in a lot of court cases are the solicitors, they get paid come what may but poor joe small website owner has just lost his house, not really justice is it......

I've taken legal action a few times in relation to my websites and I always use another solicitor. I've never paid but then I've never lost. Lawyers are usually free if you win. If more of us took a tougher approach the real ass-holes in our little world would think twice before they caused harm. How many others here have suffered? Probably all of us. How many others here have taken legal action. Dont bother answering 'cause I think I already know.

I don't think anyone disputes that sometimes there is little option but to begin legal proceedings.

Doing so against customers on an apparently regular basis, and as a tool for censoring customer complaints, IMO doesn't show a good business approach. That's the impression given in this instance.

I'm taking care not to draw attention to the company themselves at present - but if they do gain a court order for member details stored at Platinax, I'll ensure relevant news channels - the Register and TW, etc - are provided with a more detailed picture if of interest.

However, not reading the fine print doesn't give a customer the the right to complain, that just makes them stupid.

I could see warning people to read the fine print a valid complaint but calling the company's motives into question is a bit over the top IMO when you're too stupid to read before signing on the dotted line in the first place.

Guess what I'm saying is people that don't want to waste the time checking the facts before hand shouldn't complain after the fact as they really don't have the right as lazy isn't an excuse.

Last I heard it wasn't illegal to complain nor express your opinion about a company.

If the people are actually doing something illegal, then the company certainly has every right to legally defend and protect themselves against that. If they're filing frivolous law suits, however, they should get huge fines and have to pay all the defendent's legal bills and their time when it comes out in court that's what they're doing.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's the way our courts work in the US at least.

Criminal law is where things are illegal, Jill.

Civil law is normally based on damage caused to another entity's rights - and libel is a civil law (certain states have criminal libel laws for particularly grave cases or certain situations).

If I were to call someone an incompetent SEO who defrauds their clients by doing shoddy work, I would be breaking no laws but they may have grounds for a civil action.

I think the key is to go one way or the other with it.

Either just squash it dead, or make a big plublicity scene around the event. If you are spending your money, and the thing is dragging out, eating your time, make sure there are some other intangible returns to you in the case.

It is this type of situation which makes it seem better to make money off one site and then have a large separate non profit community site, so that if bullshit lawsuits are thrown at you the right non profits will be willing to help you pro bono.

And when the issue isn't quite black and white, doesn't the legal system becomes a tool for manipulating markets and free speech? I believe this is part of the core arguments in the lawsuits against the RIAA. They allegedly sued people as a tool to influence them (and get them to pay) with no real intent (allegedly) to pursue their legal claims in court.

I think in the U.S. this has something to do with "eroding public confidence in the bar" but then again, I am not a laywer.

"There are no easy answers to this problem, but the threat of litigation is one that bloggers ought to be aware of. It should serve as a factor in the decision over whether or not to blog, as well as whether or not to allow comments on a site. Bloggers would do well to have disclaimers on their sites indicating that unless stated otherwise, comments or quotes from others appearing on their blogs do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the bloggers. And bloggers should definitely ensure that they are up to speed on the laws surrounding libel, the specifics of 47 U.S.C. 230, and other developments surrounding the intersection of blogging and the law, as well as paying close attention to the nature of comments made on their blogs so as to protect themselves to the greatest degree possible from any lawsuits that arise from the comments of a reader of a blog."

The Next Litigation Battleground

Frankly, I've seen some a-list bloggers (and forums) indulge in purposeful defamation using the "we'll just make it worse if you sue us" reasoning and some have gotten away with it. I think that the companies that they have outed or attacked have been --up to now-- unsure as to what would be the better course for their response. I say "up to now" because lately I've seen a good number of lawsuit responses in the press and I think we're just beginning to see "business law" imposed on the social software set.

Right on, rcjordan, but (hopefully) the end result will be that defamation/libel is dangerous and risky, but speech is protected.

The only sure protection is being judgement-proof.

Here's a little test for forum/blog/website owners & posters; However you feel about insurance (uugghhh!) there's no doubt that it is a measuring scale for liability. Sooo, go to your business insurance company and tell them you want a modest $500k of "professional liability coverage for your online publication." Odds are he/she won't be able to quote a price right away as they'll need to call in the specialty (uh-oh) underwriters. But assuming he can get them to approve a policy be sure you're seated when the agent finally does call you with the rate.

A is for Arrogant, B is for Bloggers, D is for Dell

"This machine is a lemon. Your at-home and complete care service is a fraud. Your customer service is appalling. Your product is dreadful. Your brand is mud."

(emphasis mine) I'm no lawyer, but a public hanging for fraud would seem actionable to me.

Wait, you can't leave class yet.

"Michael Dell can talk about all the 99 percent satisfaction ratings in the world, but the one percent is giving his company a ton of bad publicity. And the company doesn't have a base of loyal, local resellers who could 1) stop the problem before it became a problem, and just satisfy the customer and 2) be a trusted, third-party source of information about the company to counter disgruntled bloggers or anyone else."

Michael Dell And The Bloggers

I figure user-submitted this picture can be rather embarassing, and might lead to trouble if in fact that is a hookah lounge and what's in the bong is completely legal.