Cash4Gold Apparently Threatening Bloggers With Defamation

from the that'll-work dept

Fri, Feb 13th 2009 5:14pm — Mike Masnick

Despite getting plenty of attention for its Superbowl ad that felt more like a late-night-TV cable ad, Cash4Gold hasn't really been having a very good month. The company was caught when a representative (the company claims he was "acting independently") offered cash to a blogger if he would take down a negative review. Then some sites, including Consumerist republished a list of "10 confessions" from a former employee, who described what appears to be somewhat questionable practices by the company -- allowing it to live up to the letter of what it promises people, but not quite the spirit. The company, not surprisingly, denies all of this, and says you can't trust a disgruntled former employee.

However, now it appears to be accusing folks who reposted even part of the Consumerist post with defamation. Allen Harkleroad writes in to let us know that after he wrote about the Consumerist article -- basically linking to Consumerist and including just the opening paragraph of the original article, the company had its PR firm threaten him with defamation. You know that's going to backfire.

What's especially odd about this, however, is that on the company's own blog they have reposted the same content in an attempt to refute it. That is the best way to respond to it. Threatening defamation charges is only going to serve to draw more negative attention to the company. Why wouldn't the PR people direct bloggers to the company's response instead?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: blogging, defamation
Companies: cash4gold

21 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 13 Feb 2009 @ 5:59pm

IANAL
It's not defamation if it's true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grammar Nazi, 13 Feb 2009 @ 6:32pm

Spelling fail
...Despite getting plenty of attention for it's Superbowl ad ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 13 Feb 2009 @ 7:04pm
  
  Re: Spelling fail
  Fixed. Thanks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pr, 14 Feb 2009 @ 9:57am
  
  Re: Spelling fail
  OK, you've proven that you can take a correct sentence and turn it into an incorrect sentence.
  
  Let me try
  
  Then some sights, including Consumerist republished a list of "10 confessions" ...
  
  The company, not surprisingly, denys all of this, and says you can't trust a disgruntled former employee.
  
  Do I win?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesse, 14 Feb 2009 @ 6:54am

It's somewhat unfortunate, but I think today defamation has become a tool more largely used by those who really deserve the "defamation" in the first place (i.e. because it is true). I know that that is a troubling statement, and it IS your legal right to sue if you think you are being defamed, but I am just noting what I see.

I think these days, people see defamation as just bad form. If it isn't true, I think that generally most of the public will realize that and there is really no need for a defamation lawsuit. I think defamation made a lot of sense when publishing rights were held by a few and those sources were trusted as fact, but today I think most people have an ounce of skepticism when they read something on the net. I think it is possibly time to rethink the utility of defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
david, 14 Feb 2009 @ 7:48am

payment to bloggers
ive seen and heard that happening more than once, but the big problem is when the blog article is under the control of one party and the reponse/comment is the negative element you want removed other people will carry on the dicussion and quote on that statement so it will spread like wildfire...

paying off a blogger is a means to an end for some companies who dont offer quality, but just because they pay to remove the article doesnt mean its not being linked/quoted on another blog...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pr, 14 Feb 2009 @ 9:54am

Who to trust?
Who is more believable, a disgruntled former employee or a gruntled current one?

Jesse says:

I think it is possibly time to rethink the utility of defamation.

Really. Given the Streisand effect, a company (or person) that hasn't actually done anything wrong ought to be thrilled to be handed a public forum to promote themselves in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HeinousAnus, 14 Feb 2009 @ 12:11pm

Yeah you Win
A punch in the nuts for being an internet grammar douchbag. Be gone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bradley Stewart, 15 Feb 2009 @ 7:08am

Just how much old gold do people have laying around anyway?
For me this Company is just another of series of tedious adds. It did start me thinking just how much gold do people have laying around anyway? Hey Jimmy how many times have I told you to pick up your bycycle and all that old gold in the driveway? Every night when I come home from work I keep triping over all that stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
discojohnson, 15 Feb 2009 @ 11:27am

What was said:
This came out of the google cache, but here is the bit. For those searching, it starts with "I am a former employee of Cash 4 Gold. I did not know much about the company before being hired. On my first day of being hired, I was taught the "Cash 4 Gold Scam" from beginning to end."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt (profile), 15 Feb 2009 @ 4:35pm

Scam detailed
@discojohnson

The whole scam is detailed by that guy here http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/cash-4-gold-c115287.html. There's a lot of people that were taken in by this "service" that posted complaints on that site. I'm surprised networks would even agree to run their commercials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cash4Gold Sues?, 1 Sep 2009 @ 10:25pm

Cash4Gold Sues?
Why on earth would they sue the consumerist... which is owned by Consumer Reports! Seems like an ant picking a fight with a forest fire.. their going to get stomped for this. Cash4Gold sues the Consumerist ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sarah, 3 Sep 2009 @ 5:30pm

Was searching around for Cash4Gold info and saw this today: http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/09-03-2009/00050 88259&EDATE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
matt, 4 Sep 2009 @ 5:27am

I saw that article too here:
http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/09-03-2009/00050882 59&EDATE=
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/cash4gold-provides-cash-for-the,948814.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
matt, 4 Sep 2009 @ 5:40am

news about cash4gold

http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/09-03-2009/00 05088259&EDATE=
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/cash4gold-provides-cash-for-the,948814.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
matt, 4 Sep 2009 @ 5:40am

http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/09-03-2009/0005088259& EDATE=
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/cash4gold-provides-cash-for-the,948814.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cash for gold, 13 Nov 2009 @ 6:17am

cash for gold
Not only do we here at Cash for Gold U.S.A want you to enjoy selling your gold online as well as selling you precious forms of jewelry, but we want you to be safe and protected while you are doing it. When you deal with us we want you to avoid a cash for gold scam altogether! As we have stated before in various writings, many people and companies want to give you the same great service as us but many of the fall very short of the mark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ceejay2005, 11 Jan 2010 @ 6:28am

Gold Stash for Cash
stash for gold helps you sell your gold, silver, platinum and coins for the industries best pricing. We offer several convenient ways to sell your items including: exciting in-person buying events, home gold parties, fundraisers and reliable insured mail-away service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sell Gold For Cash, 18 Feb 2010 @ 4:13pm

Not all gold companies should be judged in this way. Many offer a great service with fair prices, in a simple way. Much easier than having to take your jewelry to local stores which are more likely to low ball you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
frenkstayl, 13 Dec 2010 @ 10:12pm

gold coin
The most important piece of information for determining the price of a piece of sterling silver jewelry is the price per gram of the silver. This is the fundamental raw material cost of a piece of sterling silver jewelry due to the fact that silver is considered a precious metal. For instance, the price for silver is $9.5 per ounce, the price per gram is determined by dividing the price per ounce by 31.5, which is 30 cents. Therefore, the cost for the raw material for a 5 gram wedding band ring is roughly $1.5. Some might wonder why people would pay $30 for a silver wedding ring when the silver only cost $1.5. The followings will explain the difference.
gold coins
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
frenkstayl, 13 Dec 2010 @ 10:13pm

gold coin
The most important piece of information for determining the price of a piece of sterling silver jewelry is the price per gram of the silver. This is the fundamental raw material cost of a piece of sterling silver jewelry due to the fact that silver is considered a precious metal. For instance, the price for silver is $9.5 per ounce, the price per gram is determined by dividing the price per ounce by 31.5, which is 30 cents. Therefore, the cost for the raw material for a 5 gram wedding band ring is roughly $1.5. Some might wonder why people would pay $30 for a silver wedding ring when the silver only cost $1.5. The followings will explain the difference.
gold coins
[ link to this | view in chronology ]