Cash4Gold Drops Lawsuit Against Consumerist... Still Suing Whistleblowers

from the dear-streisand... dept

Fri, Sep 25th 2009 1:57pm — Mike Masnick

It looks like the folks over at Cash4Gold have finally realized that it wasn't a particularly smart move to sue Consumerist for reporting on various allegations made against Cash4Gold. The company has dropped that part of the lawsuit, though it continues to sue the ex-employees it accuses of both defamation and "publishing any more confidential, proprietary information" (and, note, they don't say which info was defamatory or which was confidential and proprietary). Consumerist makes it very clear that this wasn't a settlement. They didn't ask to be dropped from the case or agree to anything. One would guess that somewhere down the line a lawyer explained to Cash4Gold that its likelihood of winning such a case was about as close to zero as you could imagine...

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: defamation, whistleblower
Companies: cash4gold, consumer reports, consumerist

10 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Scote, 25 Sep 2009 @ 2:31pm

Not only would C4G have lost against consumerist, but having a consumerist as a party meant that the other two defendants would have an ally of sorts with deep pockets and plenty of Anti-SLAP litigation experience: consumerist owner Consumer Reports.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Poster, 25 Sep 2009 @ 2:45pm
  
  Re:
  Which isn't to say that they still don't have the support of Consumerist/Consumer Reports.
  
  Or of anyone else with a little common sense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Szilagyi (profile), 25 Sep 2009 @ 3:24pm

Broken law
And again, any legal system that lets "entities" like corporations sue for defamation is fundamentally broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Misanthropist (profile), 25 Sep 2009 @ 3:27pm
  
  Re: Broken law
  And again, any legal system that lets "entities" like corporations sue for defamation is fundamentally broken.
  
  Smartest thing I have read all day.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- An Entity Named "Legal System", 25 Sep 2009 @ 3:32pm
  
  Re: Broken law
  I take offense at you calling me broken. Except a lawsuit!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - An Entity Named "Legal System", 25 Sep 2009 @ 3:33pm
    
    Re: Re: Broken law
    Blah, expect*
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ..., 25 Sep 2009 @ 5:40pm
  
  Re: Broken law
  Wasn't there a case some time ago where some corp claimed it had the same rights as a person? I do not recall the details, but I think they claimed the right to free speech
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2009 @ 9:59am
    
    Re: Re: Broken law
    You may be thinking of this:
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ..., 26 Sep 2009 @ 8:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Broken law
      http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/News-opinion-and-commentary/Ruling-frees-phone-concerns-to-enter-cable -TV-business-Baby-Bell-fights-cable-law-citing-right-to-fr.html
      
      I find it interesting that a corporation has the right to free speech. This makes no sense. How does a corp speak, as it is not a living being. Is its speech similar to that of a mannequin ? Everyone can see the ventriloquist's lips moving and only small childeren are fooled.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben, 26 Sep 2009 @ 4:03am

Suggestion
I would strongly suggest checking out the Silver and Gold Exchange before selling gold or silver to ANYONE. I did a great deal of research, online and offline, and learned a lot about this business. I checked pawn shops, jewelers, "gold parties", hotel "buying events as well as the online buyers, including the "as seen on tv" guys. I found that the Silver and Gold Exchange paid more than anyone else I could find. I liked the fact that they post the prices they pay per gram (beware of the places that quote in pennyweight/DWT) on a live price chart at http://SilverAndGoldExchange.com I also checked out their Better Business Bureau report and found they have never had a single complaint as opposed to HUNDREDS of complaints some other companies have! I recommend them 100%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]