Concrete Company Sues Woman For Posting Negative Review On Angie's List

from the well,-now-we-know-who-to-avoid dept

Fri, Jul 2nd 2010 12:04pm — Mike Masnick

You really would think, at this point, that any lawyer worth his or her hourly rate would strongly recommend to clients that they don't go ballistic in filing lawsuits any time someone says something bad about you. Hell, there have been multiple stories recently about just how badly a similar lawsuit from a towing company has backfired on the company. But, yet again, we have a story of a business suing over a negative review. This time, it's a woman in Chicago who wrote a negative review of a local cement company on the site Angie's List because it refused to even give her an estimate, saying it didn't work in her area. She was upset because the company was only based 5 miles away, and on Angie's List, said it did work where she lived. So she wrote about her experience and rated the company an "F." In response, the company, All Fields of Concrete Construction, sued her, claiming she "willingly and maliciously tried and succeeded in damaging my company's reputation." Once again, it makes you wonder: which is more damaging to your reputation? Getting a bad rating online, or suing the person who gave you that rating? It's difficult to see how the concrete company has much of a case. The "F" rating is clearly an opinion, not a statement of fact. And it's hard to show that the woman was "malicious" in her rating. She gave her opinion. But, now, thanks to the lawsuit, a lot more people know her opinion of All Fields of Concrete Construction.

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: concrete, defamation, opinion, reviews
Companies: all fields of concrete construction, angie's list

61 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ima Fish (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:13pm

I heard that the CEO of All Fields of Concrete Construction can't have an orgasm unless he kills a dog. That's just something I heard somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sehlat (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:32pm
  
  Re:
  I'm sorry to have to say this, but that remark exceeds Mr. Fitzgerald's being a jerk without even trying. Both of you are doing it superbly.
  
  The fact that he's willing to sue somebody for publishing a negative opinion? lukemv's got it right. If the pakhtash is that litigious, I wouldn't even call him for an estimate. He might stub his toe while he's on my property.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ima Fish (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "I'm sorry to have to say this, but that remark exceeds Mr. Fitzgerald's being a jerk without even trying."
    
    But I'm not being a jerk. I'm making a joke via a hip cultural reference. Hence the link. Which I'm assuming you didn't click. If you did, you're completely clueless. And I'm still not being a jerk, merely honest.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    /woosh
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
lukeMV, 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:14pm

I won't use them because if they sued her for something as frivolous as an on-line comment, what's to say they won't sue me for something while they are doing work on my property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:19pm

the f rating is not warranted because there was no service. it is sort of like rating a restaurant bad because it wont serve mcdonalds to you. the company may not even be allowed to work in that area (permits, perhaps), we dont know.

suing is a pretty big jump, and fairly negative (look at what ima fish did with it) but at the same time, if it is the first thing that comes up in google, perhaps they have reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:25pm
  
  Re:
  What reason? She gave an opinion. I agree that the F isn't warranted based on the story (if they guy can't/doesn't work there, then why should she rate them badly), but just because her opinion is uninformed or downright stupid doesn't make her liable....
  
  Incidentally, I know these guys a little bit. At one point in my life, when I apparently wished to live on the South Side amongst ignorant White Sox fans and the dregs of Chicago, I was living about four blocks away from them. A shame, since they're in such close proximity to one of the best businesses in chicago, Bobak's Sausage company....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DS, 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:25pm
  
  Re:
  Soooo.... if I go to an empty restaurant, and ask to be seated, and they tell me to f-off, I should be stopped from telling anyone else how rude they were to me?
  
  The company probably had more than enough work to do, and didn't need her business. Either that, or she was a terrible person on the phone to deal with. Either way, one F rating out by it's lonesome self shouldn't be enough to disuade anyone from anything.
  
  And if it did, well, I wouldn't want that type of customer anyways.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tom5859, 26 Oct 2010 @ 7:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Last week i had the misfortune of losing my car keys, i called this other place that kept telling me some one will be here in 30 min, one hour later they said the same thing. next morning i called discount locksmith, they also told me 30 min, only they showed up, and it was even on time! The guy (tomy) was very nice and explained me exactly what he was going to do and how long it will take. it did take him a bit more time than he told me it would (20 min longer) but i got a new key that works just fine, and i promised him i would put in a good word, so there you go tomy, thanks again!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dan, 9 Feb 2012 @ 4:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    ...the company "probably"??
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ima Fish (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:26pm
  
  Re:
  "the f rating is not warranted because there was no service"
  
  But they failed at providing her any service. They promised free estimates in their ad, but failed/refused to give her one. Failing to do what you promise in your ads warrants an F.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re:
  No, no they don't. Even if it is the first thing that shows up on Google, they do not have anything even remotely resembling a reason to sue. She was working with them, she wanted to give them her money, they would not take it due to bad business practices or strait up lying. How does that not give her the right to write a negative review?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:42pm
  
  Re:
  Don't you get tired of having to argue the opposite of whatever Mike happens to post?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz, 2 Jul 2010 @ 1:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike says: Water is wet.
    
    ee trollings says: it's a typical friday on techdirt and mike is once again misleading his brain dead followers into thinking water is wet. water is not wet unless we have a government monopoly that insures that all water stays wet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Bruce Ediger (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 1:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You missed the need to consult a lawyer:
      
      ee trollings says: it's a typical friday on techdirt and mike is once again misleading his brain dead followers into thinking water is wet. water may not be wet. consult a lawyer to find out if water is, in fact, wet. all mike and his ilk want to do is drink water, wet or not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Any Mouse, 2 Jul 2010 @ 7:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Only if the Kool-Aid matrix has been properly applied.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 3 Jul 2010 @ 5:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Brilliant sequence! :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 2:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm sure they do, but it seems to be a living!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2010 @ 3:31pm
  
  Re:
  Deserve it or not is the opinion of one person and should be respected even if it has no foundation in reality, even if it is crazy, people can go out there and there her a new one but not sue her, not try to stifle speech or criticism in such a dishonest manner.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scote, 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:24pm

From TFA:
"Fitzgerald, talking with CBS 2 by phone, countered: "I'm not trying to be a jerk. It's just hard to have somebody slander you." "

Oh, but you do it so well. Without even trying... :-p

I have to agree with lukeMV. I wouldn't want to hire any company that is that litigious. It just isn't worth the risk. If anything, the lawsuit just provides what seems like confirmation of the woman's low rating.

Perhaps somebody should send the man a photo of Babara Streisand's house?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:42pm
  
  Re:
  To be slander, it has to be both defamatory and false. Is her rating defamatory? Could be. Did she make false statements explaining it? If so, the company will have to prove that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - slander (profile), 3 Jul 2010 @ 5:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    Huh?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ellen, 21 Jan 2011 @ 2:44pm
  
  Re: I have to agree with lukeMV. I wouldn't want to hire any company that is that litigious. It just isn't worth the risk. If anything, the lawsuit just provides what seems like confirmation of the woman's low rating.
  Perhaps you and LukeMV do not have a good name in your community, and perhaps that's not important to you. However; there are many good contractors that do care about their good name, and are willing to sacrifice everything because they do genuinely care. They care about their customers, their community, the importance of doing a good job, and yes; they care about what others think of them.
  The fact that you won't hire him because you think they mite sue you, and the fact that you won't hire him because he's willing to stand up for himself, only points out one flaw, and that is that you are cowards.
  Angie�s list really should not be permitted to post negative remarks about contractors unless they, as the BBB does, have brought the claims to the contractor�s attention, allowed that contractor to respond; afterwich, investigate the claim, and if substantiated; Post it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mikecancook, 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:25pm

Suing customers, even prospective customers is not a good business method. Perhaps the owner might have been better off contacting her and asking if he could personally do an estimate and give it to her at cost. That experience might have turned her into an evangelist for the company instead of an albatross.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:38pm

Fitz@allfieldsofconcrete.com is the skankiest of skanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scote, 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:38pm

"Anonymous Coward, Jul 2nd, 2010 @ 12:19pm

the f rating is not warranted because there was no service. it is sort of like rating a restaurant bad because it wont serve mcdonalds to you. the company may not even be allowed to work in that area (permits, perhaps), we dont know."

That depends on the type of review, product or company/service.

It is totally inappropriate for people to give 1 star reviews to books on Amazon over delivery problems from Amazon because those reviews are for the **books**, not the service. But a negative review for a company's service or lack thereof may be entirely appropriate for business reviews if the company claims to offer service in an area but refuses to do so when called. In such circumstances they are providing bad customer service. Would you, for instance, say that somebody shouldn't give a restaurant a bad review if, for no reason, you are refused a table? I'd say that would be a legitimate beef.

BTW, Angie's list gives the reviewed company a right of reply "Companies and providers respond to reports, so you get the whole story. " Which means that All Fields of Concrete Construction presumably got to tell their side of the story right next to Helen Maslona's negative review, so the lawsuit is even more unjustified than it would seem just from the Techdirt article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vic, 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:39pm

The category/filed under "Streisand Effect" is long overdue here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GeneralEmergency (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:42pm

A Well Known Problem...
Contractors suing for bad reviews on Angie's List is a well known problem.

Angie's list needs to fix this problem by:

A) Providing ample contractor rebuttal space.
B) Dropping/Banning contractors that sue reviewers for libel/slander.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2010 @ 6:29am
  
  Re: A Well Known Problem...
  C) Automatically post a warning about the litigious nature of the concern in question.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scote, 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:48pm

@John Fenderso

Defamatory, false **and** a claim of fact.

A rating is clearly an opinion, making this lawsuit frivolous on its face, IMO.

AFIK, the concrete company hasn't disputed her account, just gotten mad about it and sued. Can't say for sure, though, since the suit hasn't been posted here. However, this techdirt post now makes the front page in the Google search for "All Fields of Concrete" :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:56pm

"Concrete Company Sues Woman For Posting Negative Review On Angie's List"

This concrete company needs to stop being so hard headed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:59pm
  
  Re:
  Maybe not be so BLOCKheaded and just invite the woman to a MIXER instead?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Thomas (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 1:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It might CEMENT their relationship.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jjmsan (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 1:01pm

Negative Reviews
I find negative reviews with comments helpful when trying to find a new service company. First of all you know it is not posted by a shill. Secondly, reading the comments you can decided whether the person is complaining is i complete jerk. How a company handles problems that occur is a good indication of their regular service level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2010 @ 1:52pm
  
  Re: Negative Reviews
  I find that a lot on Newegg, you get low reviews because it was DOA but the replacement came 2 days later and worked fine, tells you the reviewer isn't very fair.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anymouse, 3 Jul 2010 @ 11:03am
    
    Re: Re: Negative Reviews
    True. Those types of reviewers are idiots.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2010 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re: Negative Reviews
  I find that a lot on Newegg, you get low reviews because it was DOA but the replacement came 2 days later and worked fine, tells you the reviewer isn't very fair.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Scote, 2 Jul 2010 @ 2:05pm
    
    Re: Re: Negative Reviews
    "I find that a lot on Newegg, you get low reviews because it was DOA but the replacement came 2 days later and worked fine, tells you the reviewer isn't very fair."
    
    Those are product reviews, in which case noting that the QA is sufficiently poor that the manufacturer is shipping DOA units is a legitimate consumer complaint about the product. That Newegg quickly ships replacements is a sign of good service on Newegg's part, not an indicator that the quality of the product is good.
    
    In any case, reviews on Angie's List are not product reviews, they are company/service reviews. The company is alleged to have offered free estimates in a service area and subsequently refused to live up to their advertised offer. If that is so then there is a legitimate basis to give the company a poor review for their service--especially since the review is said to note the exact reasons woman's low ratings of the company.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Cdaragorn (profile), 3 Jul 2010 @ 12:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Negative Reviews
      "Those are product reviews, in which case noting that the QA is sufficiently poor that the manufacturer is shipping DOA units is a legitimate consumer complaint about the product. That Newegg quickly ships replacements is a sign of good service on Newegg's part, not an indicator that the quality of the product is good."
      
      Only when one hasn't got the first clue how electronics work. Getting a DOA unit doesn't say anything about a companies QA. Electronics can be burnt out far too easily, anyone who understands that knows that it is expected to have a certain percentage of units go dead in transit for all sorts of reasons, hence why complaining about getting one that did go bad just because you were the unlucky one is just stupid.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scote, 2 Jul 2010 @ 1:04pm

Oh, and I should add that in the aggregate the lawsuit gives me concrete evidence that cements my opinion of the company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 1:07pm
  
  Re:
  Is your opinion now set in stone?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Scote, 2 Jul 2010 @ 1:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Is your opinion now set in stone?"
    
    I'd say I have a pour opinion of them, and their excuses and graveling have no truck with me.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 1:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, way to plaster your opinion everywhere....You've just been one giant slab of a conversational partner, my friend.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2010 @ 1:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you guys framing this right? I'm all mixed up here. Maybe because I'm plastered.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gwiz, 2 Jul 2010 @ 1:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Shouldn't take things for GRANITE. Let's just TROWEL up to the REBAR and have stiff one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Buttercup, 21 Jul 2016 @ 12:14pm
  
  Re:
  Haaa haa good one!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scote, 2 Jul 2010 @ 1:37pm

Too late, Thomas. Already used. But I'm glad that AC 12:56pm paved the way for the subsequent slurry of puns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 1:47pm
  
  Re:
  The way this thread has been sculped, our need to thank the AC has been reinforced....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
None, 2 Jul 2010 @ 3:42pm

I always look at the negative reviews over the positive reviews. I look to see how many reviews there are, I look to see what they say and make my decision based on how many negative vs positive and based on why there was negative review's and if they are all consistant or if they are all over the board. Negative reviews do not dis-saude my desicion but the fact a company files a law suite for a negatve review would most definately make my desicion a very firm NO!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
None, 2 Jul 2010 @ 3:43pm

I always look at the negative reviews over the positive reviews. I look to see how many reviews there are, I look to see what they say and make my decision based on how many negative vs positive and based on why there was negative review's and if they are all consistant or if they are all over the board. Negative reviews do not dis-saude my desicion but the fact a company files a law suite for a negatve review would most definately make my desicion a very firm NO!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
chrobrego (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 5:40pm

I've got four friends in Chicago; I'm forwarding this article
What a douche.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 10:17pm

Welp, the Streisand effect continues to work well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt Ellsworth, 3 Jul 2010 @ 7:32am

I'd be curious to see if a judge even hear's this or just throws it out. it sounds so out there it isn't even funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 3 Jul 2010 @ 10:13am

I think "All Fields of Concrete Construction" is a stupid name. I wonder if they'll sue me next. Hope so. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anymouse, 3 Jul 2010 @ 11:07am

Call Michael Fitzgerald
Here's their number:
773 - 735 - 1794
Call Michael Fitzgerald and tell him what you think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jul 2010 @ 5:20am

These guys must have concrete on the brain. DUH! I'll be sure to NEVER use them should the need arise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DanVan (profile), 4 Jul 2010 @ 12:35pm

Ashame that the woman will have to pay for the court costs to battle a suit that will get laughed out of court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One Girl's Opinion, 2 Sep 2010 @ 10:45pm

Unfortunately I have had dealings with the woman and members of her family. Trust me, the lady who did this and members of her family are dishonest and love to do this kind of stuff to people. Do I think they should be sued over this? No. But I don't doubt that it was done maliciously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Expensive F, 27 Sep 2010 @ 10:40pm

Lawsuit Was Dismissed but Legal Fees were not Awarded
Regarding this lawsuit, the case was dismissed by the court but legal fees were not awarded. Lawyer fees and court costs had to be paid. Beware what you post on Angie's List. The aggravation of a lawsuit and the potential loss of legal fees is not worth it (in my humble opinion).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
scott, 2 Oct 2012 @ 4:38am

I like the concept of Angie's list a lot. However, I think that Angie's List should change some of their policies. I do not believe that homeowners should be permitted to get on and give grades to companies unless there has been actual work completed. I am a business owner myself who is the top rated company in my area on Angie's list. We get the majority of our work from Angie's list. We are very small in size - just a couple employees. Out of close to a hundred reports over 10 years, we have only received 2 grades that were bad reports. In both of these cases, I never even met the people. In one of those cases... the person lived a little over an hour away and wanted me to do a small project. I knew that I would not be able to give a fair price because of the gas and travel time, etc - so I simply told her on the phone I am sorry but it is too far for me to travel. She said ok and hung up.

A few days later I saw an Angie's list report posted by her giving me an "F" commenting "I don't think that the location of a job should determine whether or not you at least go to look at the project and give a price". I was totally dismayed. Currently (due to our being the top rated company in the area) we have more calls that we can even handle for our work. We just HAVE to turn a lot of people down. Some might ask "why don't you just hire more people". The reason is that hiring more people changes the dynamics of a small business and I want to focus on less number of projects with higher quality and service. Just a choice I made. However - the fact is - any one of the people we have to tell that we are too busy have the ability to get on Angie's list and in a public forum berate us because they are unhappy people.

I would not go to ever suing someone over a bad report. I think that really is a bad PR move to say the least. But - I know of several high quality companies in town - who do the very best work in town in their field - and they have received numerous types of these reports where there really wasn't much interaction between them and the client such as-- they were too busy and could not get to the person, they went to look at a job and it was too small for them (it has to fit in the business model of a company to be profitable or else it will be a dis-service to the both parties), etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike, 11 Oct 2012 @ 3:08pm

angies list
angies list is a joke--ive seen poor jobs done by angies list contractors so i have no respect for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]