ProspectMatch Threatens Forum That Hosts Negative Reviews; Says It Will Bury Forum Owner In Legal Fees
from the and-there's-a-great-review dept
Paul Levy alerts us to yet another case of companies looking to abuse the legal process to shut down negative reviews and opinions. In this case, amazingly, someone involved in the company even seems to admit this in writing to the site being threatened. The situation involves a company called Javelin Marketing, but which is doing business as ProspectMatch.com -- a company that supposedly sells leads. Over at InsuranceForums.net, a site run by Melnet Media, there are a few different threads where multiple people give negative reviews of ProspectMatch, which the Javelin Marketing/ProspectMatch folks weren't very happy about.While Levy has the details of the rather aggressive legal threat sent by a lawyer hired by ProspectMatch, Levy also notes that someone from Javelin Marketing also contacted Insurance-Forums.net's operator directly and explained:
"I really don't care what the law allows you to do. It's a more practical issue. Do you want to send your attorney a check every month indefinitely as I continue to pursue this? Now, we will both spend needless money and when you get sick of paying your attorney, you will take down the posts."Of course, the case looks like a typical Section 230 deal, where the forum owner has no liability over statements made in the forums -- and it appears that ProspectMatch knows this, but doesn't care. Of course, saying that -- in writing no less -- probably was not a wise move, and might expedite a quick dismissal for any legal action.
On top of that, there are number of interesting moves by ProspectMatch's lawyer, a guy by the name of Richard Newman. First, in his threat letter to Melnet, he tried to avoid the likely Streisanding of the threat by declaring:
Please be aware that this letter is copyrighted by our law firm, and You are not authorized to republish it in any manner whatsoever, including in a posting, in full or in part. Doing so will subject You to further legal and equitable causes of action.We've been seeing this sort of technique more frequently these days (unfortunately), and it is pretty pointless for lawyers to include. They do so for fearmongering purposes, but publishing and discussing such a threat letter would almost universally be declared fair use, so Levy has posted the full letter (pdf).
On top of this, it appears that Newman is trying to get around Section 230 claims by (1) pretending that Melnet has more direct involvement than it does and (2) claiming false advertising and trade libel under the Lanham Act. Basically this is an attempt to rebrand "defamation" (which is covered by Section 230) as a "trademark violation" (which is not). But, just because you try to make that claim, it doesn't mean any court in the land will believe you.
Finally, Levy notes that, despite being in California, it was interesting that Newman indicated plans to avoid filing the lawsuit in California, and suggests a reason why he believes Newman did this:
It struck me that the most likely explanation is that Newman understood that, if he sued in either California state court or a federal court in California, the suit would be subject to dismissal under California�s anti-SLAPP statute.This does seem like an interesting legal question, and Levy indicates in his letter to Newman (embedded below), that he fully intends to test this theory if ProspectMatch does decide to file a lawsuit. Anyway, you can read Levy's full letter below. As with most of Levy's letters, it's well worth reading.
The reason we were particularly interested in defending this otherwise plain-vanilla section 230 immunity case is that it presents the opportunity to argue that a California libel plaintiff is still subject to California�s anti-SLAPP laws even if it sues elsewhere, because under common choice of law principles, the law of the plaintiff�s domicile applies to libel and other intentional tort claims. And because the anti-SLAPP law is substantive rather than procedural, we could file a special motion to strike and seek an award of attorney fees.
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: forums, reviews, section 230
Companies: javelin marketing, prospectmatch
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Avoiding the California courts is a good idea, mostly because it keeps them from having to have a whole discussion of the anti-SLAPP laws, which I suspect could be found as an unconstitutional restraint against seeking legal redress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Admitting that you are probably wrong but saying you will pursue the case anyway because the process of litigation will achieve your ends anyway isn't "arguing a legal theory". It's a plain admission that you are abusing the law. Nothing about what ProspectMatch is doing is "noble" - it's downright disgraceful and shameless. How you can use the word "noble" in this context beats me - have you lost it completely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So you don't care about the principle of obeying and enforcing the law, you only care about your own agenda and you only care about the principle of following the law when it's convenient to you. Otherwise, the law should just be ignored.
Then IP maximists turn around and claim that people shouldn't infringe because it's against the law and it's wrong to break the law.
"It is no different from the somewhat lame attempts to get copyright tossed out on first amendment grounds."
What about the lame attempts to censor free speech under copy'right' grounds.
"which I suspect could be found as an unconstitutional restraint against seeking legal redress."
The defendant has the right to seek legal redress against plaintiffs who file frivolous lawsuits that waste the defendants time and money for no good reason. I don't think the constitution places such restraints against seeking legal redress in that regard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
From his point of view, sure, but from a legal point of view, this venue shopping is an abuse of the system and should be banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SLAPP
> unconstitutional restraint against
> seeking legal redress
If that were the case, it would have almost certainly already happened, considering how long these laws have been around and how many frivolous plaintiffs have felt their sting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
comment appreciation day
I just wanted to remind all of you that today between 4:00 and 5:00 (pacific time) techdirt will hold blog-writing appreciation hour. Replies to Mike Ho's great daily dirt column (Sponsored by StumbleUpon don't count.)
What do I get?
We're glad you asked! You get 10 percent off to all shirts.
How do I claim my prize?
What you gotta do is write at least one paragraph on this blog between 4 and 5 today. Just be sure to enter your email address and we'll email the coupon to you.
Its just our way of saying thanks for being a loyal techdirt commenter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is that these lawyers are very good at finding a court that will believe you, or one that will at least pretend to believe you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There won't be a lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There won't be a lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There won't be a lawsuit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZKUozrBl4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
License to Read It
=================================
Does this mean you can safely ignore the letter because you weren't granted a "license" to the "content"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UPDATE
I'm shocked!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prospect Match - Oh Boy!
I went to the insurance forum to see what was there. Bunches, I'm afraid. Following a link in one of the posts there, I ran across this (as a result of a search for "Prospect Match":
http://www.ripoffreport.com/Search/prospect-match.aspx
Pure fraud, apparently. The insurance-forums.net site has lots more, and they're simply telling it like it is. PM can scream and yell all they want to, but I don't think they want to get anywhere near a court. They'll lose. Bottom line: Don't buy from them, EVER!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another SLAPP Lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
becareful
Casey Mahoney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]