Building Company Realizes That Threatening A Blogger With Bogus Libel Suit Was A Bad Idea; Sincerely Apologizes
from the you-don't-see-this-very-often dept
For years, we've covered stories of companies reacting badly to finding something they don't like about themselves online, and threatening to sue those who posted the content with libel. Many lawyers tend to go to extremes in threatening people, with the idea of scaring them into just taking content down. These days, of course, that's quite likely to backfire, as the recipient can just go public with it, and shame the company. Even so, it's rare for those companies to come out with a really sincere apology. Aaron DeOliveira points us to an interesting story involving a building company, Guardian Building Products, that freaked out over a blog that showed "a lousy installation" of their insulation. The company threatened to sue, saying that the blog post "constitute[s] libel, slander and commercial disparagement." In response, the blogger, Dr. Allison Bailes, went public with the threat.And here's where Guardian realized that perhaps it was doing something really, really wrong. It sent a very apologetic letter:
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: apologies, defamation, streisand effect
Companies: guardian
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
People improperly installed some fiberglass with the company name on it. Pictures were posted saying this is the wrong way to install fiberglass. Rather than politely say, we are afraid people will think our product is bad could you blur our name? they went insane.
A much better play would have been to supply the blogger with a series of photographs of the product properly installed to be a more good idea bad idea photo series, or to ask how can we make our product better to avoid these things.
People need to put the button to deploy the lawyer under lock, and get someone else to agree it is the right way to handle an issue before handing over the key.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since, you know, it's obvious that Wordpress.com is dedicated to infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its those darn rogue web sites again
Shame on those rogue web sites for shaming a commercial company into doing the right thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The blogger is in compliance, and this note is just a happy "we didn't mean to use our angry voice" missive that comes when they get everything they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"In addition, now that the pictures have in fact been blocked in your article"
So the threat of litigation stifled your free speech, and now we are happy la la la la la, screw your pesky little rights, and the next time we do lousy work and dont fix it, we can get away with it.
Guardian Fiberglass - Quality, a word we ignore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Plus the fact that they made themselves look like like fools in the eyes of the public. Now they'll probably move on to sending legal threats to other sites who post the "before" and "after" edited pics.
and any ongoing harm has been removed as a result.
They harmed themselves much more than the original poster of the article ever could have, by their own hand. I wonder if Guardian Building Products legal department will soon be receiving a threatening letter (from their own legal department) for "commercial disparagement" of their own products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Woik...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Woik...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Woik...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Woik...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good Woik...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really AC?
"Guardian disagrees with [the] assertion that it is difficult to install fiberglass insulation well. � It is Guardian�s position that these comments by your company together with the picture of Guardian�s products constitute libel, slander, and commercial disparagement."
Sounds like a threat to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That a bunch of whiny people emailed the company after shows only that they clearly have never dealt with an issue like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They made legal threats before they 'moved forward'. They are not just 'stating their opinion' they are implying that they will take legal action (they are making a legal threat) if they don't get their way.
"Think of it as the slander / libel version of a DMCA notice"
Which is more reason why these sorts of laws need sound safe harbors, and why we need good anti-slap laws, so that people can not deliver threatening notices for no good reason and be expected to be taken seriously and to deter corporations from sending bogus legal threats in response to criticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's partly what's wrong with our legal system. It was public opinion, and not our broken legal system, that compelled the lawyers to retract its inappropriate legal threats. A properly functioning legal system should sufficiently deter most company lawyers from issuing bogus legal threats to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't an apology. It's sort of like sticking your ass up in the air at your intended target, smiling at them and saying "I'm sorry".
This apology letter is a BIG FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The primary thing that should deter them from issuing bogus legal take-downs should be their internal moral standards. If they see some mistakes, instead of issuing a take-down, they should voluntarily and willingly tell the blog something to the extent of "thank you for bringing this to our attention. Some of our employees may have installed this a bit too quickly. Please note that this should not reflect on the company as a whole and we will seek to remedy the problem immediately. If anyone else notices any other problems with other buildings, please visit our website, click on feedback, and submit the details of the problem so that we may remedy any such problems. Thank you!" and they should offer to fix the problem. That would give them very good reviews and more customers. That was a big fail.
If their moral standards aren't enough to deter such behavior, the second thing that should deter them should be our legal system. Our legal system should give them absolutely no ground to request an injunction and it should make very clear that any sort of attempt to do so could easily result in huge frivolous lawsuit damages and punitive anti-slapp damages, money that will quickly go to the defendant (the blogger) on summary judgement with no chance of appeal and a quick refusal to appeal at very little cost, and huge rewards, to the defendant. But that was a fail, because clearly frivolous legal threats still abound.
The third deterrent against bogus lawsuits (though that doesn't really apply here) should be the federal government stepping in with anti-trust suits against companies like Righthaven and Intellectual ventures and other companies that try to initiate bogus, anti-competitive legal threats and lawsuits for no good reason (especially non-practicing entities). Being that the federal government is doing nothing to stop these bogus lawsuits and, instead, they are going after Google for no good reason, that's a third fail.
The last and final deterrent to bad behavior should be public opinion. Unfortunately, we live in a society where this is the first and primary deterrent because the other three deterrents don't work, and even the last deterrent often wrongfully gets censored from various government established mainstream media monopoly outlets. So, in many ways, even the fourth deterrent is a fail thanks to bad laws and our broken government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]