There Aren't Many Ways To Do Online Reputation Management Right, And This Isn't One Of Them
from the just-bad,-not-evil dept
A couple of weeks ago, Eric Goldman posted an article at Forbes discussing an attempt by a company called Infringex to get him to remove a post from his personal blog. The notice sent to Goldman was riddled with mangled legal terminology ("infringement of defamation") and misconceptions (defamation is "the taking of someone's reputation") and was signed by Randi Glazer, the supposed "victim" of a post by "perma-guest" blogger, Venkat Balasubramani.
As Goldman points out, he was under no legal compunction to entertain this request -- if only for the reason that a request was all it was.
It further says that my actions are “unjust” and asks me to “please be kind” and remove the content. However, the notice is cagey about any alleged legal violations.The services offered by Infringex carry no legal weight. This much was admitted to me by Alex Marshall, the owner of the company. He refers to his company's offerings as "self-help documents" that help enforce "common law rights." In order to avoid "unauthorized practice of law," he says his company does not assist in the selection of documents or otherwise advise customers of their legal rights.
Instead, he portrays his company's services as a slightly-more-official-looking way to send requests to remove content. Infringex's services start at $140 -- a price that seems a little high for "Would you kindly…" letters to site owners. As confirmed by Marshall, there are no refunds for the documents' failure to get content removed. Marshall points to the site's terms of use, which clearly state that users are on their own (and out $140+) if the requests are unsuccessful.
6. OUTCOMES. The parties agree the self-help forms provided by INFRINGEX do not constitute professional legal advice and may not be appropriate for every legal situation. INFRINGEX asserts and you hereby accept that there is no guarantee the use of the self-help forms provided by INFRINGEX will result in a successful outcome to your legal matter.The terms of use also point out that takedown requests may result in negative backlash, as well as Infringex being unable to prevent anyone else (including the target of the original request) from reposting the disputed content.
Is asking site owers nicely (but sternly) to remove content worth $140 and up? I asked Marshall this question. He said Infringex "adds value" by being able to find the right person to contact for content removal, as well as being rather skilled at navigating circuitous systems meant to discourage those seeking content removal. (He cites Facebook, in particular, as being more than a little opaque in this area.)
But despite being upfront with me -- as well as in the site's terms of use -- that Infringex has no legal basis for most of its request letters and that most recipients are completely free to ignore these takedown attempts with no negative consequences, the site itself sends mixed messages. On its "Services" page, it states that Infringex offers "legal documents," something it clearly (and admittedly, by its own Chief Officer) does not do.
You can hire a lawyer and begin legal proceedings, or you can choose to send an affordable legal document to address the problem right now with infringex.com. Send them a legal document designed to give you a quick resolution.But there's nothing "legal" about these documents. Anyone can send one for any reason, provided they pay the fee. The hodgepodge of legal lingo, along with the "professional" border, are designed to give receipients of these notices the impression that they are in possession of some sort of legal order.
Unfortunately, the services Infringex offers are basically useless. The company's success (what there is of it) relies heavily on ignorance -- both on the part of the sender and the receiver. The sender has to believe an Infringex document will be more effective than anything he or she could accomplish on their own. At the other end, those receiving these requests need to believe these documents carry far more legal weight than they actually do.
Marshall admits his services are greatly dependent on the wholly-voluntary cooperation of those receiving these requests. Despite this, he claims his documents are successful nearly 40% of the time. He sent me a selection of (redacted) letters from compliant entities as evidence of Infringex's successes. Unfortunately, before sending these, he asked me to abandon my ethics and professionalism in exchange for releasing this info.
BTW Tim,This may have been a joke that badly missed its mark (note the winking emoticon) or it may have been a genuine request. (His response to my response indicates it was more of the latter.) I informed Marshall that he was free to withhold the documents if this was the only way I'd get to see them. He seemed to quickly realize he'd made an egregious error and immediately agreed to send the documents (embedded below) no matter how flattering or unflattering the resulting post ended up being.
When we have some time next week, I could forward to you proof of website owners and administrators complying with our requests. But if I do that, I would expect you to write a favorable article on us ;))
There's not much that can be gleaned from the documents provided, as Marshall obviously desires to protect the privacy of those involved. Fair enough. No business offering content takedown services should willingly part with sensitive client or recipient information. But in terms of establishing Infringex as a successful entity, it's more hearsay than actual evidence.
While Infringex's services may be of only marginal use, my emails and phone conversations with Marshall -- combined with my own research -- lead me to believe this is just a bad business model (aided and abetted by some questionable muddying of legal waters) rather than a low-level scam operation or a shady offshore entity selling unneeded services of dubious legal provenance while keeping itself out of harm's way by incorporating in Bermuda, etc.
Marshall cites some reputation problems with his family's business (not Infringex) -- ones he spent "years" cleaning up -- as the driving force behind his current endeavors. No further details are forthcoming, but Marshall portrays this reputational damage as intentional sabotage by competitors. Whatever the truth is, it helps explains why he would choose to pursue the career he does.
Marshall has since responded to Goldman's Forbes post, offering a rebuttal to his criticism. The rebuttal is in need of a rebuttal, but I'd rather just point out something Infringex has changed in response to Goldman's criticisms. The "press release" notes that it has "edited its site to better serve users," but fails to specify exactly what has been edited. Ken White (Popehat) tracked down the change.
The word "ordered" in the following sentence on its defamation removal page has been replaced with "asked."
They will be asked to DELETE and REMOVE the blog, post or review, immediately.This is an improvement, but Infringex really should stop insinuating its services are on par with actual legal services provided by actual law officers, or that its documents have any legal basis whatsoever.
What I can say in defense of Infringex (that goes past the faint praise damnation of "NOT A SCAM!") is that its owner seems sincere in his desire to help people, even if his site portrays his company's services as more valuable than they actually are.
The other thing I can say in his defense is that these quasi-legal documents, being hawked for $140 minimum, are no worse than some of the bogus cease-and-desist orders we've covered here at Techdirt. Infringex is misguided and badly in need of some legal coaching on defamation and other undesirable content. The lawyers signing these C&Ds -- and issuing them on law firm letterhead -- have no excuse for being as clueless as some random internet dude with a half-baked reputation management service. Bogus takedown demands issued by these lawyers are usually more expensive while being no more legally-sound than Infringex's documents. But they carry with them a legal heft that often prompts victims of this bullying behavior to capitulate immediately. These lawyers similarly rely on the ignorance of others for their success, but they do so with complete awareness of their disingenuous and harmful actions. They screw the people on both ends of these interactions. Their clients often find the criticism and content they want buried spreading uncontainably across the internet. Their targets often find themselves having to hire lawyers of their own or simply living unenjoyable lives marred by the omnipresent threat of always-impending legal action.
Infringex -- for what it's worth -- can't bully people into submission or sue anyone on behalf of its customers. But it can lead the uninformed to seek removal of content they have no legal right to "order" taken down. Because of this, the service is more likely to be abused by those who wish to bury criticism or past embarrassments. Because Infringex is clearly not a legal entity, it is under no obligation to advise against deploying abusive takedown requests. But as is pointed out above, the world is full of lawyers who apparently feel they're similarly under no obligation to refuse to aid and abet in legally-groundless bullying tactics.
Infringex's services are dubious. Its press releases and blog posts bear an unfortunate resemblance to outsourced content farming. Its grasp on the legal issues it's tangling with are tenuous at best. Its attempt to portray itself as both a legitimate alternative to legal action as well as a decidedly-not legal entity sends mixed messages -- perhaps willingly. But it is not evil.
Unfortunately, because of its shortcomings, it will tend to attract the sort of people who know they have no legal basis for their takedown requests, but hope that an official-looking document might scare a few people into compliance. That's a problem and -- as its services are contstructed and sold -- one it will never be able to fix in its current state.
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, takedown requests, threat letters
Companies: infringex
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The difference
Indeed. Infringex looks very much like yet another in the long list of scam psuedolegal services.
I suspect you'd generally get better results by writing a good personal letter than sending something like this. I know that this is how I'd react to an Infrigex-type document: I'd laugh, then either throw it away or put it up for public ridicule.
That's very different from how I'd react to a real, personal communication: I'd actually listen to and think about what it had to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That depends. Ever play BioShock? :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Therefore, the appropriate title should be "Notice of Theft of Defamation."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seems to follow the old Nigerian scam e-mail principle, weeding out those too smart to fall for it, while at the same time taking a minimum of $140 from those dumb enough to believe it will work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a bad solution
Same cost as Infringex and more likely to succeed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a bad solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're reading too much into the terminology. There's nothing about those documents that is illegal, therefore they are legal documents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But, if I had not disposed properly of said legal documents, the city would have still fined/ticketed me for not cleaning up after my dog.
Surely wouldn't want to fight this one in court:
Dogbreath: But your Honor, I was fined/ticketed for having a signed legal document!!!
Code Enforcement: Your Honor, the defendant had some paper with dog crap on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is more important is the 100% success rate in the minimum $140 (or more) charge for users of its "legal documents", because that is what Infringex is really shooting for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would this save the RIAA and MPAA money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would this save the RIAA and MPAA money?
Infringex is a truly weird mix of cluelessness and insight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Infringex Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Totes Legit!
Sure there is. It is "legal" in the sense that it is not illegal. It is an "allowed" document.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's a feature, not a bug
If they did that, made it clear, both to prospective clients and the recipients of the 'requests' they send out, that their service holds absolutely zero legal weight, then their entire business would collapse.
They are banking, hard, on the fact that most people will assume that their letters do have legal weight, due to their appearance and the language they toss in them. Take that away and all they're sending are threatening but not legally binding letters, and their prospective clients can send those on their own if they really wanted to.
As such I wouldn't expect them to clear up the 'confusion' any time soon, it's quite intentional, and a core part of their 'business model'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shitty product, perfect marketing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to the Wild West of Online Reputation Management
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best reputation management company
They have also written a very good article on how to manage your own online reputation. This article presents a clear strategy and path to success if you want to manage your own online reputation. You can find the article on RepWarrior’s website; repwarrior.com/how-to-manage-your-own-online-reputation/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]