Bogus Defamation Lawsuit With Fake Defendant Results In Negative Reviews Of Dentist Being Taken Down
from the yet-another-abuse-of-the-legal-system dept
Earlier this year, complaint site Pissed Consumer noticed a disturbing new trend in the dark art of reputation management: unnamed rep management firms were using a couple of lawyers to run bogus defamation lawsuits through a local court to obtain court orders demanding the removal of "defamatory" reviews.
What was unusual wasn't the tactic itself. Plenty of bogus defamation lawsuits have been filed over negative reviews. It's that these lawsuits were resolved so quickly. Within a few weeks of the initial filing, the lawsuit would be over. Each lawsuit improbably skipped the discovery process necessary to uncover anonymous reviewers and proceeded straight to judgment with a (bogus) confessional statement from each "reviewer" handed in by the "defamed" entity's lawyer for the judge's approval. Once these were rubber stamped by inattentive judges, the lawyers served Google with court orders to delist the URLs.
To date, no one has uncovered the reputation management firm behind the bogus lawsuits. In each case, the companies purporting to be represented by these lawyers were shells -- some registered as businesses on the same day their lawsuits were filed.
It's one thing to do this sort of thing from behind the veil of quasi-anonymity afforded by the use of shell companies. It's quite another to file a bogus lawsuit with an apparently forged signature (of the supposed defamer) under your own name. But that's exactly what appears to have happened, as detailed in this post by Public Citizen's Paul Alan Levy.
In addition to posting his reviews of Mitul Patel on Yelp, [Matthew] Chan posted on RateMDs, kudzu.com and Healthgrades.com about his unsatisfactory experiences with Dr. Patel. Chan’s is but one of a number of negative reviews directed at Patel on these various sites, but Patel apparently took particular umbrage at this one: he filed a pro se libel action claiming, in highly conclusory terms, that the reviews were false and defamatory.
It doesn't get much more conclusory than this filing [PDF], which runs only three pages -- with one page containing nothing more than a date and a signature. The complaint lists the URLs of Chan's reviews, says they're defamatory... and that's basically it. No part of the reviews are quoted as evidence of defamation. The filing simply declares every review defamatory and demands an injunction. But that's the kind of detail you can omit when you know you're never going to have to confront the accused in court.
[I]nstead of suing Chan in Georgia, Patel filed in the circuit court for the city of Baltimore, Maryland, a court that would ordinarily have no personal jurisdiction over a Georgia consumer sued for criticizing a Georgia dentist. Patel justified suing there by identifying “Mathew Chan” as the defendant – note that the spelling of the given name is slightly different – and alleging that this Mathew Chan “maintains a primary residence located in Baltimore, Maryland.”
There's a problem with both the defendant named and the primary address. The name is misspelled, perhaps deliberately so. The address listed in the complaint is completely bogus.
The fact that the both the online docket for the case, and the “consent motion for injunction and final judgment” bearing a signature for “Mathew Chan,” list his address as 400 East Pratt St. in Baltimore implies to me that this is a case of deliberate fraud, because so far as I have been able to determine, 400 East Pratt Street is a downtown building that contains only offices, retail establishments and restaurants, but no residences.
Despite these deficiencies, the lawsuit made it past a judge because it contained a supposed mea culpa from "Mathew Chan" of "400 East Pratt Street" admitting to the defamatory postings. This motion with the bogus signature and admission was approved by judge Philip S. Jackson, who also instructed "Mathew Chan" to issue notices to search engines to delist the URLs if removing the original reviews proved impossible.
The real Matthew Chan -- who posted the reviews -- had never heard of the lawsuit until after the injunction had already been approved and served. Yelp notified him of the court order it had received. Chan, who still lives in Georgia as far as he can tell, informed Yelp of the situation and the review site decided to reinstate his review. Other sites, however, took the order at face value and removed the reviews. It appears Yelp was the only site to reach out to Chan when presented with the court order -- something that doesn't exactly bode well for users of other review sites. If sites protected by Section 230 are in this much of a hurry to remove content, they're really not the best venues for consumers' complaints.
Somewhat surprisingly, Levy received a response (of sorts) from Mitul Patel's lawyer. They claim this is the first they've heard of the lawsuit filed in Patel's name targeting negative reviews of Patel's dentistry. This wasn't delivered in a comment or statement, but rather in the form of a retraction demand [PDF]. The opening paragraphs are inadvertently hilarious.
This letter is to advise you that I have been retained to represent Mitul Patel, DDS, regarding the contents of your blog, dated Friday, August 19, 2016, entitled "Georgia Dentist Mitul Patel Takes Phony Litigation Scheme to New Extremes Trying to Suppress Criticism".
Based upon a review of your blog, which has unfortunately gone viral, please be advised that the contents of your blog are grossly inaccurate, factually incorrect, and were obviously written for no other purpose but to gain publicity for your blog, and to willfully damage the name and reputation of Dr. Patel.
First, there's the pain of being Streisanded, embodied in the phrase "has unfortunately gone viral." That's the sort of thing that happens when negative reviews are mysteriously injunctioned into the cornfield. Then there's the stupid accusation the Streisanded hurl at those who expose questionable -- and possibly fraudulent -- behavior: that it was motivated by a thirst for internet points. The first statement is merely sad. The second is mostly just tiresome.
The retraction demand goes on to claim that this is the first Mitul Patel has heard of the lawsuit (filed in his name) as well. While this would seem unlikely, Levy points out that a reputation management company could have created plausible deniability by filing a pro se lawsuit under Patel's name (its own kind of fraud) but without notifiying him that this is how it poorly and illegally handles its reputation-scrubbing duties. Unfortunately for Patel, whoever was hired to do this has done further damage to the dentist's reputation while presumably charging him for making things better.
Levy, of course, will not be retracting the post. His response to the demand letter points out that it's rather curious no disavowal was made until after the blog post "unfortunately went viral."
I was not persuaded, however, by your suggestion that I should "retract" the blog post or apologize for it. After all, you acknowledge that much of what I had to say on the blog was true. But I also have qualms about your assertion that, before my blog post was published, Patel had no knowledge of the lawsuit in Baltimore, for two reasons. First, in the course of investigating before I published my article, I obtained from Yelp copies of emails from Mitul Patel to Yelp, attaching the Baltimore court order and asking that Chan's Yelp comments be deleted. I attach the copies of these emails. Yelp has told me that Patel used [email address retracted], the same email address that [rest of sentence retracted]. Unless the email addresses were spoofed, those emails suggest that your client knew about the court order and was trying to take advantage of it.
Moreover, before I posted my article on the blog, I placed two telephone calls to Patel's dental clinic to try to speak with him about the lawsuit; I told his receptionist why I was calling. In addition, on Wednesday, August 17, I sent your client an email message mentioning his lawsuit against Chan and spelling out my concerns. Although he did not call me back and did not reply to the email, I trust he saw the messages before I published my article on Friday.
Levy goes on to point out that it seems strange someone or some company would pay a $165 filing fee to file a bogus defamation lawsuit for Patel without ever informing him it was doing so. The only motivation possible would be a shady reputation management company engaging in shadier tactics because Patel's paying it more than it's shelling out in filing fees. Levy has requested Patel provide him the name of anyone he's hired to do reputation cleanup work or perform SEO optimization on his behalf.
So, it's not just DMCA notices being abused to "protect" dishonest entities' reputations. It's also the legal system, where there's very little compelling lower level judges to spend a few minutes scrutinizing bare bones complaints (and injunction motions) handed to them by shady plaintiffs.
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: bogus lawsuits, court orders, dentist, georgia, matthew chan, mitul patel, philip s. jackson, reputation management, reviews
Companies: yelp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Govern yourself
"you may govern yourself accordingly."
Now all we need is for Patrick Zarrelli to be the infamous "Salt Marsh". It would explain oh so much about the current reputation mismanagement schemes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No lawyers in the filing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No lawyers in the filing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has his lawyer notified the court so that the order may be vacated? Doesn't his lawyer have a responsibility to do so immediately? Not eventually, not in due course, but as soon as practical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fraud
I agree that someone has committed a fraud on the Baltimore Circuit Court and Judge Philip Senan. My guess is law enforcement will have to be involved and I have been independently looking into this option.
And yes, I also agree that order must be vacated. We have a little time to get that taken cared of once and for all. I would expect that the order would be easily vacated and it would be uncontested upon filing of said motion to vacate.
More importantly, I hope the judge will learn of the details of this little conspiracy that was perpetrated against him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it seems like a few steps could be taken, like finding out whose fingerprints are on the original copy, whether the signature matches known signatures of the plaintiff, and to what address (or email address/IP address) the court orders and filings were sent.
There's no way that this isn't a crime. Some resources should be spent figuring out who did it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police
I think that will eventually happen that I file a police report but I want to give time and see what other information surfaces in the next couple of weeks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inclined to believe dentist on a couple of items
However, what seems plausible to me is that the dentist hired some unethical SEO/reputation management firm to try to wipe off my Yelp review which contained a reference to his 2008 disciplinary consent order by the GA Dentistry Board he did not want other people to see. It was fairly easy to uncover but my guess is that he is a bit sensitive to it.
Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that even an unethical firm would arbitrarily conduct such fraudulent court actions without compensation from some party related to the dentist.
And yes, I do believe there was some crime(s) committed but it is too early to know who did what at this point. And I do believe resources will be brought to bear to conduct some investigation. Even the dentist's lawyer has said as much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inclined to believe dentist on a couple of items
It appears that Dr Patel's practice is on the other side of Atlanta from you? Is that right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good question
Spending lots of time in the area is how I came to know about Patel's promotional program. My girlfriend and gets many dentist promo flyers and gives them to me. And since I only need to see the dentist twice a year for cleanings and I spend quite a bit of time with her, it was easy to find a dentist near her home.
Not that it is relevant to the immediate topic but it is a very competitive dentist market in the North ATL area where my girlfriend resides. It is actually easier for me to find a dentist who wants your business in that particular area than Columbus. The competition between dentists is FIERCE in North Atlanta.
As a whole, I distrust many in the dentistry business. It can be a sleazy industry. I have seen, heard, and been "upsold" a lot over the years which is why I have so much to say on the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems to be a common thing nowdays.
We see criminals with badges allowed to retire rather than face charges or punishment.
We see lawyers violate the rights of the accused & railroad them to jail and its unheard of for them to be called out.
We see people screwed by the system, getting the final fuck you as they pass laws to offer compensation but capping it so low or make the hurdles so high that it isn't compensation but more punishment for making the powers that be look bad.
I can seed a crappy movie on bittorrent, record all of the IPs that download it, and extort millions.... and it takes far to long for the courts to notice, and then extend every possible courtesy to me that my victims never got. I can lie to courts repeatedly & even run a new scam because there is no punishment coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time will tell
But in this particular case, it is still early in the investigative process. I haven't given up yet. There are a few courses of actions I can pursue and channels for me to explore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slander?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slander?
Slander is spoken, so I'll assume you meant libel, which is printed.
Two reasons. First, he denies he was the one who filed it. Second, litigation privilege. You can't sue someone for libel for something they put in a court filing or testified to. They can get in trouble (possibly criminal trouble) for perjury, forgery, contempt of court, or similar things, and maybe even monetary sanctions could be issued by the court, but you can't sue them for libel for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slander?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slander?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Litigation privilege
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Review removals were the intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Philip S. Jackson
maryland.gov:(Caps, bold, and italics in source.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Philip S. Jackson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Possible involved company...
It's possible that it was picked at random, but it's more likely that it's an accurate address for someone involved.
Most of the businesses there don't look especially likely. A few fast food places, parking, accounting, architecture, specialized tech businesses. The only company that stuck out was R2integrated, which does social network marketing.
They fit the profile of sleazy marketing. A search reveals cringe-worthy statements such as "sitting at the cool kids table" and "aligns brand, demand, and technology to deliver on the new promise of integration today".
And yes, they are in the "reputation management" business.
http://www.r2integrated.com/r2insights/hows-your-online-reputation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cough cough
Do they even have a clue what a blog is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stuart J. Oberman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I smell entertainment on the horizon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really entertainment for me
I understand you didn't mean it in a derogatory or personal way and I don't take offense. I can tell you since this began, I have had all kinds of feelings and emotions over this. Anger and frustration being the top emotions on my list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elsewhere around the 'net
⁃ The second of Eugene Volokh's two posts on this incident, “Georgia dentist claims libel lawsuit was filed without his knowledge (though in his name)” (Aug 24, 2016), is now a few days old and poised to slip off the front page of his Volokh Conspiracy blog.
⁃ Scott Greenfield's post, “Victim Blaming? So The Dentist Claims” (Aug 24, 2016), looks like it still has a few more days on the front landing at Simple Justice.
⁃ Meanwhile, Paul Alan Levy, last Thursday, Aug 25, 2016, updated the story with his third post, “Kudzu.com has restored review of Mitul Patel"”, which has in turn begun it's long trek down the front page at Public Citizen's Consumer Law & Policy Blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Elsewhere around the 'net
I am mindful that this story will likely fall of the grid shortly. Due to time constraints, I have restricted my commentary to reader comments within each of the aforementioned articles. As most blog writers know, writing articles can be time-consuming and regards a good deal of effort and mental energy (for me me at least).
However, when I have more time, I will make some blog posts that cover things not in the aforementioned stories. For example, I have a lot more to say about the business and declining ethics of dentistry and some of the ugly practices I have uncovered over the years that many people don't know.
That is not to say that every dentist is unethical or engages in such practices but I can tell you things have changed for the worse in the 25 years I have been a customer/client of dentistry. I have been forced to change dentist many times over the years for various "unhappy" issues.
That is but one example of many "side stories" that I want to get out as a result of this whole fiasco. Another has to do with my feelings of the practices of SEO/reputation management firms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SEO
Of course, one should be rather hesitant to draw any inferences from this, at least beyond the obvious: Dr Patel has obtained SEO services in connection with his online marketing efforts for his dental practice.
Note that SEO is not necessarily equivalent to online reputation management (ORM).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SEO vs. Reputation Management firm
And even if Patel's SEO firm provides "reputation management" services, it is hard to believe that most firms would ever engage in such tactics. As of right now, I tend to believe Patel went outside his SEO firm to find another firm willing to use criminal and fraudulent court filings to remove legitimate user reviews.
But thank you for providing these nuggets of info, I didn't notice them before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SEO vs. Reputation Management firm
I find it slightly amusing that Mr Oberman would refuse to even identify a company that happens to be openly declared on Dr Patel's website.
From p.2 of Mr Levy's Aug 22 letter:(My emphasis.)
Perhaps I'm just easily amused by certain trifles. But we can independently establish whether Dr Patel has ever retained a company for search engine optimization. We can identify one such company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I understand Mr. Oberman's initial response
Regarding Mr. Oberman, he might be Patel's GA lawyer but he has not attacked me, nor said anything negative about me. I have not even heard from him. It appears Mr. Oberman was brought into this case very quickly by Patel and Oberman did not have ample time to do more questioning or investigating on behalf of his client's story.
At this point, I am not overly-critical of Mr. Oberman's initial response. It appears he is trying to be responsible and cautious in what he says. I think Mr. Oberman is in a tough spot right now representing his client. Maybe I am being too gracious and gullible here regarding Mr. Oberman but he hasn't done or said anything that I have seen that is inappropriate.
I perfectly understand why Mr. Oberman is withholding the name of the reputation management firm. I think releasing that name would probably also hurt his client also. Having said that, I do think independent investigators by law enforcement needs to get involved to uncover the truth. If Patel didn't do any of this, then he should welcome the investigation to clear his name.
As I said, I am perfectly fine if it is found Patel is an unintended victim but who else would have a reason and motive to quietly file an illegitimate lawsuit in his name in a Baltimore court to remove consumer reviews I wrote about Patel here in Georgia?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOLLOWUP: Two weeks later...
“Georgia Consumer Asks Baltimore Judge to Vacate Dentist Mitul Patel's Bogus ‘Consent Order’ ”, by Paul Alan Levy, CL&P Blog, Sep 7, 2016(Embedded hyperlink omitted.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OCTOBER UPDATE
“Dozens of suspicious court cases, with missing defendants, aim at getting web pages taken down or deindexed”, by Paul Alan Levy and Eugene Volokh, CL&P Blog, Oct 10, 2016
Levy and Volokh's CL&P Blog post today fits the Maryland Patel v Chan case into a larger pattern: “There are about 25 court cases throughout the country that have a suspicious profile.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]