Quackwatch Sued For Suggesting Medical Lab Quackery

from the name-what's-wrong dept

Every so often we receive legal threats, almost always concerning claims of defamation. If it's content that we have written, we ask for clarification on specifically which statements are false and why, so that we can review them and fix them if they are, indeed, false. To date, no one who has threatened us has responded in any way to such a request. That is, none have actually provided us with the details of the false statement, or done anything like filing a lawsuit. It appears that Stephen Barrett, who runs the excellent site Quackwatch (which, as you'd suspect, tries to highlight medical practices that smack of quackery) has a similar policy on receiving defamation threats. Unfortunately, he's now been sued in response (thanks to JC for sending this story in).

Barrett has written a few times about a medical lab named Doctor's Data, that he feels is helping certain medical practitioners defraud patients through misleading results. Here's one example of such a report. You'll notice that it's pretty detailed in explaining why Barrett has problems with the use of these reports.

Doctor's Data, understandably, did not take too kindly to all of this and sent a cease & desist letter at the beginning of June. I have to say, I've seen an awful lot of cease-and-desist letters sent to websites accusing them of defamation, but there's something about this one that just... sounds off. I can't quite place it, but the letter seems a bit less formal than the typical C&D. It also doesn't cite any laws or legal precedent, which is common, but certainly not always present. That said, Barrett was quick to respond politely (even "thanking" the lawyer for the letter), despite the legal threat:

I take great pride in being accurate and carefully consider complaints about what I write. However, your letter does not identify a single statement by me that you believe is inaccurate or "fraudulent." The only thing you mention is my article about how the urine toxic metals test is used to defraud patients: (http://www.quackwatch.org/t). The article's title reflects my opinion, the basis of which the article explains in detail.

If you want me to consider modifying the article, please identify every sentence to which you object and explain why you believe it is not correct.

Rather than provide the details of what Doctor's Data felt was defamatory, another partner at the same law firm sent a shorter cease & desist, that again, has a somewhat less formal style than the usual C&D:

You have been making false statements about Doctor's Data and have damaged this company's business and reputation, and you have done so for personal gain and your own self-interest, disguised as performing a public service. ... Your writings and conduct are clearly designed to damage Doctor's Data. ... If you don't retract your false claims and issue a public apology, the lawsuit will be filed.

Barrett responded, pointing out that he'd asked for specific evidence and hadn't been provided any. Instead of actually highlighting what Doctor's Data felt was wrong, the firm then filed the lawsuit instead. The lawsuit runs the gamut of the standard claims in these sorts of lawsuits: restraint of trade; trademark dilution; business libel; tortious interference with existing and potential business relationships; fraud or intentional misrepresetation; and violating federal and state laws against deceptive trade practices. Unfortunately, it's not clear from the post where the lawsuit was filed, because it would probably help Barrett if it were filed in a state with an anti-SLAPP law. Thanks to an anonymous commenter for uploading the lawsuit, and pointing out that it was filed in Illinois, which does, in fact, have an anti-SLAPP law: Of course, now that Doctor's Data has brought this lawsuit, it seems likely that the claims made by Barrett are about to get a lot more attention -- and it's entirely possible that Doctor's Data won't like what others find when they start looking into the claims.

Filed Under: defamation, facts, opinions, quackwatch
Companies: doctor's data, quackwatch