Medialink Threatens Customer With Lawsuit For Writing A Negative Amazon Review

from the how-not-to-win-fans dept

It's an age-old story. Guy buys a router. Router sucks. Guy writes negative 1-star review on Amazon. Company threatens to sue him for defamation. Because it's not like every other attempt to sue over negative reviews ends badly.

It is true that Reddit user trevely's original review did make some strong claims, which clearly, the router maker, Medialink, objected to. Trevely has since edited his review to clarify which parts were opinion and which were clear facts. Medialink's main complaints were that the original review claimed that many of the positive reviews of their router were fake, and that the router was just a rebranded version of someone else's router. Still, the original review was no worse than many standard negative reviews, and given how many other reviews Medialink had, you'd think that Medialink would just let this go, rather than call in the lawyers -- and suddenly get so much more attention to the negative review. Oh, and more attention to the positive reviews... and their legitimacy.

Whether or not they are actually fake, some Reddit users have certainly spotted some fairly questionable 5-star reviews, like the one guy who seems to think that the router is actually a set of car headlight bulbs. And, others have long suspected fake reviews on the product, so it's not like trevely just made this up out of nowhere.

As for the rebranding claim, well, as the original review noted, that seems to be confirmed by a filing with the FCC, in which Medialink directly says that the equipment is "electrically identical" to the Tenda router that trevely was pointing to. Oops.

Meanwhile, Amazon's seller rules are pretty strict about not letting its merchants try to influence user reviews -- either pushing for positive reviews or threatening over negative ones. Given, as treverly noted in his own initial review, that Medialink seems to exist almost entirely based on Amazon, breaking Amazon's rules by threatening a negative review (with a questionable lawsuit, no less) may wipe out the channel the company relies on. Either way, what Amazon does might not matter, because now the Reddit crowd has jumped in, and Medialink/Mediabridge's name may be even more associated with bogus legal bullying than crappy routers -- though I can't see how either one helps the company very much.

Filed Under: defamation, lawsuits, medialink, reviews, routers, threats
Companies: amazon, mediabridge

Anne Rice Battles Mean Anonymous Amazon Trolls, Ignores Fact Many Anonymous Users Add Great Value

from the baby-with-the-bath-water dept

Anne Rice appears to be taking a break from sexy rock and roll vampirism to take on a new form of monster: Amazon trolls. The author claims there's a growing wave of "bullying and harassment" of authors going on in the Amazon books reviews section, and as such she's started a new petition demanding that Amazon do something about it by eliminating anonymity entirely from user reviews. The move is necessary, Rice claims, because some people were once mean to her on the Internet when she was busy trying to help aspiring authors:

"Then the bullies, trolls, jerks, whatever you want to call them, found the thread. That's when the attacks started happening. It got very ugly very fast … With each attack, Anne tried to diffuse the situation and out these people for what they are: bullies. Well, that just made them frenzy even more. Eventually, I left the thread. It got too ugly for me. Anne stuck it out for a while, but finally she called it quits, too."

It sounds to me that Anne might be new to the Internet, and hasn't quite learned yet that it's unhealthy and pointless to spend too many calories battling (or feeding, as it were) the vitriolic troll hordes. Rice's complaints also seem to falsely believe that said trolls have started targeting authors in particular, as opposed to them simply enjoying getting a rise out of her. The assumption seems to be that people would be nicer if they weren't anonymous, which simply isn't the case if you've spent any amount of time around the general public. In the petition however, Rice argues that killing anonymity can change everything for the better:

"By removing their anonymity and forcing them to display their real, verified identities, I believe that much of the harassment and bullying will cease. It may continue elsewhere on the web, but not on Amazon, the largest online retail marketplace in the world, where it really counts. Buyers of products on Amazon must have their identities verified, so it should be an easy transition to implement a policy whereby reviewers and forum participants must also have their identities verified."

There's a difference between Amazon needing better comment moderation (violence and the worst sort of miserable commentary being deleted more quickly, obviously) versus killing off anonymity in the belief it will somehow magically deliver elevated discourse. As we've long argued at great length, anonymity in online comments can actually benefit the website, community and the overall discourse immensely. For every "Hotstud77" making fun of your nose, there's someone who is using a nom de plume to potentially add something useful to the conversation they might not have been able to anyway (a publisher or author that has something to add, for example, but doesn't feel free to do so under their "brand" name).

Yes, opening your comments to the anonymous hordes results in lots of crazy comments, but it also results in plenty of excellent insight that might otherwise never see the light of day.

Filed Under: anne rice, anonymous speech, free speech, reviews
Companies: amazon

Property Management Company Files $1 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Critic And Former Tenant

from the sure,-venturing...-but-gaining-what? dept

Companies suing critics is nothing new, even if it's generally a bad idea. Even if completely justified (which it rarely is), the move does little to improve the company's reputation, especially if there's any amount of media coverage. The attempt to silence the criticism usually only solidifies the aggrieved company's link with negative phrases both in the minds of the public and search engine algorithms.

Techdirt reader ABJ sends in another story of a defamation lawsuit aimed at an online critic.

A Columbus man faces a lawsuit with potential damages of more than $1 million because of comments he made online about his experience renting at a Northwest Side apartment complex.

James Raney, an information-technology developer who now lives in Harrison West, commented on several forums about his time at the Meridian off W. 5th Avenue. He used a comic tone to contrast the complex’s purported “luxury apartments” and his view of their reality.

At least this time, the suing company has specified exactly which of Raney's statements it has found actionable. Its filing lists several statements made by the blogger/former tenant, including these.

• Connor is “gaming the system” by paying people to write positive reviews on apartment ratings websites.

• The company does not spend enough money for needed repairs at its properties.

• Connor “financially raped” residents with high fees.

With the truth being the most absolute defense against defamation allegations, the company will have to provide some information which refutes Raney's claims. The company claims it isn't trying to shut up critics, but rather attempting to address comments it feels are "untrue, malicious and defamatory." The company is asking for "more than $25,000" per allegedly defamatory statement, of which it has named 30. According to Raney, the grand total asked for exceeds $1.5 million.

Raney's blog details several complaints by other tenants of Connor properties, many of which allege negligent behavior by the company in response to maintenance concerns. Tenants have complained of flooding that has gone unaddressed for days on end, or hastily patched with paint or cardboard.

One former tenant has filed a personal injury lawsuit against the company after a waterlogged ceiling collapsed onto him in his bedroom. One complaint details an electrical outage in her apartment, which the maintenance crew apparently addressed by flipping the circuit breaker switch a few times and handing her a space heater to keep her powerless apartment warm (which did nothing for the food in her fridge that rotted while the maintenance crew periodically flipped switches).

The company currently holds an "A" rating at the Better Business Bureau but it's a highly suspect "A." (And, it must be noted, most BBB ratings can be considered suspect...) The company has fielded 312 complaints in the last 3 years, 216 of them listed as "problems with product/service."

A class action lawsuit alleging the company's failure to maintain a livable property at one apartment complex in Georgia alleges that Connor's business strategy (according to its own documents) is to "flip" underperforming properties -- buying and selling them within a couple of years -- which gives it no incentive to maintain the property once it reaches its desired occupancy level. This lawsuit is still ongoing, 19 months and 120 docket entries down the road.

All of this does not necessarily add up to a clear picture of malfeasance on The Connor Group's part, but filing a million-dollar lawsuit against one blogger doesn't necessarily make it look blameless, either. It has been racking up about one complaint every three days for the last three years, but that's mitigated by the fact that it's spread across the 15,000 units it manages.

The question remains as to why a company would further risk its reputation by expanding a blogger's limited scope and reach by making his claims public by filing a lawsuit. Paul Levy of Public Citizen offers this theory.

The personal nature of the criticism probably contributed to the lawsuit, said Paul Levy, an attorney at Public Citizen…

“It tends to be small to midsize companies” that sue for defamation, he said. “It tends not to be the General Motors of the world. It tends to be a company where there is an individual who built the company, and he doesn’t like it when the online world criticizes it.”

This seems to be true in a majority of company vs. critic lawsuits. The plaintiff is usually someone big enough to draw dedicated detractors but not confident enough to shrug off the attacks. This doesn't mean entities should just ignore vocal critics, but they should take into consideration that addressing the critic (rather than the criticisms) tends to play out very badly in the court of public opinion. Even if the legal system agrees with its claims, that will ultimately have little effect on the group that really matters -- potential customers.

Filed Under: defamation, landlord, reviews, tenants
Companies: connor group, connor properties, yelp

Watch Repairer Goes Legal Over Tame Yelp Review, Streisand Effect Takes Over

from the and-now-it's-everywhere dept

There must be something about Yelp reviews that make people act all crazy-like. Maybe it's the personal nature behind someone reviewing your goods or services, or perhaps there's something about seeing a review online in text that drives people off the deep end, but the number of legal threats and lawsuits connected to simple Yelp reviews always surprises me. Specifically, I'd have thought we've had enough of these stories by now that competent businesses would realize that issuing threats over reviews is a great way to get the Streisand reputation multiplier going.

But, apparently not. This latest example is of a watch repair shop issuing a legal threat over what I have to say is a relatively innocuous review of their business. The most scathing section appears to me to be this.

This is where Ron really lost points. I took both watches to a place called Precision Watch Repair, right around the corner, which had good ratings here on Yelp. I met with Eric, who told me first that he definitely could fix the vintage one, and also that he could repair the Ebel without sending it out - all for a good price. The Ebel was repaired in a day. I went from hopeless to happy within a span of 15 minutes. In addition, Eric called me THAT DAY with the estimate, and followed up the next day. So Ron Gordon loses in terms of creativity, and just overall slowness....which seems appropriate for a review of a watch repair shop.

No big deal, right? The review is on point, relevant to the business, and omits any real inflammatory language. Even if it turned out the claims in the review were exaggerated, we're not exactly talking about a vilification here. Well, the watch repair shop isn't taking all this mild complaining lying down, damn it.

Well, okay then. Call me crazy, but it seems to me that the claim that this one mild review was detrimental to Ron Gordon's business is probably more melodramatic than a high school freshman that just got stood up to the spring formal. This story going viral on the other hand? Yeah, that Streisand Effect is probably doing some actual harm to the business and its reputation for treating their customers well. Actually moving forward with any defamation lawsuit would be particularly tricky as well, given they'd have to prove the falsehood of the claim. Meanwhile, a whole lot more people know the name Ron Gordon Watch Repair than they did yesterday, and for all the wrong reasons.

As the original article notes, however, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised if Ron is getting bad legal advice, judging by the Yelp reviews for his lawyer.

Filed Under: defamation, lawsuits, reviews, watch repair
Companies: ron gordan watch repair, yelp

Gun Manufacturer Files Highly Speculative Lawsuit Against Forum Owners For Allegedly Libelous Statements

from the I've-got-plenty-of-hearsay-and-conjecture;-those-are-FORMS-of-evidence dept

COMES NOW... another lawsuit from an aggrieved business targeting negative reviews. There are some cases where this is the correct response, but those cases are far, far fewer than the number of lawsuits actually filed.

This lawsuit, filed by high-end rifle manufacturer Tactical Rifles, Inc. (TRI) apparently targets a negative review given to it by one of the forum members of Snipers Hide, a site dedicated to the coverage (and discussion) of long-range guns.

This is the post indirectly referenced by Orlando Law Group's meandering filing. The poster, Jeff Stevens, apparently ordered a rifle from Tactical Rifles which arrived so screwed up that he had to spend $1,400 to get it back to "working order."

I will let the video tell the rest of the story; it is not pretty. By the time it was done I had about $1,400.00 with parts and labor to make it right. After the work was done I sent the company rep a nasty gram with the link to the video you have here and figured he owed me about $ 900.00 for the machine work that Mark performed. I did not here [sic] a response so I contacted him by phone to get his response and he hung up on me. Ok my friend, that's not a problem, just thought I would get the word out about these guys.

Here's the video, which appears to have been made by Jeff Stevens. For some reason, the lawsuit claims Marc Soulie, who repaired the rifle (and runs Spartan Precision Rifles) made it, but the video description is written in a first-person perspective. ("I had them build me a platform in the below link on a Remington 700 action. I received the rifle and noticed little chips on the stock around the barrel and a few blemishes in certain areas...")

(As a commenter points out below, this video was most likely created by Marc Soulie of Spartan Precision Rifles as he prepared to fix the issues with Jeff Stevens' rifle purchased from TRI.)

This is the "nastygram" fired off by Stevens after shelling out $1,400 to fix a gun that should have been usable out of the box. (Included as Exhibit A in Tactical Rifles' filing.)

This is Jeff Stevens I had you build me a rifle 4 years ago, you know the one that came with the bent scope base and the stock with all the chips. And when I confronted you on it you told me you build shooters not pretty rifles, yea you know me remember. Well funny as it may be that shitty little short trigger you installed on the rifle the one you could not even get a 90 degree trigger finger on and clear the badger bolt knob had to be replaced, I could not deal with it. So I contacted a local builder a real precision rifle builder to install a timmney trigger and guess what we found while we were inside, the link is below.

From what I gather you owe me about $966.56 in a precision rifle you were supposed to supply me in my original purchase. You have 2 days to contact me about the matter and get it resolved and if we can't resolve it I am going to go public with the youtube link and then I am going to post on all the major shooting forums. I am going to start with Snipershide. Frank Galli personally watched the video and he could not believe you call that a precision rifle product. Well Mr Rooney I told you what comes around goes around you know the karma thing, it's here. Two Days.

This "nastygram," coupled with the attached forwarded email from Marc Soulie (stating that he was attaching a final estimate and the above video) are the basis for this bizarre lawsuit, which lists a variety of accusations that can't be easily proven, along with making the claim that Soulie's email somehow suggests he knowingly posted false information about Tactical Rifles. It also uses slander and libel interchangeably and throws in "assault" for good measure.

MARC SOULIE has posted false information on Snipers Hide, Inc.'s website. He admitted that he has done so in the email attached as Exhibit A.

SNIPERS HIDE, LLC. is a Colorado Corporation which runs a web forum where people can comment about rifles.

FRANK GALLI is the owner of SNIPERS HIDE, LLC.

TACTICAL RIFLES' Snipers Hide account was deleted to prevent it from responding to the outrageous lies made on the forum. Attempts to set up a new acct have been denied by FRANK GALLI.

FRANK GALLI also allows companies who provide him free merchandise to maintain multiple screen names for the purpose of slandering any competitor companies like TACTICAL RIFLES, INC. These screen names pretend to be dissatisfied customers of TACTICAL RIFLES, INC. Positive comments are deleted by GALLI and the posters are threatened with expulsion and banning for life if they post anything further about TACTICAL RIFLES, INC. which basically bans free unbiased speech on his forum.

Where to start…

First off, Soulie's email says nothing of the sort. Here's his email in full (included in Exhibit A).

Hi Jeff,

Here is the final estimate and link to video documentation. Right now this link is private. Let me know if you want it to be made public.

At no point does anyone (Soulie or Stevens) even suggest the information being posted is false. This appears to be complete speculation (or wishful thinking) from TRI. From there it wanders off into more allegations that will be very difficult to substantiate. Perhaps TRI is hoping it will be equally hard for the three defendants to prove otherwise. If so, TRI's legal rep seems to have forgotten that the plaintiff bears most of the burden of proof. Unless TRI is sitting on a pile of screenshots that clearly implicate Galli and Snipers Hide, there's nothing in its single exhibit that even comes close to proving that allegation, never mind the entirety of its claims.

Moving on:

Defendant created and published a false video and then made comments on website Snipers Hide.

The postings contain false accusations that are libelous on their face.

Once again, TRI makes no attempt to back up its "fake video" assertions, apparently relying on the court to somehow read into Soulie's words something that's clearly not there. Then TRI goes further, claiming the "false accusations" are so clearly libelous that it doesn't even need to prove they're libelous. Somehow, TRI's legal rep feels the statements are so obviously libelous that she doesn't even need to cite any of them in her filing or even specify which "clearly libelous" posts should be removed.

As for the posts themselves, those that I've come across are presented in a very straightforward manner. They are, however, written in a markedly restrained way that seems to indicate trashing TRI had gotten out of hand at Snipers Hide in the past. If there's something more libelous out there, then presumably TRI has already collected it as evidence. But there's nothing in the filing that indicates it's building this case on anything more than a single (supposedly) damning email and a whole lot of conjecture.

TRI is also seeking an injunction against the defendants to prevent further derogatory posts and demands the removal of current, allegedly libelous posts related to TRI. Again, the filing fails to indicate which posts offend and should be removed, leaving TRI's perception of libel (or slander, as the lawsuit uses interchangeably) to the reader's imagination. The filing also makes tortious interference claims against both Mark Soulie (as a rival gunmaker) and co-defendant Frank Galli (as a "friend" of a rival gunmaker), claiming that they both contributed libelous statements that damaged TRI's business prospects.

What we're left with is something that gives every appearance of legal threats being used to shut down critics, which isn't how the system is supposed to work. The filing goes long on motive and speculation, but provides very little in the way of actual, provable facts -- the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit, one which appears to have been filed solely in hopes of blustering TRI's critics into silence.

Filed Under: forum, libel, reviews
Companies: tactical rifles

Crazy Amazon Seller Threatens the Wrath of Scientology on People Who Give Negative Feedback

from the xenu-would-be-proud dept

I have to admit, I'm kind of thankful the Church of Scientology exists. I mean, between their inability to photoshop their own rallies and their dedication to using IP laws to simultaneously silence criticism while Streisanding themselves into internet oblivion, the jokes practically write themselves. I personally know this, because whenever I see that a close friend or family member is having a bad day, I simply tap them on the shoulder, say "Church of Scientology", and then we both laugh and move on with a much better, funnier day. For me, it's the futility of it all that is so hilarious, and I'll be Xenu'd if they just can't keep making the same mistakes.

Take the story Rich Kulawiec writes us about, for instance. It apparently starts with a hapless Amazon seller called Hannah's Attic And Place accidentally offering his wares for pennies on the dollar due to an errant youngster. When some customers placed orders, they were subsequently informed that the pricing had been a mistake. This grated upon one buyer, who complained in the reviews section. And then the complainer found out that the seller was a hardy little David-Miscaviage-in-training, with all the awesome threatening behavior one would expect from such a person.

My favorite part about this letter is how it goes from zero to crazy in less than a hundred words. "First, let me apologize. Then let me tell you all about the horrific things I'm going to do to you for having an opinion!" Delightful. Here's what's most fun about this: despite nobody knowing for sure that this seller is a Scientology whackjob, despite nobody having any actual confirmation that a simple online review has resulted in attention from the infamous SeaOrg buckets of crazy, that organization has made themselves such a wonderful caricature that it all just might be possible. After all, we can be damned sure that Scientology has unleashed horrific evils on all of us before.

You bastards...

Now, while the seller has since gone to some lengths to delete everything they could from Amazon, one would think that both Amazon and law enforcement would be quite interested in folks threatening buyers. After all, the Church of Scientology might have many celebrities, and regular folks, constantly filling their coffers in exchange for having someone twist their thetans or whatever, but they've tangled with the U.S. government before and got a nice black eye over it. And to really incur retribution in America, making waves for a billion dollar corporation like Amazon ain't gonna win you any favors, either.

In the meantime, Hannah's Attic And Place (we must not forget about the place!) and their threats have gone viral, Streisanding around the interwebz to make sure everyone knows what jerks they are. That's so much more effective than the simple negative review they were trying to get taken down in the first place. Oh, Scientology, never stop being crazy.

Filed Under: reviews, scientology
Companies: amazon

Baybrook Remodelers, Still In The Midst Of Suing People For Negative Reviews, Deploys A Disastrous SEO Hitman

from the hand-me-that-optimized-shovel,-will-ya? dept

Baybrook Remodelers, whose litigious efforts to silence a critic we covered last month, has apparently hired an SEO guy (or rather, Todd Ramos - SEO Guy) to help clean up its internet presence. Part of this cleanup effort involves asking sites that covered this story (Techdirt and Boing Boing) to delete the posts in question because one technical detail is allegedly wrong.

On the original post, someone representing Baybrook left a comment claiming that it had nothing to do with Kristen Arisian's mother being forced to move out of her house after being denied a Certificate of Occupation (CO) by the city of Milford, CT.

Kristen Arisian has concocted a crazy story that accuses Baybrook Remodelers, Inc. of throwing her mother out of her home. Kristen is spreading this false story and other negative reviews throughout the internet. Baybrook completed all of the work at her mother’s house in July 2007. Baybrook was paid in full, and her mother was very happy with the outcome of the several contracts she signed with Baybrook Remodelers. Kristen’s mother had her house lifted prior to Baybrook even being contacted for work. Presently, the City of Milford is refusing to issue a Certificate of Occupancy because the Arisians have never produced a certificate of elevation. A certificate of elevation is generated by the original engineer who completed the plans for the lifting of the house. The City of Milford will issue a CO once the certificate of elevation is issued. Baybrook Remodelers, Inc. is not an engineering firm, and had nothing to do with the lifting of the house. It is also my understanding that the City of Milford has not requested that Mrs. Arisian leave her home.

Todd Ramos contacted me via Twitter to press this point -- that the yanking of Arisian's CO kicked this whole thing off, not the other way around. But Kristen's comment in response notes that, contrary to Baybrook's claims, it may have had something to do with her mother being denied a CO. [embedded below]

If you look at the July letter from Kuchta, the permit number referenced is the permit pulled by Baybrook Remodelers. It was on this basis that she was thrown out.

Ramos sent me the following screenshot of the letter from the city stating this point. Of course, that sentence continues, pointing out another permit problem -- one that seems to be related to Baybrook's original work on the house. (Note: this is my own screenshot, because as soon as it became apparent I wouldn't delete the post, Todd Ramos deleted his DM conversation with me. I still had the conversation "active" on my phone, so I've posted the screenshots below. I've also transcribed it because my phone makes screenshots for ants.)


Even if we take Baybrook at its word that it had nothing to do with the CO being pulled, there's still the troublesome issue that what directly preceded this effort was an attempt to get the city to get Eileen Arisian to remove her less-than-complimentary signs, again using zoning ordinances. (Full story here.)

But a correction simply wasn't enough for Todd Ramos, who continued to claim that the entire post was false simply because of this single element, one that seems to be contradicted by the chain of events. As he put it, I was taking the word of a "crazy woman" rather than a trustworthy remodeling company currently engaged in lawsuits against two people who had posted negative reviews. He also threatened to post negative stories about "tech dirt" in response and claimed I wrote the original post out of "revenge and hate."

Meanwhile, here's what's been going on in Kristen's world, where she's still entangled in a lawsuit with Baybrook over negative reviews.

First off, she's going to be deposed pre-trial (trial date is currently set for March 5th, but Baybrook has been dragging this out since March of 2011, so even that may change). Certainly the deposition is expected, but the court has ordered it to be done at Baybrook's offices.

Kristen also noticed something else rather unusual. One day after posting its comment at Techdirt, three new glowing reviews of the company appeared at Yelp -- all posted on the same day, January 15th.


The bottom line, however, seems to be that Baybrook's web rep thinks the entire post should be deleted because it claims Arisian was motivated by the loss of her occupancy certificate. Ramos went on to make several statements about what he would do in response if the post didn't come down, as well as claim that he could convince Baybrook to drop the lawsuit against Kristen if the post was removed. Here are a few of the highlights (full conversation embedded below).

What is owner suppose to do I will have him end lawsuit if you guys can make these false statements go away

Well I will have to start having my team blog if it's not removed and it will be about tech dirt not getting facts before slandering people

Kind of crazy but it a OK like I said I have 600 bloggers and 20000 blog as ranging in pr 4 to 7 I can get things out as well

She hired yelp reviews and probably you guys and boing boing

Even if I was inclined to give Baybrook the benefit of a doubt on this one, there's too much out there that suggests the company isn't completely on the level. For one, its claim about the CO is misdirection. The story begins with its efforts (via baseless legal threats and zoning ordinances) to get the negative signs taken down. The city's decision to yank Arisian's CO may or may not have been urged on by Baybrook, but that's hardly the crux of the issue. Baybrook (through Ramos) claims the whole thing is motivated by the loss of the CO, but as the letter clearly states, the city was first notified about the signs (due to "several complaints") and decided to dig around for more violations after finding the signs to be a problem. (As the blog post detailing this points out, the alleged violations are from 2003/2004 and, according to Connecticut law, these violations have a 6-year statute of limitations. Milford found a way around this, however.)

Furthermore, Ramos' tactics are equally questionable. His claims of slander have no basis in reality, and his tactics suggest he hasn't had much practice approaching non-review websites with takedown requests. When it became apparent I wouldn't yank the entire post, Ramos shifted from friendly to threatening, claiming he would organize his army of bloggers to write negative things about Techdirt. Even worse, he tried to promise me things he couldn't possibly deliver, like dropping a lawsuit. He didn't help his case by continually referring to Kristen's mother as a "crazy woman" and failed to bring any evidence contradicting what I had posted, other than the same letter than Kristen had posted on her own website. If this was as damning as he made it out to be, there would be little reason for Baybrook's lawsuit target to post it on her own site. Furthermore, despite his continual reference to Boing Boing, our friends at Boing Boing tell us they haven't actually heard from anyone asking to have their post (that links to ours) taken down.

As it stands now, Baybrook may not have directly forced the city's hand on this issue, but that's only according to Baybrook's own statements. The chain of events seems to suggest otherwise. The company definitely appears to have been instrumental in motivating the city of Milford to dig deeper into zoning ordinances after its initial attempts to have the critical signs removed failed. (See the original post for the original, completely ridiculous legal threat.) But we can be more certain about one thing: putting Ramos in charge of cleaning up the company's reputation may not be working out quite as well as Baybrook Remodelers may have envisioned.

[Addedum: Todd Ramos sent over a letter (embedded below) from the city apparently issued after the completion of Baybrook's remodeling work (although there's no name on it other than Eileen Arisian's) that states the work is complete and a Certificate of Building Compliance has been issued. It also states that no Certificate of Zoning Compliance will be issued until an As-Built survey and height certification is completed. This would indicate the city had an issue with Arisian's house in 2008. This doesn't, however, explain why it failed to be an issue until after the signs critical of Baybrook were hung by Arisian. It also doesn't back up Ramos' claims that work was completed to Arisian's satisfaction.]

Filed Under: lawsuits, reviews, seo, threats, todd ramos
Companies: baybrook remodlers

Dangerous Ruling In Virginia Allows Cleaning Company To Identify Anonymous Yelp Critics

from the getting-it-wrong dept

Last year, we wrote about a troubling case in Virginia, in which a cleaning company, Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, sued seven anonymous Yelp reviewers in an attempt to discover who they were. Hadeed did not dispute the contents of the negative reviews, but rather said that, comparing the information to their own database, they could not identify the reviewers, and thus believed that they might not actually have been customers. Thus, Hadeed claims, the reviews would be defamatory since they didn't actually represent the experiences of actual customers. Yelp fought back on behalf of its users, pointing out that the First Amendment protects anonymous speech. Yelp pointed out that 11 different states had adopted the so-called Dendrite rules concerning the high bar necessary to force a company to reveal anonymous commenters. The basic idea is that you need to really show that the law has almost certainly been broken before you can identify the individuals.

Unfortunately, the Virginia state court of appeals has decided that it won't follow those rules, but rather will follow a Virginia state law that may be a bit out of date and (much worse) that it will interpret that law to have a very low bar, thus requiring Yelp to identify the commenters just because Hadeed Carpet Cleaning has "a good faith basis" to believe that the comments were defamatory. That's a very low bar, and allows for all sorts of mischief by those looking to unmask anonymous critics. There is a brief dissent in the case, in which one of the judges on the panel notes that, while he agrees that Virginia's law is the important one, he's troubled by the claim that Hadeed had a "good faith" basis, noting that the law requires "reasonable efforts... needed to advance the claim" but that in court Hadeed's lawyer simply said they really "don't know whether that person is a customer or not...." It would seem like "well, we just don't know" is not exactly a "good faith belief" that they were not a customer and that the comment is defamatory. Unfortunately, the majority of the court didn't seem to understand this point.

Yelp is apparently considering appealing the decision. But, at the very least, this may lead to the Supreme Court eventually having to weigh in on a better standard for protecting anonymous speech.

Filed Under: anonymity, dendrite, first amendment, free speech, reviews, virginia
Companies: hadeed carpet cleaning, yelp

Remodeler Sues Woman Over Negative Reviews, Helps Force Another Critic Out Of Her Own Home

from the meritless-thuggery-represent! dept

You can't satisfy every critic. Sometimes people just want to complain. But when complaints surface, the worst thing you can do is make legal threats in response. This automatically gives every complaint against the company, no matter how specious, a veneer of truth. And if the complaints are justified, the time and money being deployed to shut up critics would be better utilized fixing the problems.

But some companies never learn. Or if they do learn, it's only after they've been exposed to the glaring sunlight that is the Internet. Baybrook Remodelers of Connecticut, and its owner Ken Carney, are now in that position.

Baybrook Remodelers has been pursuing one such critic for the past two years. Kristen A., who runs a website dedicated to her legal entanglements with Baybrook Remodelers, has been dealing with the company's attempts to curb her criticism since late in 2010. As she details on her site, she first attracted the remodeler's negative attention when she posted negative reviews detailing the company's refusal to honor its contractual design work after she decided to use someone else for the actual construction.

Currently, she's being sued for these reviews, along with "some negative reviews I wrote that were removed from online sites, some negative reviews that other people wrote, and for signs posted on another person’s house."

The signs posted at "another person's house" belong to Kristen's mother, who hung two signs critical of Baybrook Remodelers on her upstairs deck after issues she had with the company. The first sign simply said she did not recommend Baybrook Remodelers. After the owner tried and failed to have her remove this sign (attempts that included approaching Kristen's supervisor and asking him to intercede on his behalf), she hung another one -- one that specifically called out the company for its tendency to file lawsuits against critics, as well as being named in several lawsuits brought by unhappy customers.


Baybrook Remodelers responded by sending this ridiculous letter purporting to be a genuine legal threat.


Not only is the letter riddled with grammatical errors (and covered with Kirsten's coffee), but the address of the unnamed attorney traces back to Mailboxes, Etc. Readers will also note that the letter is unsigned and features nothing more than the words "Attorney at law" where a signature (and the name of the attorney) would normally be found.

When this failed to result in the removal of the signs, the remodeler approached the city of Milford, which obligingly circumvented its own statutes in order to yank the house's zoning approval, citing supposed violations from 2003 and 2004. The city also apparently tried to give itself instant, perpetual access to the house (ostensibly to check for further code violations) for as long as she remained living there. The city basically told her it wouldn't issue zoning approval until her signs came down, using the alleged violations -- which fell outside the city code's own six-year statute of limitations -- as leverage. Kristen's mother moved out of her own house in 2011 rather than continue battling Baybrook Remodelers and the city of Milford.

Kristen, however, continues to be hassled by Baybrook Remodelers for her reviews. As was noted at the beginning of the post, the case has dragged on since March of 2011. It appears Baybrook was hoping this case would never make it to trial.

Ken Carney’s lawyer has requested and been granted 15 extensions of time. On one occasion, he went 7 consecutive months without doing what was necessary to keep his case alive, and on another occasion he went another 4 consecutive months without moving his case forward. His lawyer has had 5 chances to rewrite his lawsuit to try to fix whatever was wrong with it.

Finally, the case has a trial date. This was pushed by my lawyer, not Ken Carney’s. Based on their actions so far, Ken Carney and his lawyer would have been happy to let this go another 2½ years.

Here's a look at the docket, which is filled with little else other than the plaintiff's extension requests. As Kristen notes, a trial is forthcoming, with jury selection beginning in March. This is what Baybrook's been avoiding. Obviously, it hoped its threats would be enough to quell the criticism. That has backfired and now the company is in the awkward position of having to explain itself to a jury. This isn't the only case Baybrook is dragging its heels on. Another Tort case filed by Baybrook Remodelers in 2010 is still ongoing, with numerous extensions having been filed here as well. A motion for summary judgement has been filed by the defendant who is obviously hoping to finally have this seemingly endless suit tossed.

Kristen's site contains even more details of Baybrook's shady behavior. She noticed that shortly after she posted her negative review detailing the 40+ lawsuits the company was involved in (Dec. 6, 2010), a flood of Baybrook's "admirers" took to these same sites to post glowing reviews of the company. Most of the reviews were posted Dec. 15-17, which either means the company was posting its own reviews or had just wrapped up a ton of contracts for deliriously happy customers. Some reviews even copy-pasted wording from positive reviews written years earlier. Other identically-worded reviews surfaced under different names in January of 2011. One was even posted on Baybrook's website using yet another name.

But the most damning indicator of the company's negative reputation is the 40 pages of complaints filed with the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection. The complaints detail a variety of issues with Baybrook Remodelers, including its tendency to do shoddy work and leave cleanup and damage repairs to the client. Other complaints point out how reluctant the company is to engage with dissatisfied customers ("owner won't answer his phone").

Baybrook Remodelers (and Ken Carney) apparently feel the hole they've been digging isn't big enough. A legal threat was recently sent to Kristen's hosting company, Dreamhost. As she correctly points out, Section 230 of the CDA makes this a particularly futile act, something attorney Thomas Daly should have known. Of course, maybe Daly's focus on personal injury and landlord/tenant disputes hasn't yet exposed him to the limits of secondary liability.

Additionally, the letter contains no specifics about what Daly (and his client) believe is "defamatory." It just vaguely claims that the sites are and expects Dreamhost to roll over and shut Kristen's sites down. Considering it's been eight days since the takedown demand, it would appear Dreamhost isn't falling for Baybrook Remodeler's vague claims of defamation. (As Ken White at Popehat often states, vagueness in legal threats is the hallmark of meritless thuggery.)

Kristen has admirably stood up to a meritless thug, one that will soon have a chance to explain its tactics to a judge and jury. It will be hard-pressed to point out exactly where Kristen has crossed the defamatory line and will hopefully be made to answer for its endless court delays and nearly three years of harassment.

Filed Under: ken carney, legal threats, reviews
Companies: baybrook remodelers

Public Citizen Suing On Behalf Of Customers Whose Credit Was Ruined By KlearGear's $3,500 'Bad Review' Fee

from the how's-that-plan-to-eliminate-negative-reviews-working-out-now? dept

KlearGear's decision to charge a customer $3,500 for writing a negative review has finally paid off for the company. Whoever was in charge of inserting a non-disparagement clause into the site's Terms of Sale back in June of 2012 set in motion the worst of all possible scenarios.

KlearGear's reputation is now thoroughly destroyed. Its social media presence has been shuttered. The search results for KlearGear are unflattering, to say the least. The BBB has yanked Kleargear's rating and opened an investigation into its tactics. Its supposed Truste validation is nothing more than a "sticker" applied to the site without the approval of the validation company. As Ken White at Popehat puts it, KlearGear is reaping the whirlwind.

The company was doing $40+ million in sales per year, if this Inc. profile is to be believed. Without reservation, I can say sales have dropped off appreciably in the wake of its stupidity being exposed.

KlearGear has become even more uncommunicative than it was back in 2010, when it decided to wreck a former customer's credit in return for her negative review. Even back then, even before the non-disparagement clause, it was in the wrong. Jen Palmer's (the customer who wrote the review) order never showed up and as she states, it was "impossible" to get ahold of a human being to get this fixed.

The costs of this self-made whirlwind continue to mount. Public Citizen is now suing KlearGear on the Palmers' behalf, seeking monetary damages for the havoc wreaked on the former customers' credit by the company's moronic attempt to extract $3,500 from its detractors.

Public Citizen is representing Jen and John Palmer in seeking redress from KlearGear. Today, we sent this demand letter seeking three actions from KlearGear: first, clearing up John's credit; second, paying $75,000 in compensation for the Palmers' ordeal, which has lasted more than a year; and third, agreeing to stop using this non-disparagement clause to extort money from their customers.

As Public Citizen's blog post points out, efforts to shut down negative reviews are far from rare, even though nearly every incident only garners these censorious entities more negative press.

KlearGear's conduct is part of a troubling trend of businesses trying to deter negative reviews by muzzling their customers. Another example is Public Citizen's case against a New York dentist who tried to make her patients agree, as a condition of treatment, that they would not criticize her. And TechDirt has reported about the use of such a clause in vacation rental agreements.

While a settlement would probably be preferable, it would be interesting to see this run through a trial. For one thing, it would uncover who actually runs KlearGear, something that has been carefully obscured.

Kleargear identifies itself as a division of both Chenal Brands Inc., and Havaco Direct Inc., both business entities based in San Antonio, Tex. The website itself is registered through Domains By Proxy, a GoDaddy.com site that sells private domain hosting and administrative services.

Furthermore, it would possibly shed some light on its decision to drop this catastrophic non-disparagement clause into its Terms of Sale back in 2012. That question certainly deserves an answer, considering all possible outcomes of enforcing the clause are completely negative.

Other companies, who are considering ways to curtail negative reviews, would do well to view this as a cautionary tale. If you're fielding a lot of negative complaints, the issue is very likely with your own company, not the customers airing their grievances on the internet. Fix those problems and save your company. Any attempts to "fix" the complaints will only hurt you more.

Filed Under: credit scores, non-disparagement, reviews
Companies: kleargear