California Looks To Strengthen Anti-SLAPP Laws; Protect Online Anonymity

from the good-for-them dept

We've covered various anti-SLAPP laws in the past. These are laws that protect people from bogus lawsuits that are merely designed to shut them up. SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are basically when a large corporation just files suit against someone knowing that the lawsuit alone will cause them problems, no matter how bogus the lawsuit is. Many states have created anti-SLAPP laws that let victims of SLAPP suits ask for them to be quickly dismissed. California has good anti-SLAPP laws, but they may get even stronger. While current California law lets those accused in SLAPP lawsuits to also get back attorneys fees, the law may now be extended to cover lawsuits filed outside of California against California residents. This should serve to help protect anonymity online as well as the ability to speak out against much larger entities. Hopefully, other states will follow suit as well.

Filed Under: anonymity, anti-slapp, california, slapp

Infomercial Companies Never Learn: Another One Suing Site For Negative Reviews

from the or-you-could-just-improve-your-product dept

Greg Beck, from Public Citizen, has written us in the past a few times about bogus trademark lawsuits being brought against online review sites, such as InfomercialScams.com. Back in May there was a case where a company advertising its wares via infomercials sued the site for trademark infringement. Clearly, it was not the trademark use that was the problem (especially since it's difficult to see how that's trademark infringement). It was merely a way to try to get negative reviews (written by third party users of the site) taken offline. A similar case came up this fall when the infamous Video Professor sued 100 anonymous critics on the site, demanding that the owner of InfomercialScams.com turn over their IP addresses.

Beck is now back alerting us to the fact that the Video Professor has withdrawn his subpoena for info from the site, but is still forging ahead with the lawsuit (and is seeking the identity of a user on Wikipedia). However, he also notes that yet another company that advertises via infomercials is now suing InfomercialScams, claiming trademark infringement. Once again, this is clearly not trademark infringement, but an attempt by the company to bully an independent site into taking negative reviews offline. Just imagine if any of these companies put half as much effort into improving their products and services instead of calling the lawyers whenever anyone has anything critical to say about these firms.

Filed Under: infomercials, reviews, slapp
Companies: infomercialscams, lifestyle lift, public citizen

Court Dismisses Lawsuit Filed Against Blogger For Criticizing Company

from the slapp-this dept

We've seen so many cases recently of companies trying to shut down negative criticism online by suing critics, it's nice to point out a case where those cases get shot down by the courts. Eric Goldman has the details on how a court has thrown out the lawsuit filed by BidZirk, one of many, many companies that will sell your stuff on eBay for you, against a blogger for criticizing BidZirk's service in a blog post. The lawsuit claimed defamation, privacy invasion and trademark violations -- all of which seem like a stretch. If anything, this sounds like a SLAPP situation, where the company isn't suing because anything wrong was done, but because it just doesn't like criticism. In this case, the court found no defamation, as the blog post was clearly the guy's opinion. It found no trademark violation because the guy used the company's name in the course of reporting on the company, which is perfectly legal. As Goldman notes, the unfortunate part of this story is that a blogger had to spend a year and a half in court dealing with this lawsuit. While it's great that he eventually won, many bloggers wouldn't have the time, money or stamina to deal with such lawsuits -- which is why they're likely to keep happening.

Filed Under: bloggers, defamation, libel, slapp
Companies: bidzirk

Video Professor Sues Anonymous Critics

from the buy-my-product dept

If you watch enough TV, you've probably come across the commercials for "the video professor" who offers DVD videos teaching you how to do things like use your computer. The commercials involve an appeal from the CEO and founder of the company to "buy my product" and promote how you can get a trial for "free!" However, if you look around online, you find many, many complaints that the company ended up charging people money for the supposedly "free" products. What is actually happening is that when you sign up for the "free" trial, you're actually signing up for a subscription to receive other training videos periodically. The problem is that many people don't realize this -- and claim that they were mislead (in many ways, this is similar to the Amazon Prime mess that still hasn't been cleared up. Whether or not the company clearly explains to buyers what they're signing up for is open to debate.

However, with such widespread criticism for its practices online, it isn't surprising that the company is concerned. Of course, rather than addressing those criticisms, instead the company has decided to sue. Greg Beck writes in to point out that the company (which tells people to look for reviews online) has sued 100 anonymous critics of the company claiming trademark violations and defamation. Lots of companies seem to think negative reviews constitute a trademark violation, but a review is a perfectly legitimate use of a trademark. Defamation depends specifically on what the reviewers said, so it's difficult to judge that aspect of the lawsuits. However, to tell people to look for reviews online, and then go out and sue a bunch of folks who negatively reviewed your product seems like highly questionable activity.

Filed Under: infomercials, reviews, slapp, video professor

iPhone Supposedly Gets Unlocked, AT&T Apparently Freaks Out

from the on-what-grounds dept

There were several reports last week that the operator lock on the iPhone had been broken, meaning that people might be able to use the device with service from a company other than AT&T. The first to emerge was from a New Jersey teenager, who came up with a complex method involving soldering and software; then two separate companies later said they had software-only unlocking methods. To be sure, these unlocking methods and services will only ever appeal to a small number of users, as most general consumers won't really care, or won't want to go to the trouble. With that in mind, it really doesn't seem like AT&T has much at stake financially, but that apparently hasn't stopped its lawyers from threatening one of the software providers. The company claims it got a call from a law firm representing the company, tossing around things like copyright infringement and "illegal software dissemination" in what appears to be an attempt at intimidating the company to keep them from releasing the software (particularly since the DMCA doesn't cover phone unlocking). It's worth reiterating that these are supposedly AT&T's lawyers, not Apple's -- but it's not clear what standing AT&T would have to sue, making this look like little more than a SLAPP situation. Apple's remained quiet on the matter, but it wouldn't be surprising to see the company close the loophole or re-lock the phones with one of its software updates, since it has a financial stake in iPhone buyers activating and using their phones on AT&T thanks to its revenue-sharing deal with the operator. Of course, it could take the more enlightened view that it doesn't want to frustrate and annoy the customers who would go to the trouble of unlocking their iPhones -- but if it were going to do that, it wouldn't have locked the device to AT&T in the first place.

Filed Under: iphone, slapp, unlocking, wireless
Companies: apple, at&t