Reading mode: Light Dark

A word of Legal caution...

Go to last post
R

Robert Rinkewich

Well-known member
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Location
Keyport, NJ, US
I posted this in response to another thread, but thought it was important enough to repost here.

Just a word of caution...

About a year ago, I was following a different fourm. Nothing to do with photography. I remember a very disturbing thread, and thought I should share it here.

A particular user, and then followed by a group of users posted about their bad experiences with a company. They basically did not like the practices of a particular company. The owner of the said company happened to be a "part time lawyer". The "law" was a hobby to him, even though he never attended law school, he knew enough about it to file a suit of defamation of character...etc..

He took each of these users to court, and used the forum records as his evidence. In a nutshell, he said that their posts lead to a loss in business for him, and a defamation of character since they used his "Real name" in their forum complaints.

The bottom line is that he had a tough case to prove against the users, freedom of speech, etc.. but really his motive was to cause these users to defend themselves in court.

I lost track of the forum thread after a couple months, but the last I heard they were trying to get other users of the forum to dontate money for a legal fund for their defense. I also heard that they were trying to settle with him, rather than go to court and build up large legal fees.

I have no problem with people complaining about bad business practices. In fact I appreciate the warnings. I just would watch what I say, and keep it professional. I would also refrain from mentioning people by their first and last names. In todays world you are leaving yourself wide open for legal action.

My motto is to speak softly (especially when there are records), and carry a big stick!
 
...especially the part about "sticking to the facts". Facts are facts, so state the facts without getting emotional. The facts will defend themselves, but it's hard to defend an emotional outburst.
--
Frank Phillips
http://www.frankphillips.com/macro
Robert Rinkewich said:
I have no problem with people complaining about bad business
practices. In fact I appreciate the warnings. I just would watch
what I say, and keep it professional. I would also refrain from
mentioning people by their first and last names. In todays world
you are leaving yourself wide open for legal action.

My motto is to speak softly (especially when there are records),
and carry a big stick!
Click to expand...
 
The person filing even filed a 'pro-tem' or some type of suit that auto-settelled because they were out of state/juristiction. The way the thing worked was that they failed to show and the summary judgement was issued. Maybe it was something else.
 
It's always a good idea to keep records of orders and list the names of people you talk to as well as the dates and times of contact. I also keep copies of E-Mails especially when I'm having a problem with any company.
Robert Rinkewich said:
I posted this in response to another thread, but thought it was
important enough to repost here.

Just a word of caution...

About a year ago, I was following a different fourm. Nothing to do
with photography. I remember a very disturbing thread, and thought
I should share it here.

A particular user, and then followed by a group of users posted
about their bad experiences with a company. They basically did not
like the practices of a particular company. The owner of the said
company happened to be a "part time lawyer". The "law" was a hobby
to him, even though he never attended law school, he knew enough
about it to file a suit of defamation of character...etc..

He took each of these users to court, and used the forum records as
his evidence. In a nutshell, he said that their posts lead to a
loss in business for him, and a defamation of character since they
used his "Real name" in their forum complaints.

The bottom line is that he had a tough case to prove against the
users, freedom of speech, etc.. but really his motive was to cause
these users to defend themselves in court.

I lost track of the forum thread after a couple months, but the
last I heard they were trying to get other users of the forum to
dontate money for a legal fund for their defense. I also heard that
they were trying to settle with him, rather than go to court and
build up large legal fees.

I have no problem with people complaining about bad business
practices. In fact I appreciate the warnings. I just would watch
what I say, and keep it professional. I would also refrain from
mentioning people by their first and last names. In todays world
you are leaving yourself wide open for legal action.

My motto is to speak softly (especially when there are records),
and carry a big stick!
Click to expand...
--
Keep life in focus.
 
Stephen Waits said:
That's BS - any consumer which loses that case has hired a truly
horrid attorney.

--Steve
Click to expand...
The fact you have to hire an attorney means you loose...

The "Solve" for this simple problem is to NEVER identify yourself in a forum if your going to practice the "freedom of speech" thing.

If this guy is suing folks as a "Hobby" as such, then he is also putting himself in a bad position and it could backfire in his face.

Murphy
 
Stephen Waits said:
That's BS - any consumer which loses that case has hired a truly
horrid attorney.
Click to expand...
You're missing a critical part of the point: if the suit is filed and you then have to defend yourself against it -- especially if it's out of state -- it's a terrible inconvenience. The person filing the suit therefore has a way, in some situations, of using possibly friviolous complaints to stifle what would otherwise be considered free speech. It happened to me on an on-line service years ago. Spam had become all the rage and suddenly my mailbox on the service was filled with it. It wasn't just a matter of deleting the mail -- I was paying by the byte for mail sent and received once I'd used up my monthly limit. The spam was driving me over the limit.

I wrote to one of the spammers and also to people whose own ads were included in his spam, complaining about this and saying that there's NO way I would ever buy a product advertised via spam. There were no personal remarks in my mail, and no slur of any kind about his business.

Then I got mail from the spammer containing some legalese about his not tolerating someone's "defaming" his company...it was enough to send me to the office of my friend the lawyer for his opinion (fortunately: no charge that time).

His opinion: the spammer's own lawyer had probably drafted the e-mail. He had to assume the creep was prepared to make good on the threat rather than allow people to "defame" his business. He could file such a suit and then I would have to fly to the city in which it was filed and hire a lawyer there to respond to it -- or ignore it and risk being in default. Even if the suit were thrown out right away as frivolous, I would still be out a bunch of time and money. Considering what all that would have cost me, was I up for it? No way. Not in that situation.

The irony was, in his e-mail the [string of expletives, deleted] slimeball spammer got up onto the high moral ground and preached about "free speech"...when in fact he was using a threat of coercion via court action to stifle someone else's free speech. I was tempted to fire back at him about the hypocrisy of it and the lawyer advised me: don't even do that. Don't give him an excuse to file suit. He's determined to shut you up -- and he just might go for it.

Nice. That's the way the world works these days, like it or not. So it isn't a simple matter of having a good attorney or a bad one. In a case like that it's a matter of someone's being willing to use the courts to help him stifle legitimate and well deserved criticism. It probably happens more times in a year than we'd ever want to know about...
 
IMHO, If you deal with a "scam" company that is not honest, that charges a credit card and does not deliver. That holds up orders etc. Do you have to be cautious and not report this? What about the old saying that the truth is the best defense. In our legal system anyone can sue another CIVILLY but it is up to an "official" to mediate and award damages. AGAIN just my $.02 JC
Robert Rinkewich said:
I posted this in response to another thread, but thought it was
important enough to repost here.

Just a word of caution...

About a year ago, I was following a different fourm. Nothing to do
with photography. I remember a very disturbing thread, and thought
I should share it here.

A particular user, and then followed by a group of users posted
about their bad experiences with a company. They basically did not
like the practices of a particular company. The owner of the said
company happened to be a "part time lawyer". The "law" was a hobby
to him, even though he never attended law school, he knew enough
about it to file a suit of defamation of character...etc..

He took each of these users to court, and used the forum records as
his evidence. In a nutshell, he said that their posts lead to a
loss in business for him, and a defamation of character since they
used his "Real name" in their forum complaints.

The bottom line is that he had a tough case to prove against the
users, freedom of speech, etc.. but really his motive was to cause
these users to defend themselves in court.

I lost track of the forum thread after a couple months, but the
last I heard they were trying to get other users of the forum to
dontate money for a legal fund for their defense. I also heard that
they were trying to settle with him, rather than go to court and
build up large legal fees.

I have no problem with people complaining about bad business
practices. In fact I appreciate the warnings. I just would watch
what I say, and keep it professional. I would also refrain from
mentioning people by their first and last names. In todays world
you are leaving yourself wide open for legal action.

My motto is to speak softly (especially when there are records),
and carry a big stick!
Click to expand...
 
Good Advice, but I would also like to add, that anyone has a right to tell their side of an experience as long as they are factual and truthful in what they post. Its best to keep it short and simple. Unfortunately in this country, anyone can claim anything and sue you for it. I recently had a representative from a company threaten to sue me if I did not remove a post from another forum on this site. Fortunately I happen to have two first cousins and a brother-in-law that are attorneys that I was able to consult with. They told me as long as I was directly involved, and factual, that the guy who threatened me was just blowing smoke. This does not mean that he could not tie me up in court in lawsuit. It appears that sometimes you are guilty until proven innocent. I just got notice today that my Credit Card company finally issued me credit for my dealing with this company and I will receive a letter from them soon. I agree with Robert, make sure you understand the risk you are taking making a public statement about a particular company. As long are you are prepared to take the risk associated with it I am all for freedom of speech if you can call it that.

Jason
Robert Rinkewich said:
I posted this in response to another thread, but thought it was
important enough to repost here.

Just a word of caution...

About a year ago, I was following a different fourm. Nothing to do
with photography. I remember a very disturbing thread, and thought
I should share it here.

A particular user, and then followed by a group of users posted
about their bad experiences with a company. They basically did not
like the practices of a particular company. The owner of the said
company happened to be a "part time lawyer". The "law" was a hobby
to him, even though he never attended law school, he knew enough
about it to file a suit of defamation of character...etc..

He took each of these users to court, and used the forum records as
his evidence. In a nutshell, he said that their posts lead to a
loss in business for him, and a defamation of character since they
used his "Real name" in their forum complaints.

The bottom line is that he had a tough case to prove against the
users, freedom of speech, etc.. but really his motive was to cause
these users to defend themselves in court.

I lost track of the forum thread after a couple months, but the
last I heard they were trying to get other users of the forum to
dontate money for a legal fund for their defense. I also heard that
they were trying to settle with him, rather than go to court and
build up large legal fees.

I have no problem with people complaining about bad business
practices. In fact I appreciate the warnings. I just would watch
what I say, and keep it professional. I would also refrain from
mentioning people by their first and last names. In todays world
you are leaving yourself wide open for legal action.

My motto is to speak softly (especially when there are records),
and carry a big stick!
Click to expand...
--
Jason Stoller [email protected]

We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their new products!
 
Mike I have to ask this question of you. If the person that wants to sue you is in another state, the law says that he has to sue you where you can be reasonably found. That place would be in your state and would be more costly for him instead of you. My family went through this a few years ago in a patent infringment suit against several automotive manufacturers. So I am curious how the venue of where you were sued got changed. Even in this day and age, they have to give you notice and many courts are even willing to let you testify by telephone.

Jason
MikeA said:
Stephen Waits said:
That's BS - any consumer which loses that case has hired a truly
horrid attorney.
Click to expand...
You're missing a critical part of the point: if the suit is filed
and you then have to defend yourself against it -- especially if
it's out of state -- it's a terrible inconvenience. The person
filing the suit therefore has a way, in some situations, of using
possibly friviolous complaints to stifle what would otherwise be
considered free speech. It happened to me on an on-line service
years ago. Spam had become all the rage and suddenly my mailbox on
the service was filled with it. It wasn't just a matter of deleting
the mail -- I was paying by the byte for mail sent and received
once I'd used up my monthly limit. The spam was driving me over the
limit.

I wrote to one of the spammers and also to people whose own ads
were included in his spam, complaining about this and saying that
there's NO way I would ever buy a product advertised via spam.
There were no personal remarks in my mail, and no slur of any kind
about his business.

Then I got mail from the spammer containing some legalese about his
not tolerating someone's "defaming" his company...it was enough to
send me to the office of my friend the lawyer for his opinion
(fortunately: no charge that time).

His opinion: the spammer's own lawyer had probably drafted the
e-mail. He had to assume the creep was prepared to make good on the
threat rather than allow people to "defame" his business. He could
file such a suit and then I would have to fly to the city in which
it was filed and hire a lawyer there to respond to it -- or ignore
it and risk being in default. Even if the suit were thrown out
right away as frivolous, I would still be out a bunch of time and
money. Considering what all that would have cost me, was I up for
it? No way. Not in that situation.

The irony was, in his e-mail the [string of expletives, deleted]
slimeball spammer got up onto the high moral ground and preached
about "free speech"...when in fact he was using a threat of
coercion via court action to stifle someone else's free speech. I
was tempted to fire back at him about the hypocrisy of it and the
lawyer advised me: don't even do that. Don't give him an excuse to
file suit. He's determined to shut you up -- and he just might go
for it.

Nice. That's the way the world works these days, like it or not. So
it isn't a simple matter of having a good attorney or a bad one. In
a case like that it's a matter of someone's being willing to use
the courts to help him stifle legitimate and well deserved
criticism. It probably happens more times in a year than we'd ever
want to know about...
Click to expand...
--
Jason Stoller [email protected]

We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their new products!
 
murphy said:
Stephen Waits said:
That's BS - any consumer which loses that case has hired a truly
horrid attorney.

--Steve
Click to expand...
The fact you have to hire an attorney means you loose...
Click to expand...
I see your point. I'm only saying that the law is entirely on the consumers' side here and no consumer should ever lose such a case. I'd be surprised if any judge would give such a case much of a listen in the first place!

Aliases, etc. are probably never a bad idea though. But I don't think consumers should be afraid of telling the truth of their experiences with retailers.

--Steve
 
Also keep in mind, I dont think you are really ever anonymous on a forum. Any simple forum script can log IP Address's. Your ISP may also be forced to reveal your identity. But thats a whole different can of worms, theres been a lot in the news recently about those types of cases.

As Murphy pointed out, my whole post was that you would have to defend yourself. And at that point the plantiff wins no matter what because they are getting you to spend money. Their whole point was to hurt the forum user. Call it revenge for bad mouthing their company.

I too have had problems with vendors that are mentioned in this forum on a daily basis. The problems were not real severe, so I choose not to mention names publicly. I do not want to receive a notice some day.

I own a retail web site that sells cellular products. I've had a forum on the site for at least 4-5 years. I had someone post a message saying that they were selling watches by a hile profile company (name omitted on purpose) . It was hidden in the forum and I had missed the post. After a few years it got buried deeper and deeper in the posts. I got contacted by the company THREE years later after the post, demanding that the message be removed. They said the person was selling counterfeit watches. Also, upon checking they had already shutdown the persons website and aol account. But they still insisted that I was liabel for having the post on my server.

My point.......

The internet has a LONG memory. Posts stay around for a long time. Some day, someone might read what you posted a long time ago, and decide to cause you some problems.
murphy said:
Stephen Waits said:
That's BS - any consumer which loses that case has hired a truly
horrid attorney.

--Steve
Click to expand...
The fact you have to hire an attorney means you loose...

The "Solve" for this simple problem is to NEVER identify yourself
in a forum if your going to practice the "freedom of speech" thing.

If this guy is suing folks as a "Hobby" as such, then he is also
putting himself in a bad position and it could backfire in his face.

Murphy
Click to expand...
 
Don't get me wrong - I used to live there, and love the States, but the court system is a bit sick, isn't it? I've read it's because of the powerful trial lawyer lobby over there, not sure if that's true or not, but if I recall correctly, they are the #1 contributor to the Democratic party - why? Most other countries have legal systems that try to avoid this sort of frivolous financial+legal intimidation. The US badly needs tort reform - check out this link (just found it myself after a search on google):

http://www.atra.org/

There's a good link at the bottom of that first page about "how does all this affect me?":

http://www.atra.org/wrap/files.cgi/7366_econ.htm

I'm convinced, but I'm far from an expert, and there's always another side to every story - make sure you read a lot and make up your own mind.
--
D60, 16-35/2.8L, 28-135 IS, 550EX
 
Jason Stoller said:
Mike I have to ask this question of you. If the person that wants
to sue you is in another state, the law says that he has to sue you
where you can be reasonably found. That place would be in your
state and would be more costly for him instead of you.
Click to expand...
Truth be told, it's been so long since it happened that I can't remember the whole business...including what-all that my lawyer told me. It seemed at the time there was some chance the suit would have to be defended-against out of state. I don't know...maybe he was just trying to make it seem a bit worse than it was so that I'd not put myself at any risk -- and so that I'd get out of his hair as quickly as possible. :-)

It never got to the point of the spammer actually filing suit. He just made the subtle threat, and after my lawyer painted the dire-looking picture for me I backed away from it. (The real solution, since the spammer wasn't about to give up his spamming, was to drop the membership in the online service where the spam was starting to cost me in monthly up/download fees -- and the online service pretended it didn't know what it could do about the spam. Yeah, right. They just didn't want to be bothered. Another penny-wise and pound-foolish company. I voted with my wallet and dropped 'em.)
 
hyslopc said:
the court system is a bit sick, isn't it? I've read it's because
of the powerful trial lawyer lobby over there, not sure if that's
true or not, but if I recall correctly, they are the #1 contributor
to the Democratic party - why?
Click to expand...
Well, it might be something like this: "You keep opposing tort reform, and we go on making lots of lovely money from massive legal settlements [and after all, aren't massive legal settlements good For The Childen?...isn't this ultimately about battling the evil corporate monsters and securing humane treatment for The Oppressed?]. Well, anyway, so we go on making lots of lovely money battling the bad guys ... and then a while later you go on getting lots of lovely money from us ... at which point, you make sure to go on battling tort reform." Preventing nasty right-wing robber-baron oil companies and whacko right-wing gun lobbies and right-wing people who say icky things on the Internet from contributing "too much" money to the Republican party -- that's called "campaign finance reform." Ensuring that the trial lawyers can go on funnelling as much money as possible to the other guys -- that, we call "it's only fair." LOL.
 
We're glad you don't live here too, eh?

Just keep sending us all those doctors, rock stars, and hockey players.

Zidar
Alaska

--
It's not about stuff.
 
The problem is that you may have to spend big bucks to fight the case. Even if you win, you lose--money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top