Online Trade Libel Attorney Gets Facebook Defamation Ruling Reversed

Picture of blackboard featuring the word Trust to accompany blog post about online trade libel caseTo his client’s relief, online trade libel attorney Dan Warner convinced an Arizona appeals court to vacate a trial court’s ruling in a Facebook defamation case. By successfully arguing that the presiding judge failed to properly apply the appropriate legal tests established in Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, Warner was able to slip his client from the defamation liability noose.

About the Case: Business Criticism On Facebook Leads To Online Trade Libel Lawsuit

An online trade libel lawsuit, the Plaintiff (whom we’ll call “Acme”) sued an anonymous user (“John Doe”) for allegedly posting false and defamatory statements about Acme’s product on Facebook.

Since the user posted under an alias, Acme filed a John Doe claim to uncover the real name of the anonymous defendant. After initiating the lawsuit, Acme sent subpoenas to Facebook and Domains by Proxy, in search of information (like an IP address) that would help reveal the identity of the product-critiquing user.

Upon receiving the subpoena, Facebook notified John Doe; Doe then retained online trade libel attorney Dan Warner who filed a motion to quash the subpoenas.

Online Trade Libel Catch-22: Preserving Privacy v. Accountability

Online service providers avoid passing out user data like Gremlins avoid bright lights. Why? Because online privacy is a legal quagmire, and if they’re not careful, ISPs can unwittingly find themselves dragged into users’ legal battles. Thus, to avoid unnecessary, resource draining, litigation entanglements, most websites adopt a hands-off approach when faced with civil information requests.

In some cases, however, ISPs are legally compelled to release user data, by force of a court order.  However, in Arizona, to secure a subpoena that forces websites to hand over identifying information on anonymous Internet speakers, plaintiffs must show that:

  • The speaker has been given adequate and a reasonable opportunity to respond to the discovery request;
  • The plaintiff’s action could survive a summary judgment on elements, irrespective of the speaker’s identity; and
  • The balance of the parties competing interests favors disclosure.

Unfortunately, in Acme’s case, the trial court judge denied the motion without making any findings of fact — or conclusions of law — regarding the required three-part Mobilisa test.

Warner’s appeal included several points on which the appellate court could have hung a reversal, but it chose to focus on the trial judge’s failure to adequately apply the “balancing” test, as outlined in Mobilisa.

The appeals court, in Warner’s client’s case, expressly held:

Because of the conclusory nature of the order below, we are unable to tell if the trial court correctly used the 3-part test outlined in Mobilisa v.  Doe, 217 Ariz.  103, 170  P.3d  712 (App.  2007) (using  a  summary  judgment  standard)  or  the  lower  prima facie standard urged by Dream Steam below with their citation to Best W. Int’l Inc., v. Doe, WL 2091695 (D. Ariz. July 2007). See Chaparral DIVISION ONE FILED:  RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERKBY: 6/27/2016 RB Dev. v. RMED Int’l, Inc., 170  Ariz.  309, 311, n.3,  823  P.2d  1317, 1319  (App.  1991) (citation  omitted)  (conclusory  rulings  impair effective  appellate  review).    We  are  likewise  unable  to  discern whether  the  trial  court  engaged  in Mobilisa’s third-prong  balancing test when considering whether the disclosure of Doe’s name outweighed the community’s protected interest in supporting anonymous speech on the internet.

In other words, the court of appeals ruled that it was unclear if the trial court judge considered whether the plaintiff’s business interests outweighed the defendant’s right to anonymously express opinions on the Internet.

Consult With An Experienced Online Trade Libel Lawyer

In today’s digital, viral marketplace, a pristine reputation is crucial to maintaining a competitive edge; protecting your business’ good name is arguably as important as securing seed money.

If you’re fighting a product or business disparagement headache, get in touch with our team of online defamation fixers. We can help.

To learn more about online trade libel lawyer Dan Warner, head here.

Amazon’s New Review Policy: Big Changes

Picture of two business people on couch to accompany blog post about Amazon’s new review policy
Amazon’s new review policy crashed into Planet-Online-Retail, and now feedback facilitators are working round the clock to adjust business models.

Let’s take 3 minutes to outline the situation — in plain language — and examine how the change will affect Amazon sellers and reviewers.

How Amazon Reviews Used To Work

Before this e-commerce October surprise, Amazon let sellers offer discounts in exchange for product reviews, so long as the reviewer included proper disclosures. The system seemed to work and even spawned review facilitation businesses that helped vendors plan and execute discount-for-review programs.

But Amazon never seemed entirely comfortable with paid reviews, of any ilk. In fact, to combat the trend, platform engineers deployed a “learned algorithm that gives more weight to newer, more helpful reviews” and implemented stricter “verified purchase” badge requirements.

Amazon has even sued a few unlucky pay-for-review services, which you can read about here and here.

Amazon’s New Review Policy Points

So, what was the big change? In short: Sellers can no longer offer free products and discounts in exchange for a review. Here is a handful of specific points:

  • Sellers can’t use third-party services to loophole around the restriction.
  • The policy took effect immediately, but vendors shouldn’t worry about past posts. However, Amazon may remove old reviews “if they are excessive, and don’t comply with prior policy.”
  • Sellers CAN “continue to offer discounts and promotions as long as they are not offered in exchange for reviews.
  • Ignoring Amazon’s new review policy is grounds for account suspension.
  • Review facilitators can no longer require members to leave reviews.

Authors Are Exempt From Amazon’s New Review Rules

Which segment of Amazon World doesn’t have to worry about the new review guidelines? Authors. Giving away advanced copies of a book, in exchange for a review, is a publishing industry solemnity — and the online retail giant doesn’t want to disturb the ancient institution. In Amazon’s exact words, the company will “continue to allow the age-old practice of providing advance review copies of books.”

What’s VINE Got To Do With It?

Discount-for-feedback programs are strictly prohibited “unless […] facilitated through the Amazon Vine program.”

Wait, what?

Yep, Amazon is now the only acceptable channel for early offer arrangements. But even that’s a slight misnomer because Amazon doesn’t “incentivize [Vine members to give] positive star ratings, attempt to influence the content of reviews, or even require a review to be written.”

Is Amazon Sticking It To The Proverbial “Little Guy”?

Amazon’s new review policy press release states that “when done carefully,” incentivized reviews “can be helpful to customers by providing a foundation of reviews for new or less well-known products.”

To put it another way: Amazon admits that “incentivized reviews” help online retail startups, but it’s outlawing the practice regardless? Apparently so.

Now, does this mean it’ll be impossible to start a successful FBA store? Not at all. Most review facilitators have already operationally adjusted to the change.

But beyond that, in the simple terms, people like reviewing products. Stick to an effective marketing plan — which includes follow-up e-mails and superior customer service — and you shouldn’t notice a seismic change in sales.

Online Retail Legal Reminders and Considerations

Before our 3-minutes are up, we wanted to leave you with 3 legally minded thoughts:

  • “Unfair and deceptive marketing” rules do apply. Adhere to them or risk and FTC investigation and fine.
  • In light of Amazon’s new review policy, feedback services should make a Herculean effort to contact their review-writers’ networks. Don’t forget, a review that includes something to the effect of “received at a discount for an honest and unbiased review,” is now non-compliant.
  • Account suspension is reversible in some instances. Talk with an online retail consultant who can help pinpoint the exact problem, and provide the best plan of action to restore your account.

Good luck with Amazon’s new review policy. If you have questions, get in touch.

Online Review Defamation: A Client Lied About Your Business. Now What?

online review defamation
Protecting your online reputation can be as difficult as winning the Tour de France…clean. So, what can businesses do when faced with online review defamation? Let’s take a look.

  • First, ask yourself: “Is the review accurate?” This can be the hardest step. If the review is negative but true, the chances of remedying the situation with a defamation claim diminish considerably. Why? Well, under United States law, legal defamation requires falsity. Does this mean you can’t combat the negative review? No, it doesn’t. You can. (We’ll get to “the how” below.)
  • Second, ask yourself another question: “Is the review fundamentally true, but grossly exaggerated?” Hyperbole, believe it or not, rarely passes the defamation sniff test. Sometimes, but not often. In the eyes of the law, reasonable people can distinguish hyperbolic speech from a false statement of fact. For example, an online reviewer condemns: “Mr. Widget’s Widgets are the WORST widgets in the world!” Mr. Widget is peeved about the review and threatens a defamation lawsuit. But the truth is, he probably wouldn’t win an online review defamation lawsuit, because “the worst company in the world,” is an exaggerated opinion and not tantamount to libel. Does this mean you can’t combat negative reviews? Again, no. (I promise we’ll get to how below.)
  • Third, if your detractor did, indeed, make a false statement of fact in an online review, you may be able to sue for trade libel or defamation. That said, most online defamation situations rarely blossom into lawsuits. Attorney intervention usually does the trick; people often — and innocently — don’t realize they’ve crossed a legal line and just need reminding to remove it.
  • If you’re confident a detractor made a false statement of fact, as opposed to a hyperbolic opinion, contact a lawyer. He or she can analyze the situation and help you work through questions like:
    1. Depending on details, should you send a letter, or use another marketing method, to squelch the effect of bad online reviews?
    2. Is the statement egregious enough to move forward with a full-fledged lawsuit? If yes, do you have enough evidence to effectively argue the case in court?

Find a attorney who will tell you, upfront, if your potential case is a dud or a stud.

To learn more about the nuances of online review defamation, click here. To read more about the history of U.S. defamation law, click here.

Online Review Defamation: Consider This Before Suing

A difficult customer or client posts a scathing review, with a low truthiness quotient, on a popular site like Amazon, Yelp or Ripoff Report. What can you, the business owner, do?

You’ve got three options:

  • Ignore the issue, letting the problem fester and grow.
  • Work with an attorney to get the offending comments removed.
  • Work with a marketing professional to neutralize the review’s negative effects.

According to this Forbes article, 88% of consumers trust online reviews as much as personal recommendations. So ask yourself: do you want to sacrifice business by ignoring a damaging review? I’m sure we can all agree: doing nothing is unwise.

So, with option 1 out of the way, which is better: working with a lawyer or a marketer?

88% of consumers trust online reviews as much as personal recommendations. So ask yourself: do you want to sacrifice business by ignoring a damaging review?

Deciding Between Marketing Fixes & Legal Solutions

Before deciding whether to deal with a damaging online review with marketing methods, legal tactics — or both — consider a few facts about U.S. defamation law.

  • Thanks to a high-profile legal scuffle between a preacher and pornographer, satire and parody aren’t legally defamatory. Consider: did your detractor cloak disdain in satire or parody? Yes? Then you’re probably better off working with a marketer. (Chill Tip: In cases of satire and parody, consider laughing it off. Humorlessness and hyper sensitivity are not qualities consumers easily tolerate.)
  • Is the statement an opinion? If yes, then it’s not defamatory under U.S. law. Comments like, “I hate this product!” or “John Doe is the WORST dentist I’ve ever used!” are opinions.
  • Does putting “In my opinion” or “IMO” before a false statement of fact automatically make said statement an opinion? No. IMO is not a legal shield that confers defamation immunity on all who use it.
  • What happens if an anonymous user posts a scathing review? You may be able to uncover their real identity. Click here to read more about the process.
  • What does it take to win a U.S. defamation lawsuit? It’s difficult, but possible. In short, plaintiffs need to prove that contested statements are about them, in addition to falsity, harm, and a level of negligence. For a state-by-state defamation law analysis, go here.

You Have Options. Don’t Wait, Act. Solutions Are A Phone Call Away.

If your business has suffered because of an inflammatory review, and you’re ready to fight back, let’s talk.

Our team has helped hundreds of individuals — and businesses– pluck defamatory content off the Internet. And note, a lawsuit isn’t always nececcary to remedy an online review defamation issue.
Who are we? Kelly / Warner — a group of attorneys, with strong marketing connections, that excels at fixing online defamation problems. To learn more about us, head here.

Reclaim your reputation — and revenue flow. Get in touch today.

Yelp Defamation: Is The Site Required To Remove Defamatory Reviews?

Yelp Defamation

Yelp! (“Yelp”) isn’t happy.

A California judge ordered the review site to remove a defamatory posting. Yelp, for its part, felt the decision defied Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and appealed — but lost.

Will the ruling affect future Yelp defamation claims? Will business owners be helped or hurt by this turn of events?

Let’s review the case and discuss the potential implications for SMBs.

Background Summary: Business Owner Sues For Defamation Over Yelp Review

We live in the Age of Online Reviews, so it happens all the time. A service provider clashes with a client. Eager to share his displeasure with the world, said client (under the altruistic auspices of “warning others”) takes to Yelp and posts a scathing — often hyperbolic — negative review. Within days, the target’s inquiries come to a grinding halt.

It’s every business owner’s worst nightmare, and it happened to an attorney a few years back — so she sued for online defamation.

Who won?

To shorten a long story, the client failed to appear in court, which triggered a default win, and the judge ordered Yelp to remove the defamatory review.

Yelp’s Position: Forcing Content Removal Defies Section 230 of the CDA

But Yelp didn’t want to remove the review.

In its defense, the review website argued insufficient governance, maintaining that Yelp wasn’t party to the lawsuit, and subsequently not subservient to the court in this matter. Yelp also reasoned that the removal order contravened Section 230 of the CDA, which gives immunity to websites dragged into lawsuits involving defamatory user content. Or, to put it another way, it’s the law that stops users from suing, say, Facebook (or even Yelp) over another user’s post.

Now, please don’t read us wrong: you CAN sue individuals who post libelous statements, but not the social media platform on which the contested statement sits. (Section 230 applies to most social media sites. The rules, however, vary for blogs, news sites and other informational platforms that can legally be deemed “the publisher”).

Excerpt From Yelp Defamation Removal Lawsuit

“Yelp’s claimed interest in maintaining its site as it deems appropriate does not include the right to second-guess a final court judgment establishing that statements by a third party are defamatory and thus unprotected by the First Amendment.”

Why Doesn’t Yelp Want To Remove Defamatory Reviews?

Why is Yelp against weeding the site of defamatory posts? In its estimation, removing content is a free speech quagmire, so the company spares no expense in defending removal requests.

A spokesperson for the review aggregator explained:

“The ruling undermines the free speech and due process rights of consumer reviewers and the online platforms that host their content. In a single jumbled ruling, the court managed to contravene and contort longstanding precedent concerning the First Amendment, constitutional due process and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.”

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, or CDA, says, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Court’s Reasoning: Asking Yelp To Remove Defamatory Review Doesn’t Have Anything To Do With Section 230 In This Case

According to the court, the removal order wasn’t legally damaging, and therefore fell outside the Section 230 sphere. In other words, since Yelp wouldn’t face imminent legal injury by deleting the defamatory post, the removal order doesn’t interfere with the CDA.

And on a technical note, according to the ruling, Yelp allegedly filed its protest motion too late.

Who Can I Talk To About My Yelp Defamation Issue?

Dealing with a defamatory Yelp review? We can help. Our team has assisted countless small- and medium-sized business owners overcome setbacks related to damaging Yelp reviews. Not every case requires a lawsuit. In many instances, we’ve been able to rectify the situation without filing a claim.

Contact us now. We’ll discuss your situation, (even vent about Yelp if you want), and then start formulating a plan — that’s both effective and budget conscious — to reverse the damage done by Yelp defamation.

Opinions From An Internet Lawyer: Gawker’s Conundrum

gawker defamation

You’ve heard by now: Gawker is caught in a professional storm.

Let’s take a moment to look at one aspect of the conundrum — a defamation lawsuit filed by the guy who claims to have invented e-mail. Will this recent Gawker defamation case add to the website’s woes? Or is it something else?

Fran Drescher’s husband, Shiva Ayyadurai, is joining the ranks of Gawker litigants. His spat? Ayyadurai insists he invented e-mail; Gawker says he didn’t.

Who’s telling the truth? Who knows; that’s a question for the courts. What makes the case intriguing, right now, is the timing. Ayyadurai’s suit comes on the heels of Gawker’s mega-million loss to Hulk Hogan, which raises the question: Did the Hogan verdict topple Gawker’s litigation levies? Is the website about to suffer some sort of content karma course correction? (Update: Apparently, yes; Gawker filed for bankruptcy shortly after this article was written.)

He Said; Gawker Said: A Defamation Case Study

In the not too distant past, the Washington Post profiled Ayyadurai. According to the article, 14-year-old V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai invented e-mail while Doogie-Howsering his way through a New Jersey university.

Interestingly, the WAPO piece featured a disclaimer:

“A number of readers have accurately pointed out that electronic messaging predates V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai’s work in 1978. However, Ayyadurai holds the copyright to the computer program called “email,” establishing him as the creator of the “computer program for [an] electronic mail system” with that name, according to the U.S. Copyright Office.”

Well, good ole’ Gawker published an unsolicited rebuttal, questioning the truthiness of Ayyadurai’s accounts. Long story shortened, Ayyadurai decided to sue Gawker for defamation; he’s asking for $35 million.

From the filing:

Defendants’ false and defamatory statements have caused substantial damage to Dr. Ayyadurai’s personal and professional reputation and career. As a result of Defendants’ defamation, Dr. Ayyadurai has been publicly humiliated, lost business contracts and received a slew of criticism relating to Defendants’ false accusations and statements.

Gawker Doesn’t Seem Worried, But Should It Be?

Gawker doesn’t appear worried about Ayyadurai’s case. (The bankruptcy is probably paramount right about now.) A site spokesperson explained:

 “These claims to have invented email have been repeatedly debunked by the Smithsonian Institute, Gizmodo, the Washington Post and others.”

Judging by the above statement, the website will likely argue “truth” and “fair opinion” — a straightforward legal tact for this scenario.

Will it work? Gawker may have a decent shot at escaping this particular legal noose.

His Whole Story

Ayyadurai’s beef goes much deeper than  this Gawker defamation case. MUCH deeper.

According to reports, Ayyadurai allegedly believes that an international conspiracy, possibly masterminded by tech incubator CSIR, has kept his name from gracing history’s pages.

Not only that, but he supposedly insists his falling out with CSIR involved a Family Von Trapp-esque getaway; except in his version, instead of the Swiss Alps, Ayyadurai escaped under the cover of a hot Indian night. Head over here for the whole story.

The Gawker Defamation War

But, as we mentioned earlier, the filing date is noteworthy. Ayyadurai’s case comes in the wake of Gawker’s high-profile loss to Hulk Hogan and revelations that billionaire Peter Thiel (longtime Gawker rival and apparent student of Vary’s School of Patient Revenge) has been a one-man crowdsourcing Godfather for people in hot legal pursuit of Gawker.

(NOTE: There is no indication, and we are not implying, that  Thiel has anything to do with Ayyadurai’s case.)

Our Opinion? Cockiness Can Land You In Legal Trouble.

Gawker brass may have been a little too cocky during the Hogan trial — and perhaps a bit too comfortable in their irreverence, overall. Which raises the question: has the media outlet previously crossed the defamation or privacy line without getting caught? And from a PR perspective, is the public simply sick of Gawker? Perhaps.

Footnote: Sadly, the gentlemen commonly credited for creating e-mail in 1971, Ray Tomlinson, died earlier this year of a heart attack.

Kelly Warner Internet Law

Kelly Warner is a legal practice that focuses on Internet defamation law. To learn more about our top-rated — yet down-to-earth — firm and team, head here.

Article Sources

Harris, D. L. (2016, May 10). Cambridge man who claims he invented email sues Gawker for $35M. Retrieved June 28, 2016, from http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2016/05/10/cambridge-man-who-claims-he-invented-email-sues.html

Yes, Amazon Sues Fake Reviewers

Fake Review Law and Lawyer
The Legal Low Down On Fraudulent Feedback
Online Marketing Legal Reminder: Avoid using and writing paid reviews for Amazon.com. Why? You could be sued or banned!

Amazon is cracking down on phony feedback. Not only is it suing fake review services, but also suspending complicit seller accounts. In fact, just the other day, Amazon announced a lawsuit against a group of third-party sellers who used “sock puppet accounts” to post phony, positive reviews on their product pages.

Recent Action: Amazon Sued Phony Appraisal Services

A few weeks ago, Amazon sued five websites servicing the fake feedback “ecosystem.” An Amazon spokesperson explained:

“We will continue to pursue legal action against the root cause of reviews abuse — the sellers and manufacturers who create the demand for fraudulent reviews, as well as the ecosystem of individuals and organizations who supply fraudulent reviews.”

Ongoing Dragnet Against Fake Review Services

Amazon is obsessed with review integrity because customer posts fuel the e-commerce engine. To that end, last year, the company litigiously targeted parties that allegedly contributed to review corruption. Since then, the online retail giant has targeted about one-thousand phony feedback operations and forced many offline.

Is Amazon’s Review Integrity Initiative Working?

Are Amazon’s attempts to stomp out phony feedback working? Depends on how you assess the situation. Sure, more people now know about the company’s anti-fake review stance, prompting some marketers to stop using them. But, due to the pop-up-shop nature of review services, attempts at extermination have ultimately proven to be whack-a-mole level frustrating.

Need Help With An Amazon Review Problem?

User reviews are essential to the e-commerce success formula. For sellers, the quality and quantity of customer feedback can mean the difference between success and failure.

And unfortunately, unscrupulous marketers use disparaging reviews as a negative SEO tactic.

If you’ve been hit, and you’re ready to right a wrong, get in touch immediately. Our team of attorneys and techs has helped tons of people and businesses overcome various review issues. We can help you, too.

Don’t wait. The longer phony reviews fester, the more damage they can do.

Get in touch immediately to get back on a profitable path, free of fake review problems.

Defamation Hurts: 10 Intriguing Facts & Thoughts On The Psychologically Devastating Effects of Slander and Libel

psychological effects of defamation

Self-described “expert witness and litigation consultant” Nicholas Carroll published a think-piece on the darker side of defamation.  Carroll’s stance, in a sound byte? Slander and libel ruins lives. OK, maybe that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but Carroll does appear to advocate for defamation reform and floats the idea of “sane legislation” that better compensates wronged parties.So, does he have a point? Do we need to rethink our defamation laws?

The Most Defendant-Friendly Defamation Laws In The World

The United States has the most defendant-friendly slander and libel laws in the world. And yes, austere rules means legitimately wronged parties can sometimes find themselves without legal recourse — not to mention a lifetime’s worth of unwarranted social suspicion.

This raises several questions:

  1. Are U.S. libel laws an example of the greater good out-weighing a few unfortunate situations where the bad guys win?
  2. Are such situations an unavoidable side effect of valuing free speech?
  3. Or, do we need to consider the compound effects of digital communications and change online libel laws accordingly?

Here’s the thing: free speech is practically sacrosanct; tweaking U.S. defamation standards is a slippery, Everest-sized, First Amendment slope. Our slander and libel laws rightly cling to caution’s side, in favor of the defendant.

But as a result, winning defamation lawsuits in the United States isn’t easy; plaintiffs need rock-solid — no, titanium-solid — cases.

The potential upside of filing a defamation claim? Damage awards can be gigantic — especially in recent years. As Carroll explains, jury awards are rising, not only to compensate for financial setbacks (lost wages or customers on account of the defamation), but also for emotional distress.

The potential upside of filing a defamation claim? Damage awards can be gigantic — especially in recent years.

10 Conversation Starters About Defamation

depression and defamation
Defamation can cause serious depression — and you may be compensated for it.

Regardless of where you stand on the status of our country’s slander laws, Carroll raises some arguments worth considering (even if you don’t agree with his position).

  1. “Loose lips or poison pens had pushed them over the brink to abnormal behavior.” That’s how Carroll described some defamation victims with whom he has corresponded. It speaks to the potentially devastating nature of slander and libel. Lately, judges and juries are recognizing just how detrimental defamation can be — and they’re starting to hand down large damage awards.
  2. “Dealing with defamation rationally is the exception because defamation is rarely rational.” In this quote, Carroll points out the fundamental paradox of slander and libel situations, for plaintiffs. He also describes defamers as “not only …clinical psychopaths and semi-functional sociopaths, but apparently normal people who have too much time on their hands, best summed up by philosopher Eric Hoffer, ‘People mind other people’s affairs when their own affairs are not worth minding.’”
  3. Carroll chose a popular trope (of uncertain — but exalted — origins) to explain the viral nature of Internet defamation, cautioning, “A lie can be halfway around the world before the truth can put on its pants.”
  4. Studies suggest that only 5% of defamation victims can handle the emotional fallout of slander and libel, rationally.
  5. The so-called Streisand effect stops people, who’ve legitimately been defamed, from taking legal action.
  6. Carroll identified homeowners associations, K-12 schools, churches and the small business world as hotbeds of defamation.
  7. Due to more training, Fortune 500 companies are more likely to “damn by faint praise” and less likely to find themselves in the middle of a defamation battle — with either employees or competitors.
  8. Suicide is a very real consequence of defamation.
  9. Carroll controversially argues that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act “gives far too much license to blogs and social media — without the responsibilities imposed on mainstream media.”
  10. Carroll contends that false accusations are more traumatic than actual bad deeds. He explains: “To compare reality and defamation, which one is more traumatic . . . to accidentally run over your neighbor’s dog and kill it, or be falsely accused of running over your neighbor’s dog? After 14 years of speaking to defamation victims, that’s a no-brainer: being falsely accused is far more traumatic. Killing a neighbor’s pet will distress any normal person, and they will occasionally think about it even years later. On the other hand, the normal human will immediately call the dog’s owner, or take the dog to a pet clinic themselves, and history will read ‘. . . it really broke them up . . . they drove the dog to a clinic, but it was too late.’ Being falsely accused of it can become a running psychic sore, a daily source of stress every time you get a cold look from a neighbor, or the ‘Oh, you’re the one who . . .’ look from someone you just met. When the story is fictitious, there’s no record of you driving the dog to the hospital, because the accident never happened. And where there is no crime, no alibi is possible.”
contact a defamation lawyer
Let a defamation lawyer solve your slander and libel problems.

Connect With A Defamation Lawyer

Kelly Warner runs a successful Internet defamation legal practice.

Lawsuits aren’t always necessary to effectively combat an online reputation challenge. Our attorneys are top-rated, exceptionally friendly, discreet and most importantly, know all the tips and tricks to remedy defamation situations quickly. Get in touch today to explore options; let’s start restoring your good name.

Article Sources

Carroll, N. (2016, March 22). Defamation of Character: The Road to Emotional Meltdown. Retrieved May 04, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-carroll/defamation-of-character-t_b_9520124.html

Discounts For Honest Amazon Reviews Is Fine; Paying For Bogus Reviews Isn’t

Amazon Reviews Legalities
UPDATE: Amazon recently changed its policy; sellers can no longer offer discounts in exchange for reviews (in most circumstances). We decided to keep this article up for archival purposes.

Team members from BestReviews analyzed 360,000 consumer posts on Amazon.com. Their conclusion? Amazon is flooded with 4- and 5-star reviews, which raised the question: “Can Amazon reviews be trusted?” The answer: Yes, but be aware.

The team observed that:

  • 66.3% of Amazon user ratings are 4- or 5-stars;
  • A “verified purchase” doesn’t mean “full price purchase;”
  • 96% of people who got a free or deeply discounted product gave 4- or 5-star assessments, even though they weren’t required to post high-ratings, just honest ratings.

Can You Trust Amazon Reviews?

So, what does this all mean? Does it illustrate a flaw in Amazon’s review system? Are Amazon reviews worthless?

No, it’s not that drastic.

What the results DO prove is that recipients of free and discounted goods are more likely to give a positive rating than people who pay full price. Humans emotionally connect to money because it’s associated with survival. As such, the more dollars we part with for a product, the more likely we’ll be critical of its shortcomings.
What the results DO prove is that recipients of free and discounted goods are more likely to give a positive rating than people who pay full price.

How Algorithms Can Affect
Amazon Reviews

To balance the review field, Amazon’s rating algorithm gives more weight to reviews written by people who pay full price than those written by launch reviewers who likely got a free product.

Amazon Doesn’t Care If You Give Away Free Products In Exchange For Honest Reviews

(This policy has since changed.)

You’ve probably seen the words “honest review” in an Amazon post.  That usually means the author got the product for free or at a deep discount.

Yes, it’s against Amazon rules to pay for fake reviews outright. It’s fine, however, to give away free products in exchange for honest reviews.

An Amazon spokesperson explained that the company “does not allow compensation or incentive for reviews” except “when sellers provide a [free or discounted] copy of the product, in advance, in exchange for an unbiased review.”

Yes, it’s against Amazon rules to pay for fake reviews outright. It’s fine, however, to give away free products in exchange for honest reviews.

Amazon Explains Why It Loves User Reviews

When communicating with the BestReviews team, Amazon expressed its love of consumer feedback, explaining:

“We believe that all reviews, positive and negative, help customers make informed purchasing decisions. The fact that customers received the product at a deep discount or for free does not preclude them from having an opinion on the product that can be helpful to other customers. Customers indicate that the content of many of these reviews are incredibly helpful. These reviews often provide additional factual information, videos and photos of the actual product in use, and the reviewers often answer follow-up questions.”

Got Review Issues? We Can Help.

We’re review physicians who revive businesses hobbled by damaging feedback. How do we do it? Well, strategies are detail specific, and everyone’s case is different. Let’s talk about your situation and develop a plan that will get you back on track.

Article Sources

Agarwal, Kriti, and Rafe Needleman. “Can You Trust Reviews on Amazon?” Can You Trust Reviews on Amazon? 14 Mar. 2016. Web. 25 Apr. 2016. <https://www.yahoo.com/tech/can-you-trust-reviews-on-amazon-174800847.html>.

E-Commerce Law: Is It Legal To Pay For Online Reviews?

graphic of search bar juxtaposed against a line of e-commerce entrepreneurs to accompany a blog post answering the question is it legal to pay for online reviews

Is It Legal To Pay For Online Reviews?

You can make money with an e-commerce startup. Amazon, eBay, Etsy – even Walmart – have incredible platforms for outside sellers. Even better? The latest holiday spending figures proved anxiety about Internet shopping has gone the way of the dinosaur.

Bottom line: there is e-commerce cash-money to be made.

But (there’s always a “but”), as more folks dive into the product marketing pond, competition is stiffer than the Queen’s Guard.

So, how are some sellers standing out from the pack? They’re buying reviews! Which raises the question: Is it legal to buy online reviews?

Let’s discuss.

Online Review Truth #1: Fake Reviews Can Get You Sued

Reviews are a vital cog in the e-commerce model. Every platform — and entrepreneur — leverages user reviews to sell, sell, sell! Think about it: when you see a product without feedback, do you buy…or hop to a similar product with reviews?

So, what’s a newbie to do? Is it legal to buy online reviews?

Brass tacks: e-commerce platforms are serious about review integrity, and they actively work to stomp out phony reviews. Not only are feedback algorithms used to scrub “bad” posts, but some platforms, like Amazon, actually sue paid review services and reviewers.

Are you thinking, “No problem, I’ll just use a paid review service overseas?” Well, you may want to reevaluate, because foreign governments are also cracking down.

The risk of permanent account expulsion increases, exponentially, if you use fake review services. The danger is real; you may get burned.

Online Review Truth #2: Disclose Material Relationships

What’s the easiest way to avoid review-related suspension hassles? Disclose, disclose, disclose!

If Aunt Bessie buys your organic sea-kale weight-loss lollipops, genuinely loves them, and wants to shout it from a mountaintop, she can certainly spread the sea-kale gospel via online reviews. BUT,  don’t PAY Aunt Bessie to write a review. (Update: Offering consumers free products is exchange for an online review is now also frowned upon by Amazon. You can read about the rule change here.)

Now, will you be tossed in the clink if friends and family don’t divulge their relationship, to you, in an online review? Of course not. Let’s be real: how will anyone know if user “Liv4Cats54” on, say, Amazon, is your relative? But know that disclosing the relationship is, technically, part of FTC guidelines. So, if the commission catches you in its web — or you become entangled in a marketing-related lawsuit — the issue of non-disclosure COULD arise and work against you.

Online Review Truth #3: Don’t Ghost Write Tons of Reviews for Your Products

Is it legal to pay for online reviews? Not really. Is it legal to write your own reviews under aliases? Again, not really.

For e-commerce platforms, reviews are both a blessing and a curse; a blessing because they engage audiences in a meaningful, profitable way; a curse because an outbreak of corrupt reviews has the power to crush a site’s credibility – and ultimately tarnish the brand.

So,  what’s the lesson? Don’t write a ton of fake reviews for your products. Websites use algorithms that sniff and snuff out certain faux-views. Best to avoid them altogether.

Online Review Truth #4: Don’t Sabotage Competitors’ Listings

One night, you’re sitting at home, stewing in a cauldron of frustration. Your ecommerce gamble is not working out nearly as well as you planned! You need to attract more customers!

You forget to ask yourself, “Is it legal to pay for online reviews or post fake ones?” And then, in a moment of weakness, you screed-type some nasty feedback on a competitor’s listing. Your rationale? Well, if I trash competing products, more people are likely to find me!

This type of thinking is wrong thinking. Being a rogue, fake-review-dispensing troll will bring you 99 problems, and a possible FTC sanction IS one.

Fake reviews fall clearly into the “unfair and deceptive marketing” strike zone. And depending on the circumstances, you could be sued for trade libel — and lose.

Befriend An E-Commerce Lawyer

You’ve vested a lot in your e-commerce business. Protect your efforts by teaming up with an experienced attorney with a nuanced understanding of:

  • E-commerce account appeals;
  • The online private label market niche;
  • Online marketing regulations;
  • FTC and FDA guidelines; in addition to
  • General e-commerce law.

Our focus areas (FTC compliance, review defamation, online intellectual property, et cetera) line up perfectly with what Internet businesses need to grow and earn.

We’ve answered the question “Is it legal to pay for online reviews?” Interesting in learning more about Internet business law? Yes? Then head here.

Using Gag Clauses To Prevent Negative Online Reviews?

gag clauses to prevent negative online reviewsAre contractual “defamation clauses” – a.k.a. “gag clauses”—acceptable? Legally enforceable? Can you sneak them into customer agreements in an attempt to mitigate bad online reviews?

Let’s review.

Using Gag Clauses To Prevent Negative Online Reviews Can Backfire – Badly.

If you asked ten U.S. citizens, “What’s the cornerstone of American law,” nine of them might say, “Free speech!” And it’s a solid answer — which is why contractual consumer gag clauses are short sided. Not only is it an affront to the Constitution, but doing so will probably land you a boatload of viral, negative press.

Not All Gag Clauses Are An Assault On Free Speech…

To be clear: not all gag clauses are a spit in the face of freedom. Many contractual articles, which demand confidentiality, are perfectly fine – if not commonplace.

You may be thinking, “WTF!? How is that possible!? What happened to free speech?”

Fair question. But here’s the crux: confidentiality is the focal point of many agreements. To wit, celebrities regularly make employees sign privacy contracts – a type of “gag clause.” Commonly, startups and businesses require employees to sign non-disclosure agreements to protect corporate secrets.

…But Some Are

So, we’ve established that not all gag clauses are the work of a freedom-hating baddie. But, some contracts do cross a Constitutional line.

When online reviews became de rigueur‎, businesses and professionals started stuffing gag clauses into service contracts. But the practice quickly backfired. Netizens took to the Internet and shout-typed outrage over agreements that prohibited negative online reviews. In short order, lawyers who previously advocated for restrained gag clauses began advising against their use.

When Free Speech Crosses The Legal Line

It’s never OK to ban legitimate free speech, but there are legal limits – like defamation. In laymen’s terms, defamation (libel if written; slander if spoken) is purposefully negligent, harmful public lie telling.

As previously discussed, some people try to use gag clauses to prevent negative online reviews, but it typically backfires – especially if the language is hyper-aggressive.

Moreover, time and again, courts have established that the Constitution (and case law) rarely allows for “prior restraint.” In other words, it’s fine to punish a person, post-facto, for committing an act of slander or libel; however, trying to hush someone – before anything untoward actually happens – is contrary to established legal standards (except in certain circumstances, which usually involve commerce and employment). Or, in other words, it’s not kosher to use gag clauses to prevent negative online reviews — if said reviews are honest.

Some people try to use clauses to prevent negative online reviews, but it typically backfires – especially if the language is hyper-aggressive.

So, Then What Can Business Owners Do About Difficult Clients Who Litter The Web With Negative Reviews?

So, what’s an honest business owner to do when faced with a testy, ranting client? A client that embellishes the truth, but doesn’t, exactly, tell a bold-faced lie?

It stinks, but businesses must contend with client-induced reputational challenges all the time. In reality, the best thing to do is talk to a lawyer. (“Yeah, right – you’re just saying that because your law firm that handles this type of issue,” you protest. Yes, we’re a law firm that helps clients with reputation issues. But think of it this way: would you want a dentist to operate on your spleen? The same logic applies here.)

Gag Clause Case Study

FTC Sues Weight Loss Product Company Over Gag Clause

Recently, the Federal Trade Commission targeted a weight loss supplement company (for this article, we’ll call the company “WLC”) for “unfair and deceptive” marketing. As the nation’s consumer watchdog, the FTC punishes parties that use underhanded methods to market and promote. In fancy FTC language:

“[The FTC goes after businesses that] cause substantial injury to consumers that is not reasonably avoidable by consumers and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.” 

Specifically, the case against “WLC” involves accusations of:

  • False and unsubstantiated claims;
  • Unconstitutional prior restraint;
  • Failure to disclose that some positive reviews were penned by people who were in some way compensated; and
  • Possibly violating HIPPA restrictions by inadvertently disclosing health information to banks and payment processors.

The “Gag Clause” That Had People Seeing Red

The terms of purchase agreement for WL’s weight loss powder included the following phrase:

“Regardless of your personal experience with [WL], you will not disparage [WL] and or any of its employees, products or services.”

In other words: Even if you don’t like the product, you’re barred from saying anything bad about “WLC” – anywhere.

The Defamation Clause Deemed Unacceptable by the FTC

Typically, businesses fall under the FTC’s scope for:

  • Making false claims about a product’s effectiveness.
  • Fabricating “studies” that unfairly sway public perception.
  • Engaging in negative option marketing.
  • Not disclosing “discount for feedback” initiatives (i.e., giving away free samples, money or discounts for writing reviews).
  • Deceptive billing.

FTC Rejects Gag Clause Explanation

Ostensibly, “WLC” opted to include a defamation gag clause in its user contract. But the FTC said, “Nah-ah,” which isn’t surprising since the agency has traditionally kept a close eye on supplement manufacturers and marketers. Moreover, the clause included a damning phrase: “regardless of your personal experience with [WLC],” which probably tipped the legal scale. For it’s one thing to warn against defamation, but another to threaten against free speech.

Free Contracts, Which Can Be Found Online, May Invite An FTC Investigation

In the resultant case, the nation’s consumer watchdog deemed the company’s defamation clause “unfair and deceptive.”

So, how can businesses can guard against “unfair and deceptive” clients? By working with a lawyer who creates practical and protective arrangements that won’t attract the FTC’s watchful eye.

If you use a free online contract, the consequences could be dreadful. Why? Because freebie agreements usually aren’t as comprehensive as they can — and should — be. Sometimes, they include sneaky clauses that work against businesses.

A Lawyer Can Fix It

The Federal Trade Commission estimates that “WLC” made about $20 million over the past five years. But if the company loses this case, that figure could evaporate because the FTC has the authority to fine…heavily. In some instances, the commission can even go after family members’ assets; the agency can even confiscate fur coats, boats, watches and  homes.

To avoid a run in with the Federal Trade Commission over unfair and deceptive marketing practices, work with an Internet marketing lawyer. The attorneys at Kelly Warner have been practicing online marketing law for a long time. Partner Daniel Warner is an astonishingly effective litigator, and Aaron Kelly – the other named partner, enjoys a 10-out-of-10 rating on lawyer review website AVVO.com. Kelly also maintains a preeminent rating with venerated attorney assessment group Martindale-Hubbell.

To learn more about Kelly Warner, click here. To read more about other FTC cases and legal issues that affect today’s marketplace, head here. If you are currently dealing with an FTC investigation or inquiry, get an attorney. Going it alone could result in an avoidable — and unfavorable — business-crushing fine. Besides, hiring a lawyer to help with marketing initiatives may be a lot less costly than you think – and could ultimately save you a small fortune. Don’t wait. Get in touch today.

The Takeaway: In the United States, home to the world’s most free-speech-friendly constitution, using gag clauses to prevent negative online reviews is tantamount to a criminal act in the minds of many people. And adding egregious clauses to consumer contracts isn’t a wise move, as they’re becoming more and more ineffectual in the eyes of judges.

Article Sources

Trujillo, M. (2015, September 28). FTC sues weight-loss company for online ‘gag clause’ Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://thehill.com/policy/technology/255130-ftc-sues-weight-loss-company-over-online-gag-clause

Board of Directors Defamation: Sued Over Accusations Slung At Meetings?

Board of Directors Defamation
Board of Directors Defamation: Can you sue a fellow BOD member over accusations made at a private meeting?

If you’ve ever sat on a board of directors, you know. You know that BOD meetings can quickly turn into a verbal UFC match — which is why they’re a regular source of slander and libel lawsuits.

But here’s the legal rub: in many situations, board of director showdowns are protected from the go-go-Gadget arm of U.S. defamation law – thanks to a legal concept known as privilege.

Privilege Affects Many Defamation Lawsuits, Especially Ones Born From Board of Directors Meetings

What’s privilege, legally speaking? No, it doesn’t mean “legal advantage, rich folks” (though, many people would disagree). In legal terms, “privilege” describes a protected relationship. Doctors and patients, attorneys and clients, spouses – they all enjoy a certain amount of “privilege,” meaning that particular aspects of their conversations, between each other, are not subject to defamation law. Same goes for certain board of directors meetings.

Why are some BOD gatherings legally protected, verbal free-for-alls, operating outside of slander and libel laws? Because organizations, businesses and groups need to be able to discuss suspicions, rumors and other unpleasantries. Doing so is part of how healthy establishments maintain good public reputations and keep their respective management engines chugging along.

Which is why a recently filed board of directors defamation lawsuit out of Idaho may prove fruitless.

The Incident: Accusations Fly at a BOD Meeting

Here’s what happened:

  • A sport’s club, with volunteer participants, had two heated board of directors’ meetings.
  • At the first, one of the members accused another member of filching funds.
  • At the second, the accused demanded an apology – which never came.
  • Ultimately, records proved the accusation inaccurate.
  • The accused party filed a defamation lawsuit against its accuser.

What Plaintiffs Must Prove To Win A Defamation Lawsuit

To win a slander or libel lawsuit, plaintiffs typically have to prove a lot more than a simple untruth. At the very least, claimants must convince a judge or jury that the defendant:

  • Made a false statement of fact about the plaintiff;
  • Acted negligently, recklessly or with actual malice; and
  • Caused harm – material or reputational – via the contested statement.

Applying the Standards to this Board of Directors Defamation Case

If reports are accurate – and there aren’t any unknown extenuating circumstances – the plaintiff may win this board of directors’ defamation case. Publicly and falsely calling someone a thief is inherently harmful to a reputation. It’s considered “defamation per se” in some jurisdictions. And in per se cases, the plaintiff usually doesn’t have to prove harm.

BUT! Privilege May Save the BOD

As stated, legally speaking, privileged statements are “protected” statements. Speech that falls under the “privilege umbrella” may not be defamatory – even if inaccurate. Absolutely privileged statements are sometimes 100% immune from legal action. When language is labeled as “qualified privilege,” to win, the plaintiff must meet a higher standard of proof.

In this case, the board of directors’ meeting may be considered a “privileged meeting.” If it is, the plaintiff may not be able to win any damages.

A Common Misconception about Defamation

Over the past decade, the word “slander” has assumed a colloquial meaning, in addition to the legal one. It’s common for people to say a negative comment is “slanderous.” But as discussed above, actual slander involves a whole lot more than a negative opinion.

Contact a Defamation Attorney

Free speech is a cornerstone of American life. However, you can’t maliciously lie about another party. Doing so is defamatory, and legal remedies are available to people on the receiving end.

Kelly / Warner works with individuals and businesses that have been illegally disparaged. Our attorneys handle all manners of slander and libel lawsuits – both online and off, personal and business-related.

We’re a full-service, boutique practice that offers better-than-big-firm results for a fraction of the price. Not to brag, but our success record is something of which we’re exceptionally proud.

More encouraging, rectifying a board of directors’ defamation issue doesn’t always involve a lawsuit.

Get in touch today to explore your legal options.

Google Defamation: Will The Search Giant Survive Down Under?

Google defamation case
Google Defamation: Will Google have to shutter its doors down under after an unfavorable online defamation ruling against the search engine?

Has anybody in the United States successfully sued Google for defamation? Attempts have been waged, but the plaintiffs’ crusades usually fail. Sure, folks win defamation lawsuits against authors of defamatory statements. But against Google? Nah. Google almost always walks away unscathed – fresh as a Mentos factory.

Why?

Stateside statutes make it very difficult for claimants to win “Google defamation” lawsuits. After all, Big G doesn’t create 95% of the content it displays; it simply acts as an aggregator of third-party information.

But not every country has laws that protect Internet service providers and user-content platforms. Recently, an Australian court ruled against the mega-search-engine in what has quickly become a high-profile online libel lawsuit, which, theoretically, has the power to decimate Google down under.

Doctor Defamation Lawsuits: The Usual Story

It happens a lot. A medical professional treats a petulant “Mr. Patient.” Things don’t go well. Mr. Patient isn’t thrilled with the doctor’s work or bedside manner or billing practices or bad breath. So, good ole’ Patient takes to the Internet and shout-types his woes to the world.

Sometimes, in online patient v. doctor brawls, the digital diatribes are legitimate complaints; sometimes they’re exaggerations, and sometimes they’re bold-faced lies. No matter the category, online reviews have the power to demolish practices and ruin careers. Which is why many doctors move forward with Internet defamation lawsuits in the face of hyperbolic, inaccurate and damaging Internet rants.

And believe it or not, the case jurisdiction has a huge effect on the likelihood if its success.

Defamation Laws Vary, Greatly, By Nation

Nearly every country in the world has defamation laws, but the terms of those laws are as varied as humanity itself. For example, in countries that still recognize a monarchy (not all), the crime of lese majeste (in today’s parlance, trash talking royals) can get you thrown in the clink – for years. In some non-secular countries, profanity and blasphemy can land you six feet under.

And believe it or not, British Commonwealth countries and the United States – though similar in many ways – are on arguably opposite ends of the defamation scale. In short, countries like Great Britain, Australia and Canada are primarily plaintiff-friendly when it comes to slander and libel laws, whereas the U.S. is decidedly defendant-friendly.

Australian Doctor Disparaged on U.S.-Based Ripoff Report Goes After Google for Defamation

The contracts between U.S. and Australian defamation laws recently took center stage in a shocking ruling by the South Australian Supreme Court – and the decision may have Google a shaking in its bytes.

Here’s the story:

A peeved Australian medical patient blasted a doctor on infamous consumer review website RipoffReport.com. Clearly, the doctor wasn’t pleased – so she initiated legal action. Interestingly, the doctor opted to include Google as a defendant. Interesting because it’s almost unheard of to win an indexing defamation lawsuit against the Mighty G (especially in the United States). Nevertheless, our intrepid doctor went for it. Why?

Well, when the disparaging and damaging content appeared on RipoffReport.com, the doctor alerted Google of its defamatory nature. But Google did nothing. The hyperlink remained front and center in the index. She felt the search engine ought to be held liable, too.

Doctor Wins Google Defamation Lawsuit

And guess what? She WON! Against Google! The Teflon Google! A court held the search engine accountable for content published on Ripoffreport.com!

“How!?” You might ask.

The court reasoned:

“If a search of Dr Duffy’s name had merely returned the URL of the first Ripoff Report webpage without functioning as a hyperlink and without accompanying text, it could not be said that Google was a publisher of the content of that material. To access the first Ripoff Report webpage, the user would need to enter the URL into the address box of the internet browser.”

A U.S. court would not have returned this verdict. No way, no how. Because there’s a law in the United States – commonly known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act – which effectively frees internet service providers – and many social media platforms – from defamation liability over third-party content. Or, to put it more simply: many websites are not held legally accountable for user content and posts.

Read more about Section 230 of the CDA

Google Defamation Rules: What Happens If A Country Doesn’t Protect ISPs From Third-Party Liability?

But what happens when an international online behemoth, like Google, is slapped by a ‘foreign’ court? Does it affect the rest of the world? After all, the Internet has smudged the line between nation states. And even though there is a Google for each one, thanks to VPNs, cross-border networks and, heck, even easily available travel options, people aren’t necessarily relegated to their hometown Google.

The Law Is Nebulous

So, must the search engine apply an Australian court’s ruling across the global board? Is the mighty G responsible for thwarting an Australian online rant-typer on “Google, America”?

To be sure, no definitive answer exists. Like the Internet itself, international Internet laws are complex and in constant flux. Countries try to do their parts by limiting the amount of “online libel tourism” (Internet defamation plaintiffs who shop for the friendliest jurisdiction). But government statutes aren’t airtight. In fact, a few years ago, the U.K. tried to put a stop to libel tourism by revising their defamation laws, but people are still finding loopholes to use England’s ostensibly pro-plaintiff slander and libel laws.

The Inevitable Upcoming Fight Against Australia’s Google Defamation Ruling

The Australian defamation ruling against Google has tech and legal tongues wagging. Pundits are concerned about the possible (and largely theoretical) censorship implications. The decision, arguably, also sets a bad precedence for continued online innovation.

Every pundit and lawyer expects Google to appeal. It’s sure as done. If a higher Australian court doesn’t overturn the current mandate, Google may morph into a very different search animal down under. Until then, expect a metric ton of amicus briefs to be written, by independent watch groups and attorneys, on behalf of Google.