legal RipOffReport.com SCAM

[Dale Hubbard]

The law is surely that the PUBLISHER is the entity that is potentially liable?

 

[Jeroen]

So I search google for my term and see that there was bad press out there from one lone wolf guy who mistakenly typed MY URL instead of a VERY SIMILAR website that was in business awhile back but went bust for whatever reason.

Here lies another problem. Who knows the review was written by a certain individual? It could have been written or written on behalf of RipOffReport.com, you will never find out. Anyone can write anything without verification, freedom of speech is one thing, using that freedom ethically is another.

RipOffReports is taking advantage of the law, which says that libel/slander/defamation/etc. actions can only be filed against the AUTHOR, not the website. As stupid and inconvenient as this seems, it actually protects the good guys in most cases... R.O.R. not being one of the "good" guys, but they have found a way to weasel themselves into that protection.

I agree, and here they have positioned themselves among other unethical businesses like mugshots.com and similar.

 

[grcorp]

You do realize that it is not "Anette" who wrote the policy, it is the policy of her scummy employer... right? So calling her names and striking out after her personally is not only ridiculous but, if written in the style you just used and published, actually a slam dunk court case- against you! Here's what you need to understand... RipOffReports is taking advantage of the law, which says that libel/slander/defamation/etc. actions can only be filed against the AUTHOR, not the website. As stupid and inconvenient as this seems, it actually protects the good guys in most cases... R.O.R. not being one of the "good" guys, but they have found a way to weasel themselves into that protection.

I'd ignore the whole thing, if it were me. Seriously, unless you have dozens of complaints on those stupid sites - it doesn't mean diddly.

She may not have written the policy. But she, on her own initiative, has chosen to represent this policy as legitimate by supporting it. Therefore, I consider her to be just as bad as those who wrote it.

Says a lot as to just how upstanding the whole outfit is as well that she'll use only her first name and no phone number, and that the company address given is a PO box. I would think that an "arbitration administrator" has to talk on the phone at some point.

I also have freedom of speech, which is a concept they very clearly seem to embrace. So if they can talk s*** about one of my domaining brothers, I can talk s*** about the company and those within it. I welcome them to challenge me. In fact, I encourage someone from this company to show their face and stop playing games.

While the laws may say that the liability is on the author, it's funny how they claim no responsibility for the content to the extent that they won't remove it. But they DO claim responsibility as long as their $2,000 fee can be realized. Very selective. They can't have it both ways.

 

[katherine]

Sometimes extortion on the Internet seems to be accepted when it's sugarcoated with compelling verbiage like protecting free speech or the innocents.
Spamhaus is one example. The best is probably to give them a taste of their own medicine.

You could still file a rebuttal though.

 

[Cartoonz]

The law is surely that the PUBLISHER is the entity that is potentially liable?

Nope. The liability is with the AUTHOR of the statement, which in this case is whomever filed the "report".

 

[Dale Hubbard]

Nope. The liability is with the AUTHOR of the statement, which in this case is whomever filed the "report".

It's not as clear cut as that, certainly here in the UK:

http://www.website-law.co.uk/blog/category/defamation/

http://www.wfc.net/libel.htm

It would be interesting to see how that compares to US code.

 

[Cartoonz]

it is exactly as clear cut as that, your reference to your laws in the UK are almost identical.
Read through that again and you'll see how R.O.R. is inoculated.
Oddly enough, the very fact that they will NOT remove posts actually helps them to keep themselves within the boundaries of the law.