This Guy May Get Sued Over an Amazon Review

[Jesus Malverde]

The next time you write an online review, be careful. You might get sued.

That's what could happen to a Florida man who left a negative review about an Internet router he purchased. According to his Tuesday post on Reddit, where he's asking for legal advice, he received a letter from a law firm in Philadelphia threatening to sue him for an "illegal campaign to damage, discredit, defame, and libel" the company that makes the router.

"Your statements are false, defamatory, libelous, and slanderous, constitute trade libel and place Mediabridge and its products in a false light," the verbose letter from the law firm reads in part.

In his review, which has since been edited, the man made several allegations, including that many of the positive reviews about the product on Amazon might be fake and that the router itself was "identical" to a router from a different company.

If the man doesn't take down his review within three days, cease all Internet conversation about the product, and agrees to never buy the company's products again, the law firm will sue him, according to the letter. But by going to Reddit and not keeping quiet, the man might have already sealed his fate.

Companies, it turns out, have every right to sue people who write reviews on websites that they may feel are libelous or defamatory.

Read More: http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/this-guy-may-get-sued-over-an-amazon-review-20140507

[Mika]

1. Freedom!!

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

[GeorgeGist]

2. Freedumb™

is a registered Trade Mark of Koch Industries.

[Philly Cowboy]

3. So much for the First Amendment.

Out here in the Midwest, we have a saying about Philadelphia lawyers, something about being slicker that a raw egg in a bucket of sheep dip. But I won't repeat it here for fear of being sued.

[Jesus Malverde]

5. I guess most of us don't know the consistency of sheep dip, so this would

be a big whoosh.

[Egnever]

6. Good lord can people please read the first amendment. It doesn't say what you think it does.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

[chrisa]

4. That company is about to learn the Streisand Effect

[madinmaryland]

7. Sounds more like the law firm that sued Skinner and DU a few years ago.

Liars out to steal money from folks that are just pissed that something doesn't work the way it is supposed to.

It is a LAW FIRM suing Florida Man and not a company.

FUCK THEM (and the NRA).

[jberryhill]

8. "that they may feel are libelous or defamatory"

I like the way that is written. It easily sidesteps the question of "what should happen if it actually is libelous or defamatory" and the article, at least insofar as quoted in the OP, doesn't get near the question of "is what the guy said true, or was it at least posed as his opinion instead of fact?"

If I post a review of some restaurant and say "I was told by someone who works there that they use rat meat," and if, in fact, that restaurant does not use rat meat, then if the restaurant loses business due to the rumor I started, is that okay?

And that's what's brilliant about the use of "they may feel" in that sentence. On the one hand, even defending yourself when the merit is on your side is daunting and, yes, threats can be made purely for the purpose of intimidation.

But what's the answer?

There is, for example, at least one "consumer complaint" website which solicits people to post their customer experiences in scathing terms, and which charges companies a variety of fees for responding to them or having them removed. It's the commercial equivalent of the "mugshot" sites which post arrest information of people who may subsequently have charges dropped and expunged. There have been accusations that these sites pay "access fees" to police departments, and they have similar "reputation service" fees for removing that stuff. Then, at the bottom of the food chain, are the revenge porn sites.

So where is the "this is okay and this is not" line on that continuum?

[Logical]

9. I have no issue with this. They told him to take it down before suing him.....

and if he has facts to back it up he can counter sue.

Sounds like he accused them of stealing from another company.

[BrotherIvan]

10. Some comments on Amazon are just whacky

But I can see how a small company could be hurt by them. Reviews in online sales are everything. I usually discount the low ones if the positive ones are substantive and generally agree. There's always some people who just love to complain.

[Jesus Malverde]

11. Amazon comments are a mix

some are actual product reviews. some are reviews of the seller. They should be able to keep them separate.