Can they sue?

[bookworm21]

I was just wondering: since there are so many opinions posted on this board, can one company legally sue some posters for their comments? I had taken media law before and remember something about them having to prove malicious intent for libel or slander, but if I were to tell people to stay away from a particular company because of my own personal experiences with them, does that give them grounds for a lawsuit? I don''t intend any maliciousness, I just don''t want to see people paying more than they should for shoddy service and questionable quality.

Any opinions (professional or not) appreciated.

 

[pricescope]

100% accurate consultation can only be obtained from a qualified attorney.

However, based on a common sense, if you share factual information about your personal experience, it should be ok.

 

[Gemklctr]

Date: 3/9/2006 10:16:37 AM
Author: Pricescope
100% accurate consultation can only be obtained from a qualified attorney.

However, based on a common sense, if you share factual information about your personal experience, it should be ok.

Disclaimer: THIS NOT LEGAL ADVICE - PS IS CORRECT THAT YOU SHOULD CONSULT YOUR OWN LAWYER.

But, the answer to the question "can they sue?" is always YES!!! They may not win, but they can cause you to incur great expense and inconvenience, especially if they sue you in a state far from where you live, which is always a risk with Internet postings. Even if the suit is wholly meritless, it''s difficult to recover your costs of defending it. Thus, while it is also typically true that the truth is a defense, so if you stick to the facts you should be able to limit your exposure unless you are breaching some obligation of confidentiality, there will always be at least some risk. So, be careful what you post.

Moreover, as a practical matter, litigious types tend to seek out so-called "deep pockets" to sue, those from whom they can collect substantial damages. Unfortunately, that might include many of the posters here given the recent threads on income, housing, etc., as well as the jewelry. (Thanks to Storm for pointing out the issues in that respect.) Fortunately for Leonid and Irina, there are laws that make clear they are not responsible in most circumstances for the postings the members place on the site, only for their own content.

BTY Cinderella, the malice standard for liability for defamatory or libelous remarks applies only to public persons, not private persons.

Hope this helps.

 

[littlelysser]

Gem - youre response reminded me of what my torts prof said on the first day ...he gave a hypothetical with very silly facts and ask if "They" could sue and the answer was, OF COURSE!

So long as the court house is open and there isn''t a gunman standing at the door of the court house ...they can sue...

 

[strmrdr]

sure they can but it almost always backfires on the company doing the suing especially online the EFF is famous for destroying them in court plus the bad publicity can put any but the most entranced company out of business.
The ones that have succeeded were a company suing a former employee but that was a breach of contract case.
Often the contract to get a severence package and sometimes the non-compete contract have a clause in them about not discussing your emplyment or anything you may have learned about the company while employed there with anyone.

 

[strmrdr]

http://www.eff.org/

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/9/2006 2:36:49 PM
Author: littlelysser
Gem - youre response reminded me of what my torts prof said on the first day ...he gave a hypothetical with very silly facts and ask if ''They'' could sue and the answer was, OF COURSE!


So long as the court house is open and there isn''t a gunman standing at the door of the court house ...they can sue...

There are always gunman at the door to the courthouse after 9-11 here.

 

[Gemklctr]

Date: 3/9/2006 2:55:43 PM
Author: strmrdr
sure they can but it almost always backfires on the company doing the suing especially online the EFF is famous for destroying them in court plus the bad publicity can put any but the most entranced company out of business.
The ones that have succeeded were a company suing a former employee but that was a breach of contract case.
Often the contract to get a severence package and sometimes the non-compete contract have a clause in them about not discussing your emplyment or anything you may have learned about the company while employed there with anyone.

Storm, EFF is a great organization, but still has limited resources despite Mitch Kapor''s support (he created Lotus 123). I wouldn''t risk my assets on the hope that they would chose my particular case to intervene in. And Internet-related suits have succeeded on a number of defamation-related as well as other causes of action, not just employment-related postings. The cases that have typically been dismissed are those against the website operators who hosted the defamatory remarks. They are protected from liability in many cases by federal legislation (47 USC sec. 230). But all those cases say that the plaintifff''s remedy is to sue the poster. So, people do need to be careful about what they post about others, just like your excellent advice to be careful what they post about themselves.

littlelysser, that''s where I first heard it too, but probably many years before you did.

 

[strmrdr]

"And Internet-related suits have succeeded on a number of defamation-related as well as other causes of action, not just employment-related postings"
links?
The big name suits iv heard about never went anywhere or were settled by saying I wont do that anymore.

 

[mrssalvo]

I find this very interesting and the lines fuzzy as to what is an isn''t ok. This is a consumer forum and if consumers are afraid to share because they might good sued, what good is it to other consumers? I can share my personal experience and if it''s bad that company can sue me because I could end up causing to them loose other potential customers? Could Tiffany sue all the posters who have bashed them over the years saying they are overpriced etc, etc...?

 

[princessv]

Date: 3/9/2006 2:36:49 PM
Author: littlelysser
Gem - youre response reminded me of what my torts prof said on the first day ...he gave a hypothetical with very silly facts and ask if ''They'' could sue and the answer was, OF COURSE!

So long as the court house is open and there isn''t a gunman standing at the door of the court house ...they can sue...

LOL I think every Torts professor must do that type of hypo!

When I think about successful suits for libel/slander I tend to think about celebrities vs. gossip magazines...but even then, they aren''t always successful either.

 

[Gemklctr]

Date: 3/9/2006 3:47:08 PM
Author: strmrdr
''And Internet-related suits have succeeded on a number of defamation-related as well as other causes of action, not just employment-related postings''
links?
The big name suits iv heard about never went anywhere or were settled by saying I wont do that anymore.

Disclaimer: THIS NOT LEGAL ADVICE - PS IS CORRECT THAT YOU SHOULD CONSULT YOUR OWN LAWYER

That''s exactly the problem Storm. The big name suits are the ones against the Internet companies, not individual posters. The latter don''t make the news, much less the headlines. For example, I won a case several years ago against the poster of an ebay feedback that falsely accused my client, an ebay vendor, of misrepresenting his diamonds. I had another client who had a multi-million dollar judgment against them for postings disparaging a company on one of the forums they hosted (later overturned). For a recent case that may end up being resolved under Sec. 230, but that has been permitted to proceed at this time, see George S. May Int''l Co. v. Xcentric Ventures LLC, N.D. Ill., No. 04 C 6018, 1/18/06 (involving a defamation lawsuit against the "Rip Off Report" website, a clearinghouse for consumer complaints

).

In any event, as I noted above, the cost to a defendant of a lawsuit can be substantial even if they win or settle favorably. (In other words, lawyers are expensive.) It plainly makes sense for individuals to exercise some prudence and responsible judgment regarding what they post to minimize the risk of a lawsuit. An important part of that is to stick to the facts and don''t exaggerate, no matter how legitimately ticked off you may be. But unfortunately mrssalvo, that risk cannot be entirely eliminated.

Princess, the reasons those celebrity suits don''t often succeed is that they have a higher standard of proof, actual malice under New York Times v. Sullivan, in order to establish liability. That should be covered in your Con Law/First Amendment course.

 

[strmrdr]

Thanks for the info GK
I will look into it some more.

"It plainly makes sense for individuals to exercise some prudence and responsible judgment"

That makes perfect sence regardless of lawsuits.

 

[littlelysser]

Strm -

I never meant to imply that just because someone CAN sue they SHOULD. Big difference between the two...

Although in practice, it just killed me when we''d settle nuissance suits (usually in the employment context) for $5,000-$10,000 just to make the suit go away...It often costs tens of thousands of dollars to defend a meritless suit.

 

[Mara]

From some legal classes in I took in college, IMO PS hit the nail on the head when they said it has to be fact based. If you share an actual experience that you can back up with proof if ever called into court, then don''t worry. Something like Tiffany, where people can PROVE they are more expensive than other people probably wouldn''t hold up either. Now if someone just started coming out here saying this and that aka negative stuff about a company, and had no proof and was just talking out of their butt, and the company lost a ton of business then I guess if the company really wanted to, they could sue....but who knows if they''d win or not. People sue all the time for stupid stuff. Whether or not they win is another story.

 

[bookworm21]

I always tell the truth about my personal experiences and repeat what salespeople told me. Like mrssalvo said, what if the company lost business because of me sharing my personal experiences and they decide to sue me to recover whatever losses that was incurred? There would be no way of proving what was said between the salespeople and me. It would be a "he said, she said" type of situation.

Well, let''s just hope those companies out there aren''t petty enough to decide to look through forums and target some posters. Maybe I''m just being paranoid...