ripoffreport.com advice?
January 1, 2010 6:31 PM Subscribe
Advice and opinions, please, regarding ripoffreport.com
A friend has recently been a victim of a false report on ripoffreport.com. The power of this site was something that I was previously unaware of. The unimaginable sleaziness of the guy who runs it, Ed Magedson, is the reason why I am posting anonymously.
Briefly, my friend has been professionally and personally hurt by this false report, which comes up on page 1 of a google search on her name. She's been trying to push it down in the listings, so far without success. Adding a "rebuttal" to the report will only cause it to move up in page rank, thus making it stay on page 1 even longer. Obviously she doesn't want to do that, because it only lends visibility to the original report.
So, question 1: Has anyone discovered a workable way to combat a false ripoffreport, other than posting a "rebuttal"?
See wikipedia for some background on the site, see this discussion for a taste of some of the controversy.
Magedson offers the "service" of "restoring your reputation" if a false report is filed against you, and if you can prove that it's false - to him. He charges, from what I can tell, anywhere from $1k to $100k for this "service" - i.e., whatever he can get away with.
Magedson stands behind the first amendment in everything he does - including not revealing who is responsible for the posts on his site. According to some reports, though, he'll gladly reveal the identities of posters, for amounts around $1k - $1.5k. The very fact that these accusations exist, and that they're believable, makes people reluctant to deal with false reports head-on.
So, second question: Is what Magedson does genuinely legal? Obviously IANAL, and I understand the DMCA defense that he hides behind. But how is what he does not classified as extortion? He's carefully crafted his site so that, from what I can see, the only effective way to deal with a false report is to pay him off. There are accusations flying around that Magedson himself will write a false report so that he can collect the "restore your reputation" fee. Of course I have no idea whether that's true, but looking at the guy's activities and character, it would not surprise me at all.
The question about legality is more academic than anything else. I'm more interested in strategies for helping my friend. Any thoughts?
A friend has recently been a victim of a false report on ripoffreport.com. The power of this site was something that I was previously unaware of. The unimaginable sleaziness of the guy who runs it, Ed Magedson, is the reason why I am posting anonymously.
Briefly, my friend has been professionally and personally hurt by this false report, which comes up on page 1 of a google search on her name. She's been trying to push it down in the listings, so far without success. Adding a "rebuttal" to the report will only cause it to move up in page rank, thus making it stay on page 1 even longer. Obviously she doesn't want to do that, because it only lends visibility to the original report.
So, question 1: Has anyone discovered a workable way to combat a false ripoffreport, other than posting a "rebuttal"?
See wikipedia for some background on the site, see this discussion for a taste of some of the controversy.
Magedson offers the "service" of "restoring your reputation" if a false report is filed against you, and if you can prove that it's false - to him. He charges, from what I can tell, anywhere from $1k to $100k for this "service" - i.e., whatever he can get away with.
Magedson stands behind the first amendment in everything he does - including not revealing who is responsible for the posts on his site. According to some reports, though, he'll gladly reveal the identities of posters, for amounts around $1k - $1.5k. The very fact that these accusations exist, and that they're believable, makes people reluctant to deal with false reports head-on.
So, second question: Is what Magedson does genuinely legal? Obviously IANAL, and I understand the DMCA defense that he hides behind. But how is what he does not classified as extortion? He's carefully crafted his site so that, from what I can see, the only effective way to deal with a false report is to pay him off. There are accusations flying around that Magedson himself will write a false report so that he can collect the "restore your reputation" fee. Of course I have no idea whether that's true, but looking at the guy's activities and character, it would not surprise me at all.
The question about legality is more academic than anything else. I'm more interested in strategies for helping my friend. Any thoughts?
But how is what he does not classified as extortion?
It's extortion in the colloquial sense, but it doesn't fit the legal definition of extortion:
"The use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent."
He is causing harm, but he isn't doing so via "violence or other criminal means".
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:58 PM on January 1, 2010
It's extortion in the colloquial sense, but it doesn't fit the legal definition of extortion:
"The use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent."
He is causing harm, but he isn't doing so via "violence or other criminal means".
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:58 PM on January 1, 2010
By the way, IANAL.
It looks like what he's doing isn't blackmail, either.
"A criminal act of extortion, malicious threatening to do injury to another to compel him to do an act against his will. Usually involves the threat to release information, often true, about the person that will defame his reputation or bring criminal actions against him. The criminality lies not in the release of the information - at least if true - but in the extortionate aspects of the threat to do so."
Which means the threat precedes the information release.
This guy has found a way of abusing the DMCA "safe harbor" provision, and I would say that the thing to do is to talk to your congressman about it. But that won't help the immediate situation.
I wonder if Google could be convinced to stop including this guy's site in their search results?
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:05 PM on January 1, 2010
It looks like what he's doing isn't blackmail, either.
"A criminal act of extortion, malicious threatening to do injury to another to compel him to do an act against his will. Usually involves the threat to release information, often true, about the person that will defame his reputation or bring criminal actions against him. The criminality lies not in the release of the information - at least if true - but in the extortionate aspects of the threat to do so."
Which means the threat precedes the information release.
This guy has found a way of abusing the DMCA "safe harbor" provision, and I would say that the thing to do is to talk to your congressman about it. But that won't help the immediate situation.
I wonder if Google could be convinced to stop including this guy's site in their search results?
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:05 PM on January 1, 2010
I suppose one piece of advice would be: does your friend want to do business with anyone who will take seriously a report on ripoffreport.com?
I think most people want to do business with as many people as they can, unless they're swamped and don't want to expand. Most people are not going to see know much about the site, they'll just see the top link and click on it.
Which means the threat precedes the information release.
Why would that be the case? Every time a new person sees the site, he's 'releasing' the information new people who haven't seen it before.
By the way, IANAL.
Obviously.
posted by delmoi at 8:51 PM on January 1, 2010
I think most people want to do business with as many people as they can, unless they're swamped and don't want to expand. Most people are not going to see know much about the site, they'll just see the top link and click on it.
Which means the threat precedes the information release.
Why would that be the case? Every time a new person sees the site, he's 'releasing' the information new people who haven't seen it before.
By the way, IANAL.
Obviously.
posted by delmoi at 8:51 PM on January 1, 2010
Contacting Google might be a good idea. It couldn't hurt.
posted by delmoi at 8:52 PM on January 1, 2010
posted by delmoi at 8:52 PM on January 1, 2010
I understand the DMCA defense that he hides behind
Without knowing the specifics of your friend's situation, I can't really speak to how the DMCA safe harbor provision would apply in the case. But the fact that the content is user-generated doesn't wholly absolve him from any culpability here.
I'm not sure how exactly one would go about proving that said content is defamatory but, above all, safe harbor is meant to be a defense when the website or ISP in question is not even aware that the content (be it infringing or otherwise illegal) exists. This is why sites like YouTube remove content once it is brought to their attention.
I would advise your friend to consult an attorney to see about some sort of ;egal action. While I'm not a lawyer myself, I have some experience with DMCA-related safe harbor issues professionally, and the fact that they've been sued numerous times without ever appearing in court (it appears almost all were settlements or default judgments) is rather telling.
You've got to hit bullies like this where it hurts and that almost always means fighting back.
posted by dhammond at 9:08 PM on January 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
Without knowing the specifics of your friend's situation, I can't really speak to how the DMCA safe harbor provision would apply in the case. But the fact that the content is user-generated doesn't wholly absolve him from any culpability here.
I'm not sure how exactly one would go about proving that said content is defamatory but, above all, safe harbor is meant to be a defense when the website or ISP in question is not even aware that the content (be it infringing or otherwise illegal) exists. This is why sites like YouTube remove content once it is brought to their attention.
I would advise your friend to consult an attorney to see about some sort of ;egal action. While I'm not a lawyer myself, I have some experience with DMCA-related safe harbor issues professionally, and the fact that they've been sued numerous times without ever appearing in court (it appears almost all were settlements or default judgments) is rather telling.
You've got to hit bullies like this where it hurts and that almost always means fighting back.
posted by dhammond at 9:08 PM on January 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
Your friend should talk to a lawyer. IANAL, but the definitions Chocolate Pickle gave are federal law, first of all, not state law if that's what jurisdiction it would fall under, and second, they leave plenty of room for interpretation. Yelp was sued for defamation by an unhappy business owner, and I believe that ended in a settlement.
If what the report says about your friend's business is not true, then there could be several legal avenues to pursue, but only a lawyer can really advise her on what options exist for her.
Of course, you didn't just ask about legal aspects, so there may be plenty of non-legal recourse as well.
posted by ishotjr at 9:16 PM on January 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
If what the report says about your friend's business is not true, then there could be several legal avenues to pursue, but only a lawyer can really advise her on what options exist for her.
Of course, you didn't just ask about legal aspects, so there may be plenty of non-legal recourse as well.
posted by ishotjr at 9:16 PM on January 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
Can she get happy customers to write rebuttals? 10 rebuttals (from customers, not the owner) would do a lot to temper any alarm for most rational people. I saw a number of complaints at the site where the (well-written, documented) rebuttals or positive reviews attached to a negative attack made the original poster look like a loon.
(That being said, I believe the site crashed my computer 3 times--Windows XP+ Mozilla--so I won't link to examples, and I won't be back. The fact that there are categories like, "Abusive Parents" and "Loudmouths" call the credibility of the site into question as well.)
posted by availablelight at 6:39 AM on January 2, 2010
(That being said, I believe the site crashed my computer 3 times--Windows XP+ Mozilla--so I won't link to examples, and I won't be back. The fact that there are categories like, "Abusive Parents" and "Loudmouths" call the credibility of the site into question as well.)
posted by availablelight at 6:39 AM on January 2, 2010
There are lots of "control your online presence" articles (mashable has a lot) which give all the usual advice of creating accounts at all the big places (facebook, linkedin, twitter) and many of the small ones which are specifically directed at people looking to control what is said about them online (naymz, searchego). Has your friend followed those steps? Does she have any particularly good client-relationships where she could ask the client for recommendations on linked in, for instance? Is hers the type of business where getting rated on Angie's List would be possible?
I don't know what you can do about a single sleazy poisonpage, but you can successfully seed the search results and bury this one. Not only that, but if there are sufficient professional hits or positive hits, the poisonpage hit looks less relevant, less reliable.
This is not my area of law, just a hobby area of law, so although I spend a lot of time at lectures and reading cases and articles on the matter, I can't really give you a legal solution to it. My sense is, that at this stage in the development of business & law & society as regards the internet and poisonpages, your best bet remains digging a clean well so people ignore the poison one. It's hardly a great feeling, but if it accomplishes the task of restoring your search results, it's worth it.
posted by crush-onastick at 7:01 AM on January 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
I don't know what you can do about a single sleazy poisonpage, but you can successfully seed the search results and bury this one. Not only that, but if there are sufficient professional hits or positive hits, the poisonpage hit looks less relevant, less reliable.
This is not my area of law, just a hobby area of law, so although I spend a lot of time at lectures and reading cases and articles on the matter, I can't really give you a legal solution to it. My sense is, that at this stage in the development of business & law & society as regards the internet and poisonpages, your best bet remains digging a clean well so people ignore the poison one. It's hardly a great feeling, but if it accomplishes the task of restoring your search results, it's worth it.
posted by crush-onastick at 7:01 AM on January 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
A cursory Google search of "ripoffreport.com" confirms much of what you say in this question.
posted by dfriedman at 6:49 PM on January 1, 2010