This Guy May Get Sued Over an Amazon Review

And he could lose his case, if legal history shows us anything.

National Journal
Matt Vasilogambros
May 7, 2014, 10:32 a.m.

UP­DATE: The com­pany that threatened to sue the neg­at­ive re­view­er just lost its Amazon ac­count.

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.

While there is a level of leg­al pro­tec­tion that third-party web­sites (in this case, Amazon) have from be­ing sued, which come from Sec­tion 230 of the Com­mu­nic­a­tions De­cency Act — the same sec­tion that pro­tects web­sites that show re­venge porn — the au­thors of those re­views are not pro­tec­ted. 

Neither the let­ter nor the user can be con­firmed. Still, this isn’t the first time that someone has taken leg­al heat for on­line re­views.

In 2012, a Vir­gin­ia court sided with a con­tract­or who re­ceived a neg­at­ive re­view from a wo­man on Yelp, claim­ing de­fam­a­tion. The wo­man who wrote the re­view said the ser­vice was poor and ac­cused the con­tract­or of steal­ing her jew­elry. She was sued for $750,000.

In 2011, a book au­thor sued a man, though un­suc­cess­fully, who wrote neg­at­ive re­views about his book on Amazon. And in 2006, a wo­man in Flor­ida won $11.3 mil­lion in a law­suit res­ult­ing from de­fam­at­ory re­marks on an In­ter­net mes­sage board.

So while Amazon states in its terms of use that sellers “may not ask buy­ers to re­move neg­at­ive re­views,” these com­pan­ies do have leg­al pro­tec­tions to go after com­ments they may deem li­belous.

While the In­ter­net al­lows users a cer­tain amount of an­onym­ity be­hind re­views on Amazon or Yelp — where a neg­at­ive or pos­it­ive re­view can de­term­ine a com­pany’s suc­cess — there is still a danger that com­pan­ies will take leg­al ac­tion against these re­views. For this Flor­ida man, his gripes with this com­pany will only grow.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4934) }}

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
35 minutes ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×