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 »
Warren Goes After Trump Yet Again
9 hours ago

When it comes to name-calling among America's upper echelon of politicians, there may be perhaps no greater spat than the one currently going on between Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump. While receiving an award Tuesday night, she continued a months-long feud with the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. Calling him a "small, insecure moneygrubber" who probably doesn't know three things about Dodd-Frank, she said he "will NEVER be president of the United States," according to her prepared remarks."We don't know what Trump pays in taxes because he is the first presidential nominee in 40 years to refuse to disclose his tax returns. Maybe he’s just a lousy businessman who doesn’t want you to find out that he’s worth a lot less money than he claims." It follows a long-line of Warren attacks over Twitter, Facebook and in interviews that Trump is a sexist, racist, narcissistic loser. In reply, Trump has called Warren either "goofy" or "the Indian"—referring to her controversial assertion of her Native American heritage. 

Congress Passes Chemical Regulations Overhaul
11 hours ago

The House on Tuesday voted 403-12 "to pass an overhaul to the nation’s chemical safety standards for the first time in four decades. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act aims to answer years of complaints that the Environmental Protection Agency lacks the necessary authority to oversee and control the thousands of chemicals being produced and sold in the United States. It also significantly clamps down on states’ authorities, in an effort to stop a nationwide patchwork of chemical laws that industry says is difficult to deal with."

Kasich Tells His Delegates to Remain Pledged to Him
14 hours ago

Citing the unpredictable nature of this primary season and the possible leverage they could bring at the convention, John Kasich is hanging onto his 161 delegates. "Kasich sent personal letters Monday to Republican officials in the 16 states and the District of Columbia where he won delegates, requesting that they stay bound to him in accordance with party rules."

Sanders Wants a Recount in Kentucky
16 hours ago

Bernie Sanders "signed a letter Tuesday morning requesting a full and complete check and recanvass of the election results in Kentucky ... where he trails Hillary Clinton by less than one-half of 1 percent of the vote. The Sanders campaign said it has asked the Kentucky secretary of state to have election officials review electronic voting machines and absentee ballots from last week's primary in each of the state's 120 counties.

McAuliffe Under Investigation for Fundraising
19 hours ago

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) “is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and … the Justice Department” for potentially improper contributions to his 2013 campaign, including while he was a Clinton Global Initiative board member. ... Among the McAuliffe donations that drew the interest of the investigators was $120,000 from” former Chinese legislator Wang Wenliang. “U.S. election law prohibits foreign nationals from donating to … elections. … But Wang holds U.S. permanent resident status.”