apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

how then does amazon or similar stores have "review" features if it isn't legal? seems like a stretch to me.

and here's a big BOO to stores more willing to file lawsuits than improve customer service!

while i understand not wanting to publicize the stores behind the lawsuits, i do think that taking legal action turns a private matter into a public one, and so those stores should be grateful for your act of generosity. if they actually had balls, they would post their lawsuits and any other arguments right here, on the website.

As far as I know, expressing opinions such as this ______ brand couch hurts my back is COMPLETELY LEGAL. It is accusatory statements, such as, "this store ripped me off," that are considered libel. I think if you have a disclosure statement that your attorneys can write up and put in (very small) print somewhere on your site, absolves you of any liability.

what complete nonsense. this can be added to the ever-growing list of why i loathe lawyers.

Maxwell-- Please let us all know if there is anything we can do for you. These claims are obviously without merit, and I hope you are able to go on the offensive with them as well for their harassment and abuse of process.

ps: you should absolutely post the names of the stores.... it's going to be a matter of public record soon anyway. why not expose these jerks for what they are?

How does a site like Epinions, whose entire premise is rating products/stores, deal with it? Ridiculous, and I'd love to know the stores to ensure that I don't patronize them ever in my lifetime.

Wow. They're going to have to take their cause farther than Apartment Therapy. What will they do with comments on Citysearch, Yelp, etc.?! User comments display the power of the web and stores and brands should, and can, use these comments to better their service and relationship with their customers. I've seen two brands respond to negative posts on this site. One did so with dignity, pride in their product and concern for the customers, offered a return method and apologized. . .came out looking like a hero. The other slammed the user for their negative comments and denied the problem with their product. They looked completely foolish.

I think refusing to name the stores that have threatened legal action is an act of cowardice on the part of AT. While I realise that you don't want to have to deal with potential further issues, the AT audience will have a lot of interest in knowing what businesses are so afraid of negative reviews (i.e. they expect no positive reviews to balance them, so they're definitely in need of avoidance). There is nothing illegal about having review comments on your site and there is certainly nothing illegal about saying "this company has sent us a lawsuit" as by taking someone to court, you are making an issue a matter of public record (unless the court deems there is some reason to seal the records, which seems unlikely in this situation).

I work in marketing, and my firm encourages all of our clients to embrace online customer reviews. Many studies have shown that when researching a company or retailer, consumers check out Internet reviews, and such reviews - regardless of whether they are positive or negative!! - increase a consumer's trust in a company/retailer and bring about an immediate rise in the company's profits.

Across the board, companies see their profits immediately rise after publishing truthful customer reviews on their site, and a similar effect occurs when the company is reviewed on sites like Yelp and Apartment Therapy. Though it seems counter-intuitive, some negative reviews are better (for the company's profits and trust) than no reviews at all.

Thus, the ire that AT has attracted is completely misplaced. As other commentators have noted, libel does not even enter the picture.

The good news is that these companies do not have a case in any way, shape or form. Any lawyer worth his salt would probably be able to draft a response that can work for cases such as these and can be deployed with relatively little effort.

When large retailers/companies and bulldog legal teams attack little guys like AT and Consumerist, they are banking on the intimidation factor. A calm, reasoned response will probably go a long way to shut them up.

Also, I bet a kind lawyer (they exist!!) would be willing to do some pro bono work for AT. Just a thought, if AT does not have quality representation already.

Good luck :)

I mean, have they never searched the internet...there are reviews of stores everywhere...the reviews are extremely useful...even if a store has a bad review, it doesn't mean that you wouldn't shop there...this is nonsense...but well handled on AT's part...

Maxwell - Consumer Reports [Consumers Union] has dozens of years experience with what you are facing. I would suggest reaching out to someone on their staff who can advise you on responding to threats against consumer-based reviewing of products/vendors. They could be very helpful both to you and to your legal representation. Good luck. Your readers truly appreciate the AT sites.

I would like to also say that I feel that AT is handing there situations very well and very professionally. Like mamacita said, if there is anything we can do to help, let us know.

WTF? Freedom of speech!

A plea to any reader/bloggers who are licensed to practice law in New York: can you contact AP and form an AP legal committee to specifically fend of these attacks and other clearly harassing parties without a real case? You are a part of our group who can help where no one else can. I know how much this site means to me. I assume it means this to you too. Being an American citizen, I resent anyone using harassment tactics to impede my Freedom of Speech. Call me silly, but I'm thinking some of you are patriots that way too.

The problem is AP cannot afford the time and money to hire lawyers to deal with this harassment. When someone brings charges (including frivolis ones), they require court appearances and the hiring of a lawyer: time and money. Can't your firm cough up a little bit of pro-bono for this civil rights cause?

Perhaps (only for frivolous crap of this nature) you could pick the cases of AP community members who are being picked on by the big guys too? I cannot imagine why AP would not want to thank your firm publicly for so generously going to bat for the community. However, that is their call.

Also, I want to know who these lousy corporate swine are. I want AP to be in a position to tell us who would stoop so low.

AT, is it true that as Cate says you don't have lawyers helping you with this?

How do sites like Consumerist handle the problem? Well, from being a regular reader there, I can report the following observations:

They name the companies threatening legal action.
They name the lawyers making the threats.
They publish the threatening letters from the lawyers or company reps.
They publish their own legal counsel's snarky rejoinder.
We all have a merry time in the comments section chortling about it.

Now, do you have actual lawsuits on your hands, or do you just have a bunch of overpaid bloviators threatening such?

How can we do a search for lawsuits that have been filed? Is there a website. I assume the suits are on a state level. I really want to know who these weasels are.

i just know that the guy who owns mxyplyzk is one of the plaintiffs.

I'm not a lawyer, but I thought that to be libel or slander, a statement or claim must be provably false. And that most libel or slander suits are won by the defendants for this reason. And that the First Amendment also doesn't do much on behalf of claimants.

So I wonder why a business would be so witless as to get into such a lawsuit anyway?

If I were a lawyer, I'd work pro bono for AT in a heartbeat whenever such idiot lawsuits came along. . .

I work for a blog in New Jersey (baristanet.com). We have a section where restaurants can be reviewed and oh boy, sometimes these restaurant owners just hate being listed on our page, since anyone can leave a negative comment if they'd like. These people need to learn to take criticism, bad customer service is what leads to bad reviews, maybe they should work on fixing how they treat customers instead of ruining their reputation even more by complaining about the comments.

One thing to keep in mind is that not mentioning the names of those threatening a lawsuit is not an act of cowardice, but simply not the right time as the lawsuit is pending and therefore not wanting to tamper with the potential outcome of the case, once the case has been put to court and the results known, then by all means.

Just my thought on this and it's sad that people who do services such as this here on AT have to, on occasion deal with stuff like this.

My best guess is these people will eventually get their commupance, if not now, eventually.

Does anyone know what the legal precedent is for something like this? I mean, not only is there epinions and yelp and other web site ratings, but anyone with a myspace, facebook, livejournal, and any other kind of blog can put this kind of information on the internet. And what if you just email friends and they email their friends?

I had a horrible experience with a PC company, and afterwards discovered many web sites devoted to their bad service, and the very ununiqueness of my experience. It just seems there is so little recourse for consumers these days, at least the internet allows a way to share information that allows for some kind of protection (or at least an idea of what you're getting into).

If they don't like negative remarks about thier store, why don't they try to not suck as much?

Honestly, this is the next best thing to a bunch of people sitting around talking about a hobby they all enjoy. The whole word or mouth principle has been around since Adam and if they have a problem with it, they should make all thier customers sign a document forbidding them to discuss thier experiences at the store.

That's like when food critics or movie critics don't like a particular food or movie, no one sues them for crying out loud! This is absurd and when it gets thrown out of court for wasting tax payer's time, I hope you all publish the names of the stores and and email address to thier stores.

Post the lawyers letters! We definitely would like to know who not to give our hard earned dollars too!

That said how dumb are these companies, drawing more attention to their poor customer service. A friend who owns a restaurant I regularly eat at asked me to post something on citysearch after someone posted an overly negative review. What I posted was a true account of my experiences, to provide a balanced view (as a result I am slightly sceptical of any positive review on citysearch!). Before y'all get stuck in I should say that I was confident that the negative commenters experience was not common in this restaurant.

It says a lot that a company chooses to spend their efforts on legally pursuing bad press instead of improving their service, and letting the good press follow..

Here's the deal - it may not be slanderous language etc but that is the decision of the court system. The goal here is for these furniture companies to hassle sites like AT or individuals with lawsuits that require a response - and thus a lawyer and money - to react to.

Too many lawsuits = too much money = no more AT. Every instance can be several thousand dollars, even unjustified instances.

Where is the "Lawsuit Fund" DONATE button?

This sounds a bit ridiculous. So ridiculous that it doesn't seem like it's worth the time. Why is it that now, all of a sudden, you get an onslaught of lawsuits? Seems like a little more than a coincidence. It also seems like something that doesn't actually require a lawyer. Obviously, having a legal professional to advise you and the childish lawsuits is wise, but if it's costing you too much money why not a.) ask among friends if anyone has a friend of a friend who happens to be a legal type wishing to do some resume building work or b.) just show up on the court date (if there is one) and defend yourself. I know it sounds risky to do, but really? There isn't any ACTUAL case here. Unless, of course, there's a little tid-bit of info that you're not mentioning. :)

I think, given joeq's comment, that eventually the names of the shops will out, if only to protect the (perhaps surly and rude but otherwise) innocent.

if not, everyone will be guessing who it could be...

It may be "ridiculous", but if you don't fight a lawsuit because it's "ridiculous", a default judgment could be entered against you. I think AT may have become rather too valuable to take that risk.

Besides, if this thing is in court, I'm guessing that AT has counsel (whether volunteer or paid) because I'm pretty sure that in NY, a corporation needs to be represented by a lawyer.

And lawyers don't sue people, folks. People sue people. let's hear one for all the good jurists out there! (and boo to all the thin-skinned design shop owners with bad service!)

I, for one, am a commenter. Not only here, but on Yelp, CitySearch, Perez (I never say First!!), NYT, ParkAvenuePeereage, whatever. I love to read what others have to say about the same things I'm reading/seeing/etc. I guess it started with the letters to the editor section of Vanity Fair. There was some goood shit in those, back in the day.

I have chosen my hairstylist, wine bars, laundromats, restaurants, stores, etc. etc etc. based entirley on comments. In fact, these days I wouldn't dream of using a company without doing the due-diligence of researching said company.

When someone leaves a negative comment and the owner of the business replies, publically, and makes it right, I am thrilled to give that company my business. To me it shows they care, they are seeking out the opinions of the masses and responding with change. Bravo! You win my business.

I'm stunned that lawyers would even consider this as a potential lawsuit in light of the fact that there are so many other sites that are DEDICATED to the unwashed mass's opinions...I mean, WTF?

The businesses that obviously have so much money to burn that they can afford frivolous lawsuits at the same time they don't WANT our business must be mobbed up. Who else can afford such idiocy?

Interesting.

I have read many reviews on this site - good and bad. I hired Rabbit Movers after reading both positive and negative reviews.

I just purchased a bed from a high end furniture store here in New York (I'm afraid of saying the name in case it happens to be suing AT!) after reading negative reviews on this site (some readers said the products crack and the company doesn't replace the items).

Anyway, my point is that negative reviews aren't necessarily detrimental to a business.

Sounds like a waste of time and money on their part.

I have seen customers get pretty nasty sometimes though. Restaurant reviews can be brutal, sometimes concocted by rivals on anonymous comment sites. But free speech is free speech.

So I'm confused, lawyers know this better than anyone. I guess they must continue firing shots into the system with hopes that they will find a way to muzzle negative comments.
But that's expensive for an "old school" operation. Maybe not for a major international chain with in-house lawyers, etc. Maybe it's just getting too expensive for stores to do business by word of mouth in a major city and they believe they can't not afford to fight for their "reputation."

I also can't help but wonder if there must be more to the stories of individuals being tracked down in their own homes. Just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe this is routine for many companies now in the world of the internet, "let's put some fear into these comment sites, hopefully that will curb their negative comments." But you can't have positive comments without the negative comments whether they be voiced on the internet or at a coffee shop. All comments are "word of mouth" advertising. So do they really rely on word of mouth or simply name recognition.

THEY CAN PISS OFF! and yes, please do post the stores' names! :-p

Please post the names of the companies that are filing a suit against you. I would hate to purchase anything from a company that would sue AT - even if it was just privately emailed and not posted on the site.

And the moment there is something we as readers can do let us know!

If any store refutes negative comments on this site, they should respond to their side of the story. How easy is that?
Offer an apology. Everyone understands no one is 100% perfect. These lawsuits proof how these companies do business. They would rather be adversarial than try to improve their customer relations.
Apartment Therapy does not foster hostile or negative comments. It's a fair and open forum for opinions. I can say this, I never use a service or shop at a store that gets negative reviews on this site or other forums. It's what we call research. It's just plain smart.
I challenge these stores to step up and explain themselves because they will surely find out they can not control the internet and freedom of speech. They can improve their image.

This is a shame. A store that receives negative reviews ought to put that time/energy/money/staff into improving service or product so to avoid further negative reviews. This isn't new: I have seen health discussion groups avoid posting specific doctors' names, for positive or negative reviews, for fear of lawsuits. Like other posters said, I'd be interested in knowing which stores are involved.

Personally, I would do what the Consumerist does and publicly shame the companies. There is no legal reason not to, no matter what they may say in their letters. It is not libel to post the letter you received from them or tell the community who is suing you (after all, libel requires the claim to be demonstratively false), and any harshly-worded language about confidentiality or something similar that would preclude you from sharing info is not legally enforceable.


It's too bad stores feel that bringing meritless cases against AT is really the best way to combat a negative reputation. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides strong protection against liability for Internet "intermediaries" who provide or republish speech by others. I'd guess that a letter from your legal counsel would be enough to get this to go away, but just remember, DON'T BACK DOWN, you are completely in the clear here. The EFF has lots of good resources about bloggers' rights, including a Sec. 230 FAQ that seems to be down right now (cached version here) and a more general defamation FAQ.

Good luck! I wish I could do more to help! Any way to donate to an AT legal fund? :)

By not publishing the name of the parties involved, even though it will shortly be a matter of public record, you are already acquiescing to the hardball tactics of those who wish to silence you. Your silence won't make them go away - it only makes them stronger.

Simply publish the complaint in its entirety. Without comment. And let them face the consequences of their actions.

Well, thanks, Joeq, for maligning my profession. It's funny how the lawyers suing are the "bad guys," and the lawyers helping are the "good guys." Bit of a logical disconnect there, huh?

Anyway. I am licensed in NJ and DC, not NY, so nothing I say here can be taken as legal advice, get your own attorney, don't rely on anything I say, etc etc, ad nauseum.

Basically, even if the suit is meritless, it can still be brought in court. It doesn't really matter if a suit is meritless because that will all eventually be sorted out -- but the ability to bring a meritless suit against a "little guy" does cause problems, like the ones we see here. AT presumably doesn't have the money to fend off a big lawsuit, so maybe they would be persuaded to take down the offending negative reviews in exchange for the plaintiff to drop the lawsuit.

I think it's admirable that AT is sticking to its guns, but since lawsuits are matters of public record, I don't see why AT doesn't publish the name of the companies suing. Nevertheless, AT can't really be held liable for things that other people write on their website about a certain product, especially if those things are TRUE.

If anyone at AT would like a recommendation for a lawyer in NYC, please let me know; I would be happy to make a referral.

mskilgore,

at the risk of hijacking this thread and taking it way off track, let me just say that your esteemed colleagues have done much more to malign your profession than i could ever possibly do by posting a comment on a home design messageboard!

>>I think it's admirable that AT is sticking to its guns, but since lawsuits are matters of public record, I don't see why AT doesn't publish the name of the companies suing.

I say post them. I feel like not allowing your readers to know who is threatening AT, is a sign you are already caving to their pressure. I realize AT may not want to exacerbate the situation but I feel it's even more of a terrible disservice to your loyal readers who I am sure would be more than willing to donate any time, money and information to this sort of injustice they could offer. Readers who would not want to support any store or company that can not handle criticism rationally and instead try to muffle our voices through legal bullying.

I think the post is very well-written, and so very thorough that it makes me sad as I imagine it having to have been worked on WITH the help of a lawyer.

Although I really hate that this has happened to AT and to some of its posters, I actually feel sorrier for the person who owns a store and gives bad service, and gets called on it, and gets defensive at bad reviews instead of improving on it, and gets litigious because THAT person probably has a much bigger problem that might never end up being addressed.

http://www.petsforum.com/psw/Fund.htm
http://www.petsforum.com/psw/

Most people had to settle.