hosting co suing for neg reviews

P

psx23.com

New member
What is this business coming to when a hosting company pursuise legal action against a former customer for posting a negative review about them? Also the hosting company doing backround checks on their former customers.
 
A) Who is doing that?

B) I believe a company has a right to pursue legal action if they believe someone's statement is incorrect and damaging to their company. As far as background checks, that sounds like part of legal process (when they get ready to go to court), companies are looking to build a case against those who they sue to damage their credibility in the eyes of court.

Best,
 
Artashes said:
A) Who is doing that?

B) I believe a company has a right to pursue legal action if they believe someone's statement is incorrect and damaging to their company. As far as background checks, that sounds like part of legal process (when they get ready to go to court), companies are looking to build a case against those who they sue to damage their credibility in the eyes of court.

Best,
Click to expand...
http://www.webhostdebate.com/showthread.php?p=3386#post3386post3386

So basicly any unhappy consumer that complains to the public can be sued. Paypal could sue www.paypalsucks.com then. Why hasnt paypal sued them? Because they cant,its freedom of speech.
 
Last edited:
That post, by you (it's obvious), does not provide evidence that the web host in question was going to sue for slander or do a background check.

Please note that in the United States, the first ammendment does not grant you a right to say whatever you want. Slander is against the law. Period.

If a person has had negative experiences, then that's one thing. Intentionally saying something that damages the reputation of another person or business is another.
 
Last edited:
I also tried to look over the exchange of posts between you and a company on two other forums that you linked to. Posting an accurate negative review is one thing (that is freedom of speech - as long as forum rules take you). Exaggerating and making false statements might have confused the hosting company, perhaps that is why they posted their responses.

If you didn't like the service, and could not resolve the problems you had, move to the next host. Now that you have already taken your points across about this host at HostingDiscussion (this is the second thread), as well as other forums, it would seem that your mission now is to simply ruin the company's reputation, at all costs.

In regard of PayPal.. How do you know they are not pursuing legal action against PayPalSucks?

Best,
 
Artashes said:
I also tried to look over the exchange of posts between you and a company on two other forums that you linked to. Posting an accurate negative review is one thing (that is freedom of speech - as long as forum rules take you). Exaggerating and making false statements might have confused the hosting company, perhaps that is why they posted their responses.

If you didn't like the service, and could not resolve the problems you had, move to the next host. Now that you have already taken your points across about this host at HostingDiscussion (this is the second thread), as well as other forums, it would seem that your mission now is to simply ruin the company's reputation, at all costs.

In regard of PayPal.. How do you know they are not pursuing legal action against PayPalSucks?

Best,
Click to expand...
I NEVER made ANY false statements against the hosting company.
I know by reading through the site at paypalsucks.com
 
psx23.com said:
Because they cant,its freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech does not cover libel.

If you tell a bunch of lies about a company, or if you make certain accusations that you can't back up then they have every right to sue.

You would think you would know this considering you claim to be an attorney on that other forum.

Somehow I really doubt that you are and attorney.
 
Last edited:
Blue said:
Freedom of speech does not cover libel.

If you tell a bunch of lies about a company, or if you make certain accusations that you can't back up then they have every right to sue.

You would think you would know this considering you claim to be an attorney on that other forum.

Somehow I really doubt that you are and attorney.
Click to expand...
I never threatened to sue anyone or made up a bunch of lies about a company. I just posted my review on the company. I also contacted the company twice to try and resolve the matter but they declined yet they continue to post about it in public forums. I guess they need publicity.
 
I would like to point out that, when it comes to libel, you have to remember, that everytime you post, in regards to this, unless you have backing facts, it will affect you negatively when/if they decide to sue.
 
ANMMark said:
I would like to point out that, when it comes to libel, you have to remember, that everytime you post, in regards to this, unless you have backing facts, it will affect you negatively when/if they decide to sue.
Click to expand...


Of course he already knows this, being a lawyer and all.
 
Blue said:
Of course he already knows this, being a lawyer and all.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Ya know, I find a lot of self-appointed lawyers popping up on the Internet recently.

It makes you wonder if these people actually know that "attorney" and "lawyer" are actually more than titles available for self appointment.
 
Just to say most hosting companies have one server and bang they think they are a webhosting company and can sue. If the reviews are not true who gives damn, post back and ask for proof problem solved.
 
If the reviews are not true who gives damn, post back and ask for proof problem solved.
Click to expand...

Problem not solved. Even if the people never give the proof requested, the review is still there, still shows up in google, and there is no proof one way or the other. It will cost the business sales, and money.
 
Sabeur said:
contact the site owner and i am sure he will be more than happy to sort the problem.
Click to expand...

Most users will not only, NOT take the time to contact the site owner, but if someone asks them, "What do you think of ABC Company?" the person who read the negative review would state, "OH! STAY AWAY! I READ A BAD REVIEW!". So then two people are effected by one negative review.

On top of that, let us say for a second that the potential client contacts the company/"site owner" about the review. What is to say the review is honest, and ABC Company is a "fly-by-night" operation, of course the owner is going to claim the review is incorrect.

You can't just bash anyone/any company and then not expect them to be able to come in to defend themselves. Wouldn't you like the opportunity to defend your company, or should we make a new rule that all complaints should be locked after the complaint is made with a Note:
Contact the owner of this site/company to verify this review. Thanks for letting us waste your time.
Click to expand...
 
I get wht u mean, but hosting companies have the right to denfend them selfs.

There shud be a rule u need to post proof ( Like Pictures of paypal billing) not txt.
 
I also thinka rule should be made, that if you post a review, good or bad, you should provide a URL (to verify nameservers), and any screenshots of proof of your claim, that you may have.

We just had a complaint here, where the user was reluctant to post any type of proof at all.

Now, after he did post proof, his credibility was still shot, because of the initial post in which he was showing his reluctancy. He even became offensive when asked for proof. Basically in the mind set that "I made a complaint. You should just trust me."

The problem is...there are so many false review, both good and bad, that not even the most honest person can be taken seriously at face value.

The general rule should be, "If you can't or won't provide proof of your claim (especially when asked to do so), don't even bother posting your review."

Not only does proof increase the credibility of the OP, but it also keeps the board respectable, and clean of unsubstantiated garbage.
 
Actually, I wish it were so easy to have this person's garbage removed from review sites. I contacted the owners of the 20 or so review sites where the person who started this thread posted, and only a handful agreed to remove the reviews. I provided links to the posts proving not only that the reviews were false, but also that the individual had a personal vendetta against me and my company.

It took a letter from my lawyers to make the guy stop. I have the ability to sue, and if he had continued, I would have. I have a huge file of evidence (everything he has posted in forums and review sites, harassing, foul, and threatening emails he sent directly to me, etc.) as well as proof that his claims were false.

Since he slandered my business on the Internet, I could have sued him in Federal Court, which would have required him to travel to this state for the trial. Fortunately the guy finally did the right thing and stopped.

So, my opinion of the review sites is not very high. Anyone can go on one of them (your competitors even) and write baloney and it will get posted to the majority of the sites. How do I know this? At the time that this guy wrote his "reviews" he did not even have a domain hosted on our servers (he was a customer for less than 24 hours), so clearly none of these sites verified anything.
 
Perhaps the company felt like the customer was being deliberately negative and producing slander or false information for no other reason but to harm the company. I think their are probably two sides to the story. Unfortunately, to many people jump to conclusions without looking into the issue first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Supporters

Back
Top