PetsWarehouse vs. Mailing List

klaun writes "Salon is running a story about a federal suit against members of an Internet mailing list. Seems a company got a bad review on the list and the owner sued the person that said it and everyone who agreed. But the case grew bigger from there, including a suit against the legal defense fund set up to support members of the list being sued and anyone who linked to the defense fund. The ultimate rub of it all is that it basically worked. Most of the defendants have settled." This is a truly bizarre story.

I don't know

[Sc00ter]

Sounds fishy to me... (phun intended). But seriously, if I got a quote of $7 for shipping, and they charged me $18, I'd just call the credit card company and refuse to pay. What this guy is saying could be a lot of bull, if he can back up his claims, then I don't see what they can do to him. My guess is that he made it up, and that's not legal, you can't go around saying such and such company ripped you off when they didn't. That's probably why people are settling.

It worked because.....

[www.sorehands.com]

It worked because people didn't stand up and fight.

New York has an anti-SLAPP [casp.net] statute. I wonder why this was not used to kick out the case.

Some of these fights have to be taken and some of these SLAPPERs [barbieslapp.com] have to be hit with large enough damages to make others think long and hard before bringing another SLAPP [sorehands.com] action.

History repeats itself

[Ali Jenab]

A number of years ago, when I was just getting into the digirati, Oracle filed lawsuits against several members of a DBA discussion group because they were posting less-than-glowing reviews of their database software. Since these victims were highly-paid professionals, not just a bunch of whiny kids (as in the PetsWarehouse case), they had the resources to fight Oracle in court. What happened next was a victory for free speech on the Net and for American justice: every single case Oracle filed against the users was summarily dismissed, and the 4-5 defendants who countersued Oracle received several hundred thousand dollars in punitive damages - more than enough to cover their legal bills and buy themselves something nice.

The moral of the story here is that giving up on what you believe in gets you nowhere. If you cave in to corporate pressure, you will lose your money, your good name, and your credit rating when you settle out of court. If you stand up for your rights when you know you're correct, justice will prevail and you will know you've made a difference for netizens everywhere. What would you rather be - a victorious hero or an unprincipled loser? Don't answer here - save your response for the judge.

/ali

PetSwearhouse not PetWarehouse

[MikeyO]

Please note that we are talking about PetSwarehouse.com [petswarehouse.com] which is not affiliated with PetWarehouse.com [petwarehouse.com] which is a respectable business.

Not the first time

[zentec]

I've seen this argument from Pets Warehouse on various mailing lists when I kept salt water fish.

His own actions have caused him more problems than one customer complaint.

Re:I don't know

[grattwood]

The defendants are settling because the owner of petswarehouse is defending himself, and filing lawsuits is his "hobby". Also, most (all?) of the defendants are out of state and had to hire a NY lawyer. When you are right, but it would cost you $50,000 to prove it and the plaintaif is basically sueing you for free...

well settling looks good after a while.

It's federal...

[sterno]

From the lead in it said that it was a lawsuit filed in federal court, thus New York's anti-SLAPP statutes would not be applicable (to the best of my knowledge).

Again?

[slipkid]

This isn't the first time this has happened. Seems that anytime someone posts in the negative regarding a company, the crap almost immediately hits the fan. In fact, not too awfully long ago, we saw this story [slashdot.org] in which 2600 was threatened for trying to register the domain name verizonreallysucks.com.

I also seem to remember AOL instituting a policy some time ago restricting AOL-hosted websites and chat rooms from having any anti-AOL sentiments published... And what about those who have been unfortunate enough to raise the ire of the Scientologists?

Sad that having negative feelings about a group or corporation means having to spend one's life savings defending oneself in court.

Original Message that started the whole thing...

[neo]

In case it get's S'dotted.

Thinking of buying plants from Pet Warehouse? Don't.

Actually the plants I received were average to maybe a bit below
average, but they'll pull through in my tank. What is crappy is their
service! And they're maybe even a bit dishonest.

Way back in the beginning of April (April 10th to be exact) I was
seduced by the huge list of plants for sale on their web site. I
ordered 4 types of plants, all quite common. Though it states on their
web site that they directly import their plants, I didn't realize that
they'd import the plants you ordered *after* you placed your order! Or
at least that's the way it seemed ...

I received my order today, May 15th. It only took them 4.5 weeks. And
this is after 6 phone calls. Twice they promised they'd be shipped on
a certain date, then nada. And dealing with them on the phone is,
well, let's just say they stick to their pat answers and work very
hard at getting you off the phone as quickly as possible. My 6th call
was last week, and when they realized I was calling about a plant
order they proclaimed "They will be shipped on Monday". Click. And I
didn't even give them my name or order number! Maybe *all* orders
finally went out on Monday?

There was never a "sorry for the delay" or any sign whatsoever that I
was the valued customer and they were the business providing a product
that I was paying for.

Though I found all of this very annoying, it wasn't what annoyed me
the most. On my order confirmation I was quoted a shipping price of
$7.50. Nice ... it was one of the selling points for me. Then the
order arrived complete with an invoice stating that shipping was
$18.50! When I called them today to straighten this out, they
informed me that the original quote was wrong and that I was stuck
with the $18.50. Again, no "sorry for the mixup" or any indication
that they would fix the problem (with the web site and order
confirmation system).

Another hassle - their shipments *require* a signature. I quote their
email notice telling me the plants had been shipped: "You must be home
to sign for it. We guarantee live arrival if the order is accepted on
the first delivery attempt." Yikes. This was the first I knew of this
policy. So I actually had to take a half day off work in order to be
there to receive the order! These plants are getting *very* expensive.

The whole organization has the feel of someone who started yesterday
out of your neighbors garage. It even sounds that way when you talk to
them on the phone.

Maybe I expect too much?

Though I have a few gripes about Arizona Aquatics as well, they're
light years ahead of this outfit as far as service.

As always, your mileage may vary.

dan
--

Digging a little further ... new article on Novak

[pgrote]

From the Long Island Business News ...

http://www.libn.com/Column_details.cfm?ID=1249

"Novak, meanwhile, said he has further legal targets. One is the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan New York. The BBB gives Pets Warehouse an "unsatisfactory rating," the organization's lowest. Novak said some of the complaints were from another business that licensed the Pets Warehouse name and that he didn't get adequate opportunity to respond. "

Shoot for the stars ...

Re:I don't know

[cameroncase]

Actually, that isn't exactly what happened. On that list there is a long time trend of getting advice on where to shop (think about it, there aren't that many places to buy aquatic plants...tiny hobbie). One guy offered his opinion. Dozens more chimed in with similar stories (not just "me too"). One guy's complaint was overcharged shipping, but there were many others (including delayed shipping running into the multiple weeks, dead plants upon arrival, etc). There are just too many people that agreed for me to think he made it up. Plus, check the history of the case. The plaintiff continuously adds people each time someone says something negative about this their experiences, or even about the suit. My favorite part? Two of the defendants are John Doe and Mary Roe (in essence anyone else from the APD that he decides to add). More confusion is that he has claimed, in another article [libn.com] that filing suits is his "hobby." He also admits that the court is five miles from him, so it is a short drive, while each defendant has to pay for a plane ticket and motel to appear in court. The guy enjoys this. Read some of the amended complaints he has written, some are funny, most are sad, and generally all are poorly written. Why? Oh, he's representing himself. Wait, you say, how can a non-lawyer represent a corporation (Pets Warehouse Inc.)? Well, it can't, but he is doing it anyway. As soon as they sort out whether or not his company is incorporated or a sole-proprietorship maybe this will go away (if is is INC as he says, he can't represent it). For more information (and trust me, this is more about free speech and the internet than it is about plants or aquariums) here are some sites: Forum for the suits discussion (generally pro defendants) [compuserve.com] Forum hosted by the plaintiff (he has a habit of deleting messages, and blocking posters, as is his right, but be aware it will only have ONE side) [petswarehouse.com] The defense fund's web site [thedefensefund.com] A collection of court documents hosted by the lawyer in charge of the fund [petsforum.com] And, finally, to archives of the original messages, so you can read it yourself, and see what REALLY happened [actwin.com]

Here's the message that started this all:

[MikeyO]

Unfortunately much of this discussion has been deleted from the list archives, but here is the not that started it all:

Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:06:02 -0700
From ...snip...
Since others have decided to vent:)

> Subject: Another Pets Warehouse UNsatisfied customer (long)
>
> Well, Dan's not the only one they got. Normally, I hate to vent, but it's
> neccessary in this case.

I think I have the record with these nit wits. I've talked to Bob Novak
several times etc(the owner). This guy named "Ed, yea I'll call you back". A
number of years back they did have a person that could do the job well,
Donna. But they drove her off fast. I've been through some 5 or more order
folks there now. There will not be a 6th. That was the only person that ever
got a single thing ever worth mentioning done in the plant area regarding
service. Also the only one that gave decent service, owner included.
They claim to fill 90% of the orders.

Well I can tell everyone it's more like 20%. Or less. If it at all.
I've been extremely fair and patient far beyond anything I've ever seen
posted here by anyone on the APD or other boards. I order from them every 2
weeks for about 2 years(6-8 months is one thing with certain plants due to
the wholsalers etc). I gave up awhile back. Never got but one so so order in
that entire time. Ed said "I'll call you/email you etc if he gets something
in etc". Never ever once. Didn't matter if you order 300$ worth of plants or
25$ worth of plants, every sized order is ignored equally. I understand some
weeks you might not have any/much order to place a plant order overseas etc.
So I kept re ordering. This seemed to bug them even more. This part, myself
knowing the trade and industry to some degree, am very understanding on. I
mentioned that and they mentioned it to me about this issue. But two years
of not getting certain plants and orders is just plain BS no matter how you
look at it/size it up from their end. The high shipping cost are a complete
joke.

But it seems like a LFS that's trying to get into MO with no concept of the
expectations and needs of this different type of internet business. They are
failing terribly in this area. And certainly the customer is last, rather
than first. They act like it's a hassle and that they are going to do it
when they want to and they are going to over charge and charge extra for the
trouble.

For me this is not about the cost of extra shipping etc, I don't care so
much about the $. It's about being able to simply get the plants. Most folks
care about the $ much more than I do and are not nearly as
patient/understanding about this issue. They also should not have to be,
they are the customer who pays their bills but they act like they are doing
you a favor. It's one thing if it's a mistake one or two time or even three
times, but many years and 5 different service employees??
They get ...snip...'s official:

Worse service award of any plant MO place.

And they deserve every bit of it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Regards,
...snip...

More links to primary source info on lawsuit

[Seth Finkelstein]

Primary source information about the lawsuit can be found at:
http://www.aquaria.net/lawsuit.html [aquaria.net]

And the archive of the infamous mailing list is at:
http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/index.php [actwin.com]

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

Post in their forums

[cemcnulty]

Go here:
http://www.petswarehouse.com/cgi-bin/ubb/Ul timateb b.cgi

and let their forum posters know about their practices, or at least tell them about the Salon article so that they can read it themselves. Post in a forum for whatever pet you have.

-Chuck

Pets Warehouse has also threatened to sue the BBB

[Anonymous Coward]

A few weeks back I sent Pets Warehouse a letter condemning their decision to file a $15 mil. suit on a group of vocal dissatisfied customers. In the letter, I brought up Pets Warehouse's unsatisfactory rating by the Better Business Bureau.

In their response to me, the email began with the line:

"We're suing the BBB too!"

Re:I don't know

[bitchx]

The suing individual regularly posts to usenet and to the mailing lists. Here are some messages [google.com] you can look at to evaluate his behavior. Or, read the article [libn.com] where he talks about his suing "hobby.". The mail to the list [actwin.com] where he calls a defendant a bum and teases people with "PS: any monies collected will be the subject of a cause of action to have those monies turned over to the Plaintiff--Give generously." is probably the best.

Hope that helps your evaluation of the plantiff. Most people get lawyers to sue. This plantiff did not. Most people don't talk about a suit in progress. Certainly, they don't try to browbeat the defendant without lawyers present. What do you think now?

Re:It worked because.....

[cameroncase]

Here is a quote from a lawyer regarding NY anti-SLAPP "Besides myself a couple of other attorneys have also looked at the New York statute. It is limited in what it applies to. For the most part the protected comments must have occurred before government entities." That means its no good in this case. NY doesn't have a _REAL_ anit-SLAPP law, not like CA.

Re:watch out /.

[CuriousKangaroo]

The problem is that, although frivolous suits will likely lose in court, in many cases the defendants are unable to pay to defend themselves. The plaintiff has the time and money, and the defendants don't, so they are forced to settle, even if their chances of winning in court are high. THIS kind of thing needs to be stopped. Some proposed recommendations involve all sorts of fines against the party that brought the case if it is determined to be frivolous (plus paying the defense legal fees), but the problem is that the defense still needs to money to get to that point. Deterrents like this stop lawsuits where the plaintiff KNOWS it is frivolous, not lawsuits where the plaintiff really believes.

Unless this stops, it could be MS vs /. or.....

[cybrthng]

People have a right to freedom of speech. I have voiced my complaints many times against crappy vendors, crappy banks, crappy stores and crappy products.

But what would happen if this dude continues to win, setting precendences for companies like Microsoft to sue slashdot for example on how slashdot user continue to bash windows/microsoft products.

I use DSLreports constantly to express my opinions of products from routers to broadband service and i KNOW it can get nasty on there. What would happen of COmcast sued dslreports and everyone on there? What if lucent got sick of hearling complaints about companies products or services and did the same?

Heck EPINIONS.COM does a fantastic job keeping the consumer aware of products and scams, we should go rate this company on epinions.com as a horrible company to do business with.

My list of companies to stay away from is.

1. Cross country bank
2. Verizon
3. Southwestern Bell
4. Apex collections.
5. Blockbuster (music/video/whatever.. they all steal)

Consumers have a right to now, and freedom of speech even includes the ability to bitch about something.

Aren't we still human anymore?

Re:But the people can do this, too

[jamesmartinluther]

Some business partners and I had a contractual disagreement with a company several years ago (they mistakenly thought that they did not have to pay for some work that we did for them). After several collections attempts, we decided to take the matter to small claims.

We did not make use of a lawyer, even though we were facing a moderately large company. Amazingly, they failed to appear (perhaps they did not take us seriously) and the judge awarded the full amount to us.

It works.

Re:Osteichtheis Stinkus

[Robert Crawford]

Basically, The Plaintiff's goal is to cost the defendants as much money as possible while spending the least possible. He represents himself (something he may not be able to do), and lives five miles from the court house; the defendants (mostly) live in other states and have to hire an attorney who's able to represent them in that specific court.

Re:Digging a little further ... new article on Nov

[Kintanon]

OMG, does he have ANY idea what the BBB does to business that fuck with them?! He's going to get blasted to hell and back. If he thinks 'Unsatisfactory' is the worst they can do he's in for a nasty surprise. This sleezy antique dealership near lexington complained about the BBB after they got a poor rating because half of their merchandise was bootleg. The BBB had them shut down within 2 weeks. It was killer.

Kintanon

Re:Quoting Novak Himself

[Robert Crawford]

Check out www.chillingeffects.org [chillingeffects.org]; they have some great FAQs on the subject. In a nutshell, companies have to prove you both intentionally lied and did so with malice.

Unfortunately, The Plaintiff only has to file his suit to drain your pockets.

Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism

[KernelHappy]

I have a better idea. Write your local news agency and tell them about this. I have already reported the story to my local news channel (who just happens to cover Long Island) and told them about this story.

Its important that the largest audience is exposed to this story and sees just one of the many ways that others try to impinge our right to free speech.

If you do submit the story to your local news include the following links:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/04/145923 5&mode=nested&tid=153&threshold=1

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/04/04/aquat ic_plants/index1.html

http://www.libn.com/Column_details.cfm?ID=1249

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

If enough of us raise this issue maybe we can get more new coverage raising public awareness.

Re:Post something on their messages board.

[martissimo]

actually a better place to post would be the board i found here [compuserve.com] it seems that some of the people involved in the case post there, and so does Mr Novak himself (under the name Jack).

You will still be communicating with the people involved in the case, just not on a censored board ran by Mr Novak.

Re:History repeats itself

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

If you cave in to corporate pressure, you will lose your money, your good name, and your credit rating when you settle out of court.

Very few people know just how bad it is for your credit rating to lose or settle a lawsuit against you. It basically destroys it - if you cave in to or lose a lawsuit then nobody will loan you ANYTHING - you probably will have trouble getting an apartment, non-pre-paid cell phone or even a job or insurance.

If you cave in you might not lose that much money - but you'll lose everything else. People won't trust you - they'll think you must've been at fault to some degree.

Heck you are better off representing yourself if it truly is frivolous - at least you have a chance at not having your life ruined - if you settle, kiss having a decent life goodbye forever.

Of course, the DeCSS case proves that even people who are innocent (the judge ignored fair use, the US Constitution, and all the exemptions listed in the DMCA itself) can and sometimes do lose, even when they do have good lawyers. And if you lose, you will be required to pay damages and sometimes even be required to pay for the court and/or the plaintiff's lawyers. This is just like in some countries where when someone is executed, the family is billed for the cost of the bullets that were shot into his/her head.

Re:It's federal...

[DavidBrown]

Actually federal courts apply state law all the time. Federal courts are supposed to apply the substantive (ie, not procedureal) laws of the forum state. There may be some choice of law issues here that could prevent application of the NY Anti-SLAPP law, but it is certainly could have been raised in federal court.

Re:the bbb

[elbuddha]

Actually according to this [libn.com] article at the Long Island Business News, Mr. Novak has stated that he intends to target the BBB with legal action as well.

• Novak, meanwhile, said he has further legal targets. One is the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan New York. The BBB gives Pets Warehouse an "unsatisfactory rating," the organization's lowest.

Homeowner's Insurance and Libel

[emad]

From what I understand, a number of homeowner's insurance policies provide coverage for slander and libel lawsuits.

quoting http://www.iii.org/individuals/homei/hbasics/whati sin/ [iii.org]

"You can purchase an umbrella or excess liability policy which provides broader coverage, including claims against you for libel and slander, as well as higher liability limits. Generally, umbrella policies cost between $200 to $350 for $1 million of additional liability protection. "

Often times this coverage may already be included in the insurance policy. For those of you in a position to purchase these policies, I don't see a reason not to negotiate the libel protection. It sure would have helped these guys.

MSNBC has story (and cute gagged fish)

[jbridges]

Web talk lands some in hot water [msnbc.com]

My favorite is the Long Island Business news article about how filing lawsuits is this guy's "hobby".

Re:How will the settlers feel in a few years?

[GGooden]

Mike, some of us aren't going to rest until the "settled" folkes get back what they lost.. :)... JoAnn should NOT have lost her plantedtank.com domain ONLY because she has 3 kids to put through college and couldn't afford to defend her rights (and she was never even SERVED as a defendant!). Gregory www.thedefensefund.org