Shakedowns To Fix Negative Online Reviews 179
First time accepted submitter unjedai writes "A company is putting horrible reviews of small business online, and then offering to improve the company's reputation and take the reviews off for a fraction of the cost that a real reputation improvement company would charge. Sierra West received a call from a 'reputation improvement company' telling them they had a negative review online and that the company would take the review offline if Sierra West paid $500. 'Of course when someone is offering $500 the day (the bad review) goes up seemed not legitimate.'"
It was only a matter of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
well, yeah.
but you could also forward such a mail even if the bad review was legitimate.
Re: (Score:2)
In the other case, the review sites would get loads of such complaint, all containing mails with similar wording, from multiple businesses...
Data storage, data mining. (Score:5, Interesting)
The big problem with cyber crime is the lack of long-term storage of complaints. I got a scam email from Spain, claiming to be from a friend stranded in Madrid without a passport. I sent it on to the Guardia Civil. They sent me back a bunch of guidelines on not being scammed online.
Now, I didn't expect my single little failed fraud attempt to merit individual investigation. I had hoped that they would put it on file, and use it as supporting evidence for conspiracy in a larger case later on, but no-one tracks these things.
A group I frequent on Facebook was getting spammed for weeks by the same person advertising loans (in USD, in a group about a Scottish pub meetup). Every day, they'd get reported, and the message deleted. But even Facebook didn't seem to bother to track the individual complaints and spot the pattern.
So yes, review sites should be able to spot the pattern, but they won't. Because that costs money, and the internet is for cheapskates.
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook's abuse department is a joke. They have a policy against people using personal pages for business, in the last 8 months I've reported dozens of these.. 8 months later, not a single one has been deleted and all continue to spam various regional groups.
They have absolutely zero credibility when it comes to this kind of thing.
Re:Data storage, data mining. (Score:5, Funny)
They have absolutely zero credibility.
Fixed it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
As long no one stands there to tell you if the explaination is correct or not, anything goes a long way explaining something you don't understand.
Re: (Score:2)
There used to be abuse@fbi.gov - but that's been ignored for almost a decade now.
Re:Data storage, data mining. (Score:5, Informative)
There used to be abuse@fbi.gov - but that's been ignored for almost a decade now.
Abuse email addresses are normally used to report spam or such coming from the domain. For instance if you were receiving spam from xxxx@fbi.gov, then that is the place to report it.
Re:Data storage, data mining. (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I didn't expect my single little failed fraud attempt to merit individual investigation. I had hoped that they would put it on file, and use it as supporting evidence for conspiracy in a larger case later on, but no-one tracks these things.
Oh, but they do. I did a similar thing, regarding about a scam letter, physical mail, I received several years ago. I got the normal "Thanks for reporting" response and thought nothing of it, as you did. About 6 months later I get an email from the US Federal Crime Victim Notification Service telling me that an investigation had been opened into the company I reported.
I've been getting regular updates through this system for about 3 years now up to and including verdict & sentencing. There were 6 or 8 people who were charged, a couple plead guilty to lesser charges, one was found guilty of some fairly serious charges and the ring leader was found guilty of many counts of fraud and related charges and sentenced to, if I remember correctly, 17 years in federal prison.
I was completely surprised by it because, like you, I had never seen anything come of the various things I have reported over the years. But, apparently, they do pay attention if they get enough complaints.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
1. The site bothering to monitor its email with any regularity. Until they see your report, the fake review is still up where potential customers can see it.
2. The site taking your complaint at face value - you could be a genuinely bad business trying to silence genuine complaints by maknig shit up yourself. Until you can convince them of your case, the fake review may still be up where potential customers can see it. Conversly, if you made a genuine bad review it could go the other way
what if the review site is the one cashing in? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
RTFS: "Sierra West received a call from"
Re: (Score:2)
You could also forward the mail to the FBI, local law enforcement, and Help Me Howard at channel 7.
If your business is being harmed by the negative review, $500 is actually a good deal compared to waiting for any of those agencies to actually finish their coffee and get back to you.
I think the best way to sting them is in the payment process, pay with bad checks or on another tack, highly traceable instruments and pass the info along to law enforcement.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the best way to sting them is in the payment process, pay with bad checks or on another tack, highly traceable instruments and pass the info along to law enforcement.
Soo you're saying the best way to handle this is to commit a crime yourself, then gather up all the evidence and provide it to law enforcement?
Re: (Score:2)
So, at what point does something become owned just because someone else declares it "valuable"? How far will capitalists go?
The rounded corners are valuable, so belong to Apple.
The Lord's name is valuable, so belongs to Christians.
No they nicked it from the Jews. There is also prior art in the Iron Age religions Edom (where yhvh was one of many Gods)
We have a word for this... (Score:4, Interesting)
Seems like a fairly textbook case of libel.
Re:We have a word for this... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not merely libel, it's fraud, possibly extortion, and of course, ridiculously stupid.
One day, shortly after moving into an apartment complex, this guy I've never met knocks on my door and tells me my van has a flat tire, and that, oh, BTW, he works at a nearby tire repair place, and would be happy to fix it for me, all I have to do is bring it to the shop...
Oddly enough, I had driven it the day before, and the tire was fine when I left it. I happened to have an air-pump, so I inflated it, and it seemed to hold air, it hadn't been stabbed or anything, (happily) but someone let the air out, and this guy I'd never met just happened to know that the van was associated with the resident of my apartment... and he just happened to work at a place that fixes tires... anyway, I guess he was fucking retarded, or thought I was. Needless to say, I wouldn't have dreamed of taking the tire to this guy or his shop, because this ploy was really fucking obvious.
Similarly, this ploy is pathetic, and it's shocking anyone could be dumb enough to think that it would work. Sad.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not merely libel, it's fraud, possibly extortion, and of course, ridiculously stupid.
And, if you're seeking relief through the courts, good luck with the jurisdiction issues, response time, and general lack of connection to reality that is the justice system.
Re: (Score:2)
there is another time-honored way of dealing with thugs. it's a small country in this age of jet travel, pay the fuckers a visit and make them an offer they can't refuse. pain and maiming a thug will understand
Re: (Score:3)
The best way to deal with this (Score:5, Funny)
This post was removed due to Dice content standards violations.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This post was removed due to Dice content standards violations.
What the heck? Has this been happening for real?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Started here:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3126413&cid=41374821 [slashdot.org]
The first one is near the end of the above comment section.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure its not real. /. has only removed a few posts and those had to do with court orders if I remember right. I think it had something to do with the MPEG dvd encryption code.
Re: (Score:2)
The only one I know of had to do with someone publishing the text of a Scientology exam manual. The CoS threatened to sue if it wasnt' removed, and they removed it, then posted a story about it, explaining what happened and why it was removed.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it had something to do with the MPEG dvd encryption code.
In other news, the Pharaoh's vizier has informed us that henceforth all cats shall be rounded up and placed back in their respective containers... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
So, which one was it then? Was it one of these that you can find on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, it looks legit.
A quick Google search on /., found several of these messages.
Worrying.
Would like an "official" word on this.
Re:The best way to deal with this (Score:4, Insightful)
Because if a spammer wanted to make dice look bad, clearly they would only post one such message... Wait... no.
Re: (Score:2)
wanted to make dice look bad
but all dice (with the possible exception of the ugly D100) are great!
Re:The best way to deal with this (Score:5, Funny)
This post was added due to Gullibility standards violations.
Re: (Score:2)
Takes about a minute to determine it's someone taking a comment and running with it.
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3126413&cid=41374821 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Come on, man. This troll has been going on for weeks now. People just don't like the Dice owns slashdot so they post this shit.
If Dice were really removing posts, they'd be deleting them, not advertising to the world "We are censoring your discussions!" It boggles the mind the gullibility you and the GP share.
Re: (Score:2)
If you had bothered to not only google for it, but read some of them, you would have stumbled over this one [slashdot.org] (ff.)
To spare you the hassle, posted by Soulskill [slashdot.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
Not the first (Score:3)
In fact I'm sure I read (probably here) about a case where someone traced the protection demand to a person in the same state and ended up in court for taking the law into his own hands (finding the perp and beating him to within in inch of his life, having first failed to get local law enforcement to do anything because they didn't understand what the crime actually was).
Re: (Score:2)
Trip Advisor? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you use Trip Advisor you will find that most of the reviews are generic as they are written by professionals. Good reviews are paid for and while the hotel etc. is at it they pay for negative reviews to be written about all their competitors. This is not something new.
I know of one guest house here that had a bad report on trip advisor about staff stealing from the guests before the guest house had even received any guests. They had just opened and had not done any business at all and there first review was fake.
Re: (Score:3)
I really doubt that "most reviews on TripAdvisor are generic". I've read reviews of maybe 30 places across three countries in the past year, and I've read a lot of shitty reviews but none has appeared to be even remotely generic / "professional". How about posting links to say 5 different reviews that you think are generic, so you can show what you say is true? Ought to be quick and easy to do if most reviews are generic.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Aha! (Score:4, Funny)
That might explain all the negative comments we see about Microsoft.
Re:Aha! (Score:4, Funny)
That might explain all the negative comments we see about Microsoft.
I'm still waiting for them to send me $500
Re: (Score:3)
Best Countermeasures (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Register your business withe the Better Business Bureau, the Jaycees, Consumer Reports, and Dun & Bradstreet. Prominently link to your ratings. People will take the aforementioned organization's word before some troll's on a crappy "review" site.
2. Report all such solicitations to your local prosecutor as an extortion attempt.
3. Order the crap sites like White Pages, Yellow Pages, etc. to un-list your business and state why (they suck).
4. Have a cold beer and relax.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I suggest linking direct to the reputable sites on one's own web site, and proactively de-listing the junk like Yelp and Tripadvisor. No listing, no google hit.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I suggest linking direct to the reputable sites on one's own web site, and proactively de-listing the junk like Yelp and Tripadvisor. No listing, no google hit.
I always recommending creating your own fake review site and just linking to that...
Re: (Score:2)
... Dun & Bradstreet ..
Who are well known for high pressure sales techniques trying to get you to buy "reports" fro them.
Re: (Score:2)
They pedal reports because that's their business, in case you didn't know. Altruism doesn't enter into it. Everyone, including yourself, is out to sell something. It's a matter of reputation, accuracy, and reliability. To the best of my knowledge, neither Jeebus nor Mother Teresa run business reporting sites.
Re: (Score:3)
They pedal reports because that's their business
Sure they peddle reports as part of their business. But there is a difference between advertising that you can buy reports from them, and them cold-calling you and trying to pressure you into buying a report. It is not the report that is scummy (although I have no idea if you actually get you monies worth) but the methodology used to sell it to you. Just google "Dun and Bradstreet scam" and see what you get
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they peddle reports as part of their business. But there is a difference between advertising that you can buy reports from them, and them cold-calling you and trying to pressure you into buying a report.
Cold-calling is hardly an unusual business practice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize that the BBB is a protection racket too, don't you? People who pay the BBB can make their complaints go away. People who don't will have a page @ the BBB's website prominently featuring complaint after complaint.
Re: (Score:2)
"Register your business withe the Better Business Bureau"
Hahahahahahahaha NO. That's just a bullshit scam organization like every other one. They tried to threaten me into joining them when I had a cleaning business in Memphis.
Go away, BBB shill.
Re:Best Countermeasures (Score:4)
If I see that a site has purposely and prominently advertised affiliation with the BBB, that usually leads me to suspect that they have something to hide. You almost NEVER see BBB links on most of the big name sites, like Amazon, Google, etc. I was about to put NewEgg, but they DO have a BBB link. But, I can almost guarantee that you will see a BBB link on every single "Only Available on TV" product. Why? Because they are cheap junk that is not worth the money, but they BBB link might make a few more people buy their cheap junk.
Wiring the money unsafe? (Score:5, Informative)
When it comes to payment, a sure sign that it is a scam is when the business demands that you pay by wiring the money. If you wire money, it is not traceable or refundable, and it vanishes into the anonymous thief's pocket. So, always use credit cards or Pay-Pal, or something that offers protection. Only wire money if you absolutely, positively know the person to whom you are sending it.
Huh? Is that really how wire transfers are perceived in the United States?
In most of the civilized world, you can reverse a wire transfer if it turns out to be fraudulent (and if the fraudster hasn't withdrawn the money by then). And if he has the money withdrawn, you (or the police) now have at least his identity... Banks have an obligation to be positively sure about their customer's real-world identity before they open an account for them (the "know your customer" rule), as part of the regulations against money laundering.
There is a reason why most phishers use unwitting intermediaries ("money mules"): bank transfers are not anonymous for the receiver, and the receiver will be found out.
With Pay-Pal, on the other hand, you are at the whim of a company who isn't accountable to any banking rules (because it is not a bank), and who doesn't hesitate to confiscate or freeze account's contents if they believe you associated with somebody who associated with somebody who they believe defrauded them.
Re:Wiring the money unsafe? (Score:5, Interesting)
PayPal is a bank, in some countries (i.e. the EU), and regulated by appropriate financial services watchdogs. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be allowed to trade in those countries for very long as it would be nothing but an unregulated money laundering outfit.
That said, wire transfers are traceable, but that doesn't mean you get your money back. Credit cards, etc. have automatic, legally-backed payout when you mark a transaction as fraud, even if the fraudster has already withdrawn that money.
Re: (Score:2)
PayPal is a bank, in some countries (i.e. the EU), and regulated by appropriate financial services watchdogs. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be allowed to trade in those countries for very long as it would be nothing but an unregulated money laundering outfit.
That said, wire transfers are traceable, but that doesn't mean you get your money back. Credit cards, etc. have automatic, legally-backed payout when you mark a transaction as fraud, even if the fraudster has already withdrawn that money.
True, However to get the "Lowest common denominator" regulation in Europe they moved from the UK to Luxembourg.
Re:Wiring the money unsafe? (Score:4, Informative)
I suspect the poster you're replying to is actually talking about the money transfer services like Western Union, not true bank wire transfers. Wire transfers have to go into a bank account, and the ownership of that bank account is known (by the receiving bank, at least, if not by the sender). They're not used very often in the U.S., though, because they tend to be expensive--$25 to send, and $15 to receive, seem to be common fees, though they can vary.
Re:Wiring the money unsafe? (Score:5, Interesting)
They're not used very often in the U.S., though, because they tend to be expensive--$25 to send, and $15 to receive, seem to be common fees, though they can vary.
I just paid $35 for receiving a wire transfer to my BOFA account. The bank's web page says they charge $16 for incoming wire transfers from abroad, and it really should be $0, because it was sent as a SWIFT transfer in USD, marked with "sending bank pays all charges".
Why the extra? There's apparently a "telex fee", even though no telex was in use.
Oh, and I don't even get a copy of the SWIFT with the payment details.
Thank goodness the money was sent in USD, because the rates that US banks give their customers on exchange are ridiculous.
Here in USA, we have the most antiquated bank system in the world; worse, even, than the UK one.
Heck, people here still use cheques, for cripes sake. And the cards banks issue can't be used in large parts of Europe, because they still rely on a magnetic strip, not a chip.
And we have the most clueless bankers too. They don't even understand terms like giro and loro.
But to compensate, it's seriously overpriced.
Re: (Score:2)
You're lucky the US bank even knew what SWIFT was. A couple years ago I needed to transfer funds to my mom in the US. She lives in a small town but uses one of the major US banks. It took me over a week of emails and multiple calls to the bank to get the necessary information to make the transfer from a major European bank.
I make regular transfers to the US and it still amazes me that it takes ~8-10 calendar days for the funds of an ELECTRONIC transfer to show in the receiving account. The sending and recei
Re: (Score:3)
Because the US system is geared toward the EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer) practice. EFT works really well between pretty much any US Financial entity, fast and usually free. Unless it is great deal of money or being deposited someone place like a brokerage, most institutions will make the funds immediate available, if you have any kind of existing relationship with them. Otherwise anything taking longer than 4 days to settle is pretty unusual.
Re:Wiring the money unsafe? (Score:4, Interesting)
You're lucky the US bank even knew what SWIFT was. A couple years ago I needed to transfer funds to my mom in the US. She lives in a small town but uses one of the major US banks. It took me over a week of emails and multiple calls to the bank to get the necessary information to make the transfer from a major European bank.
Hints for the next time:
Get your mother's account number and wire transfer routing number. The latter is usually not the same as the regular routing number.
Get the SWIFT address of your mother's bank's head office, unless they have a SWIFT address for transfers in USD.
When sending the money, insist on sending in USD, nostro your mother's banks head office, with both the routing number and account number specified.
Do not choose to pay the recipient's charges, because US banks will not honour that and will charge the recipient full charges regardless of whether they also get the mutually agreed-upon transfer fee from your bank. That's just free money for them.
IME, the transfer will only take minutes if done this way. Of course, the bank will likely sit on it until the next day before "clearing" it, despite it already being cleared by SWIFT. US banks are the worst float crooks in the world.
If sending in your own currency and without a routing number, even if through SWIFT, expect 3-4 days, and even more if they cut a cheque (no, I'm not kidding, alas).
Re: (Score:2)
Get the SWIFT address of your mother's bank's head office, unless they have a SWIFT address for transfers in USD.
And, by the way, your bank is more likely to know this than US bank clerks are.
Re: (Score:2)
No, don't just get the account number. In my experience, the number that you need to use has the account number within it, but has extra digits. You need to know what these extra digits are. Probably your bank's website will provide the information.
Don't. US banks
Re:Wiring the money unsafe? (Score:4, Informative)
Worse than the UK one?
If I want to send anyone money in the UK here's what I do:
1. Login to my bank's website
2a. If I've sent money to this person before: type in their sort code, account number and value.
2b. If I've not sent money to this person before: two factor authorisation, type in their sort code, account number and value.
3. Click the Go button
This is called BACS and is instant for the vast majority of transactions and basically free. We also have the faster but more expensive CHAPS.
Of course, give me an International Bank Account Number (IBAN) and I can send money to anyone anywhere.
We freely give out bank account numbers too. There's not a lot you can do with them except pay money in.
Re:Wiring the money unsafe? (Score:4, Informative)
nostro = "our", meaning transfers or accounts (usu. in foreign currency) to accounts held elsewhere (usu. in foreign banks).
vostro = "their", meaning the same account seen from the opposite side of the fence.
loro = "their", meaning transfers or accounts (usu. in own currency) through a third party (intermediary) bank.
A loro transfer is the most common account/transfer method unless your bank actually has mutual accounts with the foreign bank.
A typical transfer from the US goes[*]:
sender
-> request to your bank's central office for a FX
-> debit of your account by main office
-> loro some big foreign bank here
-> nostro some big bank there
-> giro to account holder
and within a day, batched saldo (balance) adjustments between the banks
In contrast, a typical international transfer from pretty much anywhere else in the world is two or three steps.
[*]: Or rather, it doesn't unless you insist, because US banks tend to cut bank cheques so they can sit on the float for a week and take extra charges.
You can save a step and charges by picking a loro that can do direct deposit to the foreign account, or if you use a big bank, a nostro that doesn't require a third bank on the remote end. Of course, that means that your bank must be able to list what loro/nostro connections they have. And the bank employee either understand how transfers work, or be able to direct you to someone who does.
Re: (Score:2)
Who uses Review sites? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who uses Review sites? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What does that prove, other than you have to be this rich to edit our site?
If you are a scammer you have enough money to buy a cell phone.
Re: (Score:2)
What does that prove?
That proves nothing. But... Everything is probabilities and statistics. If - say - 10% of users are scammers, those 10% create each - say - 9 accounts (based on 9 different email addresses) => 50% "honest" users vs 50% scammers. Now, provided that almost any adult in English speaking countries has a cell phone, and thus is able to vote, the system is less biased as scammers would have to get a lot of cell phones to cheat ... that would be an expensive scam.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I am sure there are easy ways to get around this for one whose profession it is. There are cheap cell phones and virtual over internet lines. There is probably some online service you could pay a tiny amount to get a bunch of numbers and change the numbers all the time (just like there are services to get cheap throwaway email addresses).
This is like using DRM, the professional scammers will have no problem at all, but this would inconvenience and potentially stop the average joe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like there is an opportunity for a company that an be the "Google Search" or "Amazon" of reviews. A company that works out a way to have high quality reviews without shills, frauds and idiots. And which is trusted to not boost or hide reviews based on protection racket ("advertising") money. (Ahem, Yelp.)
And the trick will be how to make money from it whilst remaining impartial. Any attempt to make money from the reviewed businesses will be looked on as being corrupt. Some businesses have made it wor
Re: (Score:2)
So there's an opportunity to create an difficult-to-start and unlikely-to-fund business, which would subsequently entail deailing with complaints about bad reviews every day? Sign me up!
Re: (Score:2)
That's why it's still an opportunity. Because it's not obvious how to crack it.
Travel (Score:5, Insightful)
So there are honestly people out there who read reviews from people who may not have even bought the product and consider them true?
Personally, if I were TripAdvisor, Amazon, or whatever equivalent, it would be a requirement to have actually purchased the goods you're reviewing before being allowed to post a review.
One of the websites I use for hotels does just that - unless you've booked the hotel through them and stayed there you can't post a review. I don't think a reputation-destroying service would be a viable business model (even excluding legal complications) if you had to pay your competitors in order to post a bad review on them.
And, I pay no attention to the reviews. I pay attention to the responses, if any. If a site lists your hotel (presumably WITH your permission, or you'd ask for it to be removed) and you get a bad response, you should reply to it. Like on eBay, or in real life shops, it's not what the negative comments say, it's how you deal with those complaints that matters.
Nobody runs a hotel that has never received a complaint in its entire history. But there are lots of places that receive complaints and ignore them because they just don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Reputable companies are starting to do that. Both Newegg and Amazon now tag reviews with whether the person writing it actually bought the product. It's a nice feature, except to date there is no check box that says "Don't Show Unverified Reviews" that I've seen. It's easy to skip over the trolls, but it'd be even nicer if I didn't even have to see them.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple started doing it on the App Store after the first couple of months. If you haven't bought the app, you aren't allowed to review it. The quality of the reviews immediately improved.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a purchase where I'm bothering to read the reviews, I'm definitely going to be comparing prices. And if I'm already going to all those sites to check prices why wouldn't i check the reviews on each too? And while doing that i expect and even rely on those reviews being from different people, because the sites have different markets. If i see a few reviews on amazon claiming two products are incompatible, then see some on newegg indicating they aren't, I'm a lot more likely to ignore the reviews clai
Slashdot Smells (Score:5, Funny)
I went to Slashdot and the service was terrible. They treated me badly and I think they cloned my credit card.
Right, anyone know CmdrTaco's number?
Textbook RICO violation. (Score:2)
This is nothing more than a protection racket [wikipedia.org]. When the book gets slammed on them it's going to slam hard - assuming there's a judge out there with enough Internet competence to pull it off.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a similar case in the UK a couple of years ago. A person opened a website to allow others to berate lawyers and there were many comments posted - mostly by nutjobs or ill-educated individuals who had been through the mangle of the judicial system and wanted to blame somebody.
The difficulty with the site is that the owner offered to delete the comments upon payment of £299 (around $500). If the purpose of the site was genuine (to allow complaints to be 'heard') why was it possible to take
Your perp did it wrong, there's a safer way (Score:5, Interesting)
The difficulty with the site is that the owner offered to delete the comments upon payment of £299 (around $500). If the purpose of the site was genuine (to allow complaints to be 'heard') why was it possible to take comments down? And what is to stop fake comments from being posted to attract further payment?
Fortunately for the solicitors in England and Wales, action was taken by the Law Society [bailii.org] and the owner of the site was forced to take the site down and suffer the consequences of poorly defended legal action.
That action was taken by the Law Society as the only option available to the libeled solicitors was to launch an individual libel claim. The owner of the site had to respond to such claims and didn't fair particularly well in these either, particularly when it was clear that he had offered to take the comments down for a payment (see paragraph 23) [bailii.org].
The correct way to legally extort money is to call it an investigation and processing fee, rather than an offer to take the review down. The investigation will inevitably turn up the fact that the review was not submitted in good faith and/or by a nut job, and it will be taken down, which is what the lawyer wanted, but the investigation and processing fee in that case would be legitimate, even if the whole thing was automated or partially automated - there's no reason you wouldn't pay some broke college student 1-2% of the processing fee to actually perform an investigation process on a contract rather than a permanent employment basis, as piecework, in order to avoid actually becoming an employer, and as long as you paid your taxes, there's pretty much nothing to be done about it.
To avoid any appearance of impropriety whatsoever, you could also post positive reviews, and justify listing all negative reviews before positive ones on the basis that people in need of a lawyer would be best served by the review site by knowing as quickly as possible if the lawyer failed in a case similar to theirs -- so a lawyer with 100 reviews and a 96% positive rating would still have the 4 bad reviews listed before everything else that said good things, and that is what people would see first.
Taking this approach, $5 worth of investigation might not be enough, and even if it were, factually bad reviews would stick to a lawyer on the review site, which is maybe not a bad thing... it pretty much puts them in the same boat as trademark registration, where you have to zealously defend your trademark by spending money, only in this case, you pay the review site, rather than paying lawyers (perhaps adding some much needed symmetry to the universe in the process, but I digress...).
Note that I'm not recommending this as an honorable business model, but it's one that works pretty well for a couple of "review sites" here in the US, and in that case, even a libel case would have to name the original reviewer, rather than the site, as long as the site doesn't have employees posting the negative reviews in the first place (libel laws differ in the US, and astroturfing bad reviews in order to get people to pay for advertising is one of the techniques used by one of the putative review sites).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was a similar case in the UK a couple of years ago.
If it happened in the UK then it's not really a similar case, since the legal environment is completely different. The injunction you linked to would be absolutely impossible in the US, where "prior restraint" of speech is prohibited under virtually all circumstances. Furthermore, while the UK has some of the most plaintiff-friendly libel laws in the world (and is a prime destination for libel tourism as a result), the US has a high burden of proof
Fictive Bureau of Reputations? (Score:2)
- Yertle
I have the perfect person to call and fix this (Score:3)
Not new (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a nice store you got there. (Score:2)
'be a shame if someone gave it a bad review.
Re: (Score:2)
Nya?