Financial Services Group WCS Sues Online Forum Over Negative Post 112
First time accepted submitter kavzee writes The popular Australian online discussion forum, Whirlpool, is being sued by a financial services group for refusing to remove a negative review about its services. A similar story occurred a number of years ago when another company by the name of 2Clix attempted to sue Whirlpool for the same reasons but later withdrew their case. "A financial services business licenced through National Australia Bank is suing an online forum for refusing to remove an allegedly fake and negative post about its services, claiming it has damaged its reputation with would-be clients. It is the latest legal action launched against an online forum or review website for publishing negative comments, following several high profile cases in Australia and overseas. Financial advice group WCS Group has initiated action against Whirlpool in the Supreme Court of Victoria, seeking unspecified damages and costs, despite the fact the forum generates no revenue."
Re: The question comes down to can they prove fake (Score:5, Insightful)
That's irrelevant. All that matters is who has the bigger wallet the hire better lawyer. Even OJ won in court.
Re: (Score:2)
That's irrelevant. All that matters is who has the bigger wallet the hire better lawyer. Even OJ won in court.
Not in Australia.
In Australia we have judges that are competent, not simply waiting for their next cheque.
Also the whole "better lawyer" thing is not as skewed because the winner can go after the loser for legal fees (even if they withdraw their case). So a lot of lawyers work on the idea that they'll get their fee after the case if your case is strong enough. Besides this, Whirlpool's Simon Wright has been putting money away after the 2Clix fiasco for just this kind of emergency.
But the National A
Re: The question comes down to can they prove fake (Score:5, Informative)
...The defendant always as the advantage in US criminal law.
That's hilarious! [nytimes.com] I wish [wikipedia.org] I had [pbs.org] mod points [ssrn.com]this is definitely [scpr.org] a +5 Funny! [duke.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
6 cases is FAR from proving your point. "innocent until proven guilty"... that alone sounds like it is stacked in favor of the defendant. Not to mention all the rules on how you obtain evidence. And how you actually were noticed to begin with. I could go on... but that can't compete with your 6 examples. >_>
I probably shouldn't be feeding you, but most of those links (you obviously didn't read them) refer to studies discussing the unfairness of the US criminal justice system WRT to prosecutorial discretion/abuse and plea bargaining and not specific cases.
'Tis better to remain silent...
Re: (Score:1)
As a chrono-American, I can remember... (Score:4, Interesting)
...when Australia had the reputation, especially with conservatives, as being "America done right." How times have changed!
Re:As a chrono-American, I can remember... (Score:4, Funny)
one swallow does not make a summer
True, but it can make a good pr0n clip.
Re: (Score:2)
When was that exactly?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm thinking it was around the time everyone there were either prisoners, or people hired to look after said prisoners ...
Re: (Score:2)
Probably '86 - '88, when Paul Hogan fleetingly made a particular self-reliant stereotype popular.
Re: (Score:2)
Roughly speaking, the '60s and '70s.
Re:As a chrono-American, I can remember... (Score:4, Informative)
America is closer to a penal colony these days.
From the internetz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
The incarceration rate in the United States of America is the highest in the world. As of October 2013, the incarceration rate was 716 per 100,000 of the national population.[2] While the United States represents about 5 percent of the world's population, it houses around 25 percent of the world's prisoners.[3][4] Imprisonment of America's 2.3 million prisoners, costing $24,000 per inmate per year, and $5.1 billion in new prison construction, consumes $60.3 billion in budget expenditures.
Re:As a chrono-American, I can remember... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's because we've figure out how to monetize it. The "for profit prison', means it is a persons patriotic duty to be incarcerated, to help drive the economy.
http://www.correctionsproject.... [correctionsproject.com]
Judges can even profit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... [wikipedia.org]
This is a libertarian utopia, to be able to make big bucks, free market style from something that used to cost us money. More proof of their moral superiority, and of how the free market always does things better.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because we've figure out how to monetize it. The "for profit prison', means it is a persons patriotic duty to be incarcerated, to help drive the economy.
Or perhaps we Americans are much more prone to violent and illegal activities (gun crimes, theft, fraud, and so on...) that are likly to get you incarcerated? Americans as a whole are much less inclined than many European societies to actuall participate in scoiety with a goal of "getting along". We are an "I've Got Mine, Fuck You" sort of people.
Re:As a chrono-American, I can remember... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A word to the wise, anyone using the phrase "I'm not a racist" usually is. Not that you seriously believed any of that stuff you posted.
Here's some more advice: racist trolling stopped being in vogue over ten years ago. Consider changing to something a bit more up to date.
Re: (Score:1)
I guess the phrase is "I'm not a racist, but ..."
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, don't forget that religion, work habits, family values and attitudes toward violence are genetically determined, with no element of free will allowed. That makes any comment about other cultures a racist comment. Isn't academia wonderful?
Re: (Score:1)
How about you follow your advice?
You who complain about Americans, and tell them to get out. Perhaps you should set the example.
Re: (Score:1)
Well if they don't like it, then they can go back to their own shitty countries. Im not a racist, but whenever blacks complain about slavery or discrimination here in America, I offer to buy them a one way ticket to Africa. But no. They don't want to go back to that shithole. I'd do the same for Mexicans or Chinese or any other fuckers who complain and cause problems in America, yet none want to go back home. Maybe they should shut the fuck up and realize how wonderful America is compared to the third world shithole from which they emerged.
And I don't really have a problem with whites or Asians. They work hard generally and don't cause violence or do drugs or fight. But the blacks and Mexicans, god, they are the worst. If they start invading your country too, then prepare for your country to start going to hell as well.
Factually incorrect, at least about drugs. Drug use as a percentage of population is remarkably stable across racial lines. Do some research, BLACKS DO NOT USE MORE DRUGS THAN WHITES, if you believe that they do you are indeed a racist. As a matter of fact I don't even know why I'm replying to a -1 post, everything else you say is no doubt equally as wrong, and that especially includes the part about how "Im not a racist".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well if they don't like it, then they can go back to their own shitty countries. Im not a racist, but whenever blacks complain about slavery or discrimination here in America, I offer to buy them a one way ticket to Africa. But no. They don't want to go back to that shithole. I'd do the same for Mexicans or Chinese or any other fuckers who complain and cause problems in America, yet none want to go back home.
Just out of curiosity, if the one complaining was a Hopi, or Cherokee, or Navajo, or Apache, or perhaps Salish, to which destination would you purchase a one way ticket for them?
Re: (Score:2)
I have a friend who's complained about the illegal immigration that happened maybe two centuries ago....
Re: (Score:2)
How did that turn out? Did you get that house painted white again?
White man's immigration to America - and their genocides of the inhabitants - started well over 3 centuries ago, in large part as a colony for transportation of criminals and other undesirables. By two centuries ago the hecatomb of the native inhabitants wa
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If you want to lock up all those people for petty crimes (then throw away the key) then at least raise taxes so your citizens understand the true cost, instead of just borrowing the money to fund it. Eventually that's gonna unravel.
Re: (Score:3)
The federal prison budget is only about 6.5 billion a year. It is generally not considered a budget buster and is largely covered before deficit spending is considered. Taxes wouldn't go up a complete percent to cover that little amount.
Your argument is really about running a ballanced budget so citizens can understand the true cost of everything the government does. But picking the federal prison system out of the mix will not have any significant impact in the grand scheme of things
Re:As a chrono-American, I can remember... (Score:5, Interesting)
> This is a libertarian utopia
You, sir, are ignorant.
The vast majority in prison are for drug or other consenting pseudo-crimes, none of which would be there in a libertarian utopia.
Secondly, libertarians are fine with government-run prisons. It's one of the few things we think government should actually do. Calving it off for private (which wouldn't be even suggested with a vastly reduced prison population) to for-profit private enterprise is a. thing people woupd be agnostic about until proven better. In any case, that's driven by decidedly un-libertarian types like Cheney.
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, libertarians are fine with government-run prisons. It's one of the few things we think government should actually do.
Which shows you right there how naïve some libertarians can be. The real-world effect of this is that kids who make dumb kid mistakes are now being sent to private prisons due to the judges having back-door deals [wikipedia.org] with (or sometimes an outright financial stake in) the prisons in question.
Before you "not all" me, think about simple economics here. Any time you introduce the profit motive into something that should be run entirely for the public good, you automatically create crap like this. Its inevitab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it were actually a libertarian utopia, we would have been able to shoot that judge in your cited Kids For Cash scandal.
Re: (Score:3)
If it were actually a libertarian utopia, we would have been able to shoot that judge in your cited Kids For Cash scandal.
In a libertarian utopia, everyone is high intelligence, and very civic minded, and posessed of a magical combination of greed, generosity, and altruism.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, they certainly should have thought of that before they let the cop 'find' a baggie under their seat and keep their car.
Re: (Score:2)
They should have thought of that before they let themselves be found by the police in possession of dark skin and black curly hair in a built up area.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
...when Australia had the reputation, especially with conservatives, as being "America done right." How times have changed!
I'm not sure how this law suit falls outside that view...
Re: (Score:1)
Australia has been heavily corrupt for decades.
It's only since the navel-gazing that occured after the revelations of massive levels of governmental and police corruption (predominantly in Queensland) that occured in the early 1980s that Australians have had the temerity to try and deal with the problem - and every investigation in every state is uncovering greater or lesser levels of corruption in government and business circles.
It's said that sunlight makes the best disinfectant - for many years australia
Re: (Score:2)
I knew Australia was in trouble, freedom-wise, when a judge stripped a dwarf of his right to be tossed in bars for profit, saying it violated the dwarf's "dignity".
So he stripped the dwarf of the dignity of being a sef-reliant, self-deciding, sovereign individual and turned him into a ward of his local royal highness.
" I decide when you have dignity, not you, dwarf!"
Re: (Score:1)
They all suck.
They are driven by commissioned sales; which means the salesperson's will try to sell you things to boost their commissions and NOT what's best for you - especially when it comes to shit like Index and Variable Annuities.
I agree that some (perhaps even most) in the financial services sector are ethically challenged. However, I know from my own experience that not all are driven by commissions. My nest egg is managed by a firm who (like many firms) charge a standard fee based on the amount of money under management. No commissions or other charges are charged for any transactions.
In a nutshell, you're talking out of your ass. Stop stinking up the place.
Re: (Score:2)
My nest egg is managed by a firm who (like many firms) charge a standard fee based on the amount of money under management.
If that fee is more than 0.1%, then you are still getting screwed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My nest egg is managed by a firm who (like many firms) charge a standard fee based on the amount of money under management.
If that fee is more than 0.1%, then you are still getting screwed.
You're 226.3% correct, sir. Because if I use a firm who charges 0.05% and gives me a 3% return, that's better than a firm that charges 1% and gives me a 10% return. I'm so glad to have your wonderful advice. May I turn over all my assets to you so you can manage them for me?
Re:Financial Services (Score:5, Informative)
Because if I use a firm who charges 0.05% and gives me a 3% return, that's better than a firm that charges 1% and gives me a 10% return.
Funds that charge higher fees DO NOT give better returns.
Higher Fees Don't Mean Higher Returns, Study Finds [wsj.com]
24% of Active Mutual Fund Managers Outperform the Market [nerdwallet.com]
In every single time period and data point tested, low-cost funds beat high-cost funds [morningstar.com]
Morningstar Study Says High Fees Are Bad for Investment Performance [thinkadvisor.com]
Anybody that thinks that high fees are buying high performance is delusional.
Re: (Score:3)
Because if I use a firm who charges 0.05% and gives me a 3% return, that's better than a firm that charges 1% and gives me a 10% return.
Funds that charge higher fees DO NOT give better returns.
Higher Fees Don't Mean Higher Returns, Study Finds [wsj.com] 24% of Active Mutual Fund Managers Outperform the Market [nerdwallet.com] In every single time period and data point tested, low-cost funds beat high-cost funds [morningstar.com] Morningstar Study Says High Fees Are Bad for Investment Performance [thinkadvisor.com]
Anybody that thinks that high fees are buying high performance is delusional.
A reasonable point. Often (as is evidenced by the links you provided), higher fees are associated with organizations which maximize their profits at their customers' expense. My point was most certainly not "you should find a money manager who charges you more! They're the ones who will make you the most money!" My point was that money managers who charge a percentage of money under management (regardless of what that percentage might be) have a strong incentive to maximize your returns, as it maximizes
Re: (Score:3)
money managers who charge a percentage of money under management have a strong incentive to maximize your returns, as it maximizes their profits as well.
True, and the best way to maximize the return is for the fund manager to invest in a high risk crap shoot. If the gamble pays off, they get their fee, and attract lots of new investors. If it doesn't pay off, then hey, it wasn't their money. This is exactly what high-fee managers do. They run multiple funds, make risky investments, then shut down the funds where the gamble fails, and advertise and promote the funds where it pays off. This gives investors the illusion of success, when on average, they
Re: (Score:2)
money managers who charge a percentage of money under management have a strong incentive to maximize your returns, as it maximizes their profits as well.
True, and the best way to maximize the return is for the fund manager to invest in a high risk crap shoot. If the gamble pays off, they get their fee, and attract lots of new investors. If it doesn't pay off, then hey, it wasn't their money. This is exactly what high-fee managers do. They run multiple funds, make risky investments, then shut down the funds where the gamble fails, and advertise and promote the funds where it pays off. This gives investors the illusion of success, when on average, they would be much better off investing in a low fee index fund.
"Past performance is no guarantee of future performance."
This rule is an understatement. Past performance is not even an indicator of future success. Fund managers that have done well in the past, are no more likely to do well in the future than predicted by random chance. There is no evidence that their past success was due to anything other than luck. There is no rational reason to pay someone to gamble on your behalf.
You're quite correct. Although I think we're talking about different scenarios. You're talking about independently marketed investment funds, while I'm talking about licensed financial advisers managing portfolios of assets (which may include securities, index funds, investment funds as well as other financial instruments) on a client-by-client basis.
If I'm misunderstanding you, please correct me.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the payment scheme I'd like to propose - the fund manager gets to keep 40% of every dollar earned above and beyond the return garnered by the appropriate index benchmark fund. Period.
I can make the averages, and the fees at Vanguard are low. I'm willing to pay you handsomely to beat the averages - but not to loose.
Great! Send me a prospectus. I can be reached at /dev/null.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the payment scheme I'd like to propose - the fund manager gets to keep 40% of every dollar earned above and beyond the return garnered by the appropriate index benchmark fund. Period.
Only a complete moron would invest under those conditions. All a fund manager needs to do is take your money, walk into the closest casino, and bet it all on one spin of the roulette wheel. If he wins, he gets 40% of your money, and you get 160% back. If he loses, then you have lost 100% and he makes nothing. On average the fund manager will make 20% and investors will get 80% back, having lost the other 20%.
But there are enough morons out there to support an entire industry of investment funds that pre
Re: (Score:2)
Gross overstatement isn't the same thing as "talking out of your ass". And I'm not even sure that it was a gross overstatement, though it is clearly not true of *all* financial services companies.
That said, it's also true that there are many "honest police". But somehow the honest police never inform on the dishonest ones. Similarly, the "ethical" financial services companies don't campaign to get the rules changed that enable the unethical ones to prosper to the point where they dominate the industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Gross overstatement isn't the same thing as "talking out of your ass". And I'm not even sure that it was a gross overstatement, though it is clearly not true of *all* financial services companies.
That said, it's also true that there are many "honest police". But somehow the honest police never inform on the dishonest ones. Similarly, the "ethical" financial services companies don't campaign to get the rules changed that enable the unethical ones to prosper to the point where they dominate the industry. I understand that in the case of the police, each individual may have his life depend on support by any other, which may partially mitigate their reluctance. I don't understand, however, what is equivalent in the financial services sector.
A reasonable point. I guess my reaction was more to the tone of the whole post (angry, as if the poster had been scammed -- which is certainly likely), rather than the phrase I singled out. Perhaps I should have used less inflammatory language.
As to your point about the lack of effort on the part of "ethical" FS companies not advocating needed reforms, I couldn't agree more. A mitigating factor might be that many of the "unethical" FS companies hold significant power to harm other companies which might p
Re: (Score:2)
Why should it be a % of the money under management is $200 somehow twice as hard to manage as $100, or do they guarantee your money so if they lose it they will pay you back? No, so the risk is all yours.
You may say $1,000,000,000 is harder than managing $100, not sure but if it is, is it 10,000,000 times harder? Its interesting since they fund managers tend to under perform the market, so they are worse than just blindly picking stock.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should it be a % of the money under management is $200 somehow twice as hard to manage as $100, or do they guarantee your money so if they lose it they will pay you back? No, so the risk is all yours.
You may say $1,000,000,000 is harder than managing $100, not sure but if it is, is it 10,000,000 times harder? Its interesting since they fund managers tend to under perform the market, so they are worse than just blindly picking stock.
I get your point. However, it seems to me that charging a percentage of money under management makes a lot of sense. If the manager increases the value of your portfolio, their profit increases. Which makes your self-interest their self-interest.
Such an arrangement provides the relatively honest money manager with a strong incentive to make more money for you.
Yes. If I wanted to spend a significant amount of my time watching the markets and moving my assets around, i could, potentially, increase the val
not smart (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
When will people learn that trying to take down negative reviews just gets you more negative reviews and the spotlight.
Maybe that is intentional. When you are at the bottom of the pile, any publicity is good publicity. The saying in Hollywood is "It doesn't matter what they write, as long as they spell your name correctly."
Re: (Score:3)
When will people learn that trying to take down negative reviews just gets you more negative reviews and the spotlight.
You have to remember that there might be many cases like this where the negative review gets successfully removed and gets no public attention. That might be the reason why "they won't learn" -- because the trick might actually work.
info goes both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
The most egregious of these are doctors, who recommend unnecessary procedures just because you have the money to afford them. A patient puts his trust in a doctor, yet it seems as if oftentimes this trust is misplaced. I noticed that Angie's List no longer maintains reviews on doctors. They must have been sued into silence.
The other day, Fox news ran a story about a lawyer who was charging his client money for sleeping with her. Funny story, but it would have been even funnier had they released the name of the lawyer. Whatever happened to free speech and defending to the death our right for it.
Re: (Score:1)
Whatever happened to free speech and defending to the death our right for it.
That was some British chick talking about what she thought a French dude believed. This is an Aussie mess, so I don't think it applies.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever sued a company for fake positive post? (Score:1)
I mean, all the companies do fake positive posts, buy likes, give presents like whole tablets for 'free' (for positive ratings), so why would it be more illegal to post fake negative comments?
In the end you can never tell which post is real and which is not, do you?
The comment. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In many cases it is more "profitable" to do something dumb, take a loss, thus being able to write off that loss on taxes and make more net as a result. Having somebody handle the forums intelligently would cost money that couldn't be written off.
Re: (Score:2)
In many cases it is more "profitable" to do something dumb, take a loss, thus being able to write off that loss on taxes and make more net as a result. Having somebody handle the forums intelligently would cost money that couldn't be written off.
Wow. You just really don't have the first clue about accounting do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly I do. I just simplified things for folks. Not going to bother to type out details for you though. Go to school if you want to learn those.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say you oversimplified, because I have no idea what you could be talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you are most likely an intelligent person working for a company that is unlikely to pull dumb stunts and so the mere concept of the depths of the stupidity that some companies harbor in the name of "RoI" and "Risk vs Profit" is completely foreign to you. Hopefully you will be able to continue to stay unknowing, as the reality is ruddy scary.
Here is a small example: "Let's give WORSE customer service. We will make them wait for one hour on hold for very basic tech support, then anything that c
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. I'm not perplexed any more by what you said. Just appalled, but you expected that, didn't you?
slashdot error messages (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If I post some recipes on the forums, will I get sued by Australian restaurants for helping people make their own meals and avoid their services?
Another reason to boycott the big 4 banks (Score:3)
Anyone in Australia who hasn't at least considered one of the many smaller (and better) financial institutions instead of the big 4 banks (or one of their subsidiaries) is stupid, the smaller guys are just as good (if not better) than the big 4 when it comes to service, products etc and they dont do a lot of the crap the big 4 do.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone in Australia who hasn't at least considered one of the many smaller (and better) financial institutions instead of the big 4 banks (or one of their subsidiaries) is stupid, the smaller guys are just as good (if not better) than the big 4 when it comes to service, products etc and they dont do a lot of the crap the big 4 do.
Yep, I dumped NAB and went to Citibank and GE Money...
I almost miss NAB some days... Almost.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that Citibank is part of the gang of big US banks directly responsible for the Global Financial Crisis through their dodgy practices and considering they are just as bad as the big 4 when it comes to doing evil crap, I wouldn't go with them either.
I used to be with the National once, then I switched to P&N Bank (formerly Police & Nurses credit society) who were really really good (and are the only WA based bank left). Then I moved to Queensland and wanted to switch banks to one that had
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that Citibank is part of the gang of big US banks directly responsible for the Global Financial Crisis through their dodgy practices and considering they are just as bad as the big 4 when it comes to doing evil crap, I wouldn't go with them either.
To be fair, if anyone but Citibank offered a similar product I'd jump ship.
But I do a lot of transactions overseas and Citbank are the only one with no conversion fees what so ever.
Really Bad idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Whirlpool is incredibly popular, and has a very loyal user base - the offers of money for a legal fund are starting to roll in! I saw nothing in the thread that is defamatory, the OP asked for advice, was told 'do your homework' (entirely sensible), OP came back and said 'I found a better deal, thanks'. Nobody came out and said "this company is shit!" I very much doubt they have a leg to stand on, and all they have done is ensure that a future Google search will bring this little act of douchery up and forever associate their name with it. Good Job!
It should also be added, the majority of WP users didn't even have a clue about WCS until there was a news article in major papers saying that the NAB owned WCS was suing them.
This is probably going to be back-pedalled faster than Tony Abbott running from gays on a boat.
Re: (Score:2)
I like your style. The whole thing stinks like lawyers fishing for business. Had they just left it alone, without the lawyering and heavy handed threats, it would have faded away and been forgotten in short order. The thread would have been buried away amongst the other bazillion now inactive threads. Doing this ensures that they generate huge amounts of negative, national publicity and probably some kind of back
Goodbye WCS (Score:1)