Friday, March 19, 2010

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. February 2010.

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


QVC INC. AND QHEALTH INC. v. YOUR VITAMINS INC. AND ANDREW LESSMAN
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE (WILMINGTON)
1:10-CV-00094
FILED: 2/05/2010

The interesting part about this case is that QVC is suing, in part, based upon comments from third parties on the Defendants’ website. The basis for getting around Section 230 immunity is alleged to be the selection of responses by the Defendants to various comments posted on the Defendants’ website. This is a very hot area of law right now and do not assume that you can edit third party comments and still be immune. Establish internal business procedures defining the specific and exact circumstances under which editing may, or may not, occur. Obviously your legal counsel will have to assist you in the preparation of these business guidelines.

QVC operates the leading national broadcast cable television shopping channel. It has been promoting Nutraceuticals in competition with the Defendant, who appears on the Home Shopping Network and allegedly distributes false information about QVC’s nutraceutical product.

The Plaintiffs claim false advertising, common law false advertising, violation of Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, violation of Delaware Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unfair competition. Prayer for Relief requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, corrective advertising from the Defendant, actual damages, treble damages, exemplary damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, and cost. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1410.


UHP PROCESS PIPING, INC., ET AL. v. JEFF CUNNINGHAM, ET AL.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (DALLAS)
3:10-CV-00242
FILED: 2/05/2010

People make purchase decisions today based upon research. The research is conducted on facts and information that is usually available online. The days of whisper campaigns and maligning competitors through word of mouth are long gone. Today when you try to disparage a competitor it is more often available to everyone online, including the competitor. We’ll continue to see an increase in defamation, product disparagement and trade libel claims because today people are actually seeing what used to only be whispered in hush tones behind their backs. Be careful what you say about your competitors or anyone else online. You may feel like truth is an absolute defense but reality tells us that proving truth is usually incredibly expensive.
The Plaintiff and Defendant are involved in the fabrication of piping and related businesses. Defendants are alleged to have published on their website claims that the Plaintiff has been stealing from them, using outdated processes, and the like.

The lawsuit includes claims for copyright violations, slander, libel and defamation per se, breach of contract, unfair competition, and conspiracy. The Plaintiffs request injunctive relief, exemplary damages, actual damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1409.

3 comments:

開心唷 said...

IT IS A VERY NICE SUGGESTION, THANK YOU LOTS! ........................................

倫音 said...

TAHNKS FOR YOUR SHARING~~~VERY NICE.................................................

johan said...

Thanks for suggestion...
Reputation can be vitally important. Your reputation often precedes you, and can open many doors in business and personal life. However, if after working impeccably for many years to build an image that people respect, you find an individual or organisation has taken liberties with your good name, then you should immediately speak to a defamation solicitor.