Jump to content

Ripoff Report: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
rv blanket restoration of inappropriate sources
Reverted to revision 735804170 by Tadde0 (talk): These all look like they are properly sourced. (TW)
Line 6: Line 6:
| url = {{URL|www.ripoffreport.com}}
| url = {{URL|www.ripoffreport.com}}
| commercial =
| commercial =
| type =
| type = Private, for-profit
| language = English
| language = English
| registration =
| registration =
Line 17: Line 17:
}}
}}


'''Ripoff Report''' is a [[website]] founded by Ed Magedson.<ref name="paid-program">{{cite web |url=http://www.ripoffreport.com/CorporateAdvocacyProgram/Why-Corporate-Advocacy.aspx |title=WHY CORPORATE ADVOCACY: YOUR REPUTATION IS IMPORTANT TO YOU |accessdate=2016-07-07 |website=Ripoff Report}}</ref> The Ripoff Report has been online since December 1998 and is operated by Xcentric Ventures, LLC which is based in [[Tempe, Arizona]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/arizona/azdce/2:2007cv00954/344869/ |title=Federal Document listing address |publisher=News.justia.com |date= |accessdate=2013-01-22}}</ref>
'''Ripoff Report''' is a privately owned and operated for-profit [[website]] founded by Ed Magedson.<ref name="paid-program">{{cite web |url=http://www.ripoffreport.com/CorporateAdvocacyProgram/Why-Corporate-Advocacy.aspx |title=WHY CORPORATE ADVOCACY: YOUR REPUTATION IS IMPORTANT TO YOU |accessdate=2016-07-07 |website=Ripoff Report}}</ref> The Ripoff Report has been online since December 1998 and is operated by Xcentric Ventures, LLC which is based in [[Tempe, Arizona]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/arizona/azdce/2:2007cv00954/344869/ |title=Federal Document listing address |publisher=News.justia.com |date= |accessdate=2013-01-22}}</ref>


==Reports and rebuttals==
==Reports and rebuttals==
Line 36: Line 36:
In the ''Blockowicz v. Williams'' case, 675 F.Supp.2d 912 (N.D.Ill. 2009), a federal district court in Chicago found that Ripoff Report was not required to comply with an injunction to remove reports because it had not been named a defendant in the original lawsuit.<ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/26223400/Blockowicz-v-Williams-2009-WL-4929111-N-D-Ill-2009 ''Blockowicz v. Williams'', 675 F.Supp.2d 912] (N.D.Ill. 2009), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.</ref>
In the ''Blockowicz v. Williams'' case, 675 F.Supp.2d 912 (N.D.Ill. 2009), a federal district court in Chicago found that Ripoff Report was not required to comply with an injunction to remove reports because it had not been named a defendant in the original lawsuit.<ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/26223400/Blockowicz-v-Williams-2009-WL-4929111-N-D-Ill-2009 ''Blockowicz v. Williams'', 675 F.Supp.2d 912] (N.D.Ill. 2009), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.</ref>


Two Australians sued Google over their failure to remove links to defamatory content on Ripoff Report. In February 2011 Dr Janice Duffy filed defamation proceedings in South Australia.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/technology/google-being-sued-over-ripoff-site/story-e6frgakx-1226200582207?nk=251cc8d482319ed6f221c5e7856dafb8|title=Google being sued over Ripoff site|publisher=The Australian}}</ref> In 2015, Duffy prevailed in her defamation case against Google for serving libelous comments, originating from Ripoff Report, and allowing its auto-complete function to assist users in finding the content. As of October 27, 2015, unresolved issues in the case are "...the defences of triviality and time limitation, the application for an extension of time, and causation and quantum of damages." <ref name="Duffy Daily Mail 2015">{{cite news|author1=Jenny Awford|title=Google found to have defamed Australian academic when its auto-complete function directed searchers to libelous comments about her |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3291416/Google-defamed-Australian-woman-auto-complete.html|accessdate=8 November 2015|publisher=''[[Daily Mail]]''|date=27 October 2015|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20151108203802/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3291416/Google-defamed-Australian-woman-auto-complete.html|archivedate=8 November 2015}}</ref><ref name="Duffy ABC AU">{{cite news|author1=Candice Marcus|title=Adelaide woman Dr Janice Duffy sues internet giant Google for defamation|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-27/adelaide-woman-sues-internet-giant-google-for-defamation/6890292|accessdate=8 November 2015|publisher=ABC News AU|date=27 October 2015|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20151108204401/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-27/adelaide-woman-sues-internet-giant-google-for-defamation/6890292|archivedate=8 November 2015|quote=He [Justice Malcolm Blue] ruled that Google did publish defamatory material about Dr Duffy and ordered the case proceed to trial on the remaining unresolved issues.}}</ref> In February 2013, Jarrod Sierocki filed defamation proceedings in Queensland.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/google-sued-by-brisbane-businessman-jarrod-sierocki-for-defamatory-forum-posts/story-fnihsrf2-1226661420523?nk=251cc8d482319ed6f221c5e7856dafb8|title=Google sued by Brisbane businessman Jarrod Sierocki for defamatory forum posts|publisher=Courier-Mail (Australia)}}</ref> Sierocki won $287,788.00 in damages and interest against a former partner and client who were forced to admit that they had defamed SIerocki on Ripoff Report's un-redactable forum. A related case against Google appears to be working its way through the Australian courts as of April 23, 2015.<ref name="The Guardian Jarrod Sierocki">{{cite news|author1=Joshua Robertson|title=Record defamation payout of $287,788 awarded to Brisbane businessman|url=http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/23/record-defamation-payout-of-287788-awarded-to-brisbane-businessman|accessdate=8 November 2015|publisher=''[[The Guardian]]''|date=23 April 2015|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20151108205751/http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/23/record-defamation-payout-of-287788-awarded-to-brisbane-businessman|archivedate=8 November 2015|quote=The payout was four times as large as the previous highest amount awarded by a supreme court judge.}}</ref>


In website pages of [[Public Citizen]], it was noted that Ripoff Report has received some criticism of its "Corporate Advocacy, Business Remediation & Customer Satisfaction Program,"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2011/12/florida-appeals-court-recognizes-that-section-230-immunity-extends-to-injunctive-relief-even-when-th.html |title=Florida Appeals Court Recognizes That Section 230 Immunity Extends to Injunctive Relief — Even When the Content Provider Collaborates in Seeking an Injunction (CL&P Blog) |publisher=Pubcit.typepad.com |date=2011-12-29 |accessdate=2014-02-09}}</ref> particularly whether Ripoff Report sufficiently discloses all facts that would influence the public's perception of the program.<ref name="citizen">http://www.citizen.org/documents/Giordano-Amicus-Brief-(2).pdf</ref>
In website pages of [[Public Citizen]], it was noted that Ripoff Report has received some criticism of its "Corporate Advocacy, Business Remediation & Customer Satisfaction Program,"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2011/12/florida-appeals-court-recognizes-that-section-230-immunity-extends-to-injunctive-relief-even-when-th.html |title=Florida Appeals Court Recognizes That Section 230 Immunity Extends to Injunctive Relief — Even When the Content Provider Collaborates in Seeking an Injunction (CL&P Blog) |publisher=Pubcit.typepad.com |date=2011-12-29 |accessdate=2014-02-09}}</ref> particularly whether Ripoff Report sufficiently discloses all facts that would influence the public's perception of the program.<ref name="citizen">http://www.citizen.org/documents/Giordano-Amicus-Brief-(2).pdf</ref>
Line 43: Line 44:
In May 2014 the Australian search engine [[Yahoo!7]] blocked the Ripoff Report after multiple defamation complaints.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://searchengineland.com/yahoo7-australia-drops-ripoff-report-search-results-defamation-complaints-191333|title=Yahoo7 Australia Drops Ripoff Report From Search Results After Defamation Complaints|date=14 May 2014|work=Search Engine Land|accessdate=16 December 2014}}</ref> It was unblocked after about a week.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://searchengineland.com/ripoff-report-back-yahoo-australias-search-results-completely-192323|title=Ripoff Report Is Back In Yahoo Australia's Search Results, But Not Completely|date=23 May 2014|work=Search Engine Land|accessdate=16 December 2014}}</ref>
In May 2014 the Australian search engine [[Yahoo!7]] blocked the Ripoff Report after multiple defamation complaints.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://searchengineland.com/yahoo7-australia-drops-ripoff-report-search-results-defamation-complaints-191333|title=Yahoo7 Australia Drops Ripoff Report From Search Results After Defamation Complaints|date=14 May 2014|work=Search Engine Land|accessdate=16 December 2014}}</ref> It was unblocked after about a week.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://searchengineland.com/ripoff-report-back-yahoo-australias-search-results-completely-192323|title=Ripoff Report Is Back In Yahoo Australia's Search Results, But Not Completely|date=23 May 2014|work=Search Engine Land|accessdate=16 December 2014}}</ref>


Ripoff Report's publisher, Xcentric Ventures, LLC, sued consumers and their attorneys for malicious prosecution in federal district court in Phoenix, Arizona in 2011. In August 2015, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case. The decision held "The claim (of extortion) was tenable because a district court had previously held that similar allegations stated an extortion claim against Xcentric," the 9th Circuit wrote in its order.<ref>http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/08/25/ripoff-report-publisher-hammered-in-9th-circ.htm</ref>
Ripoff Report's publisher, Xcentric Ventures, LLC, unsuccessfully sued consumers and their attorneys for malicious prosecution in federal district court in Phoenix, Arizona in 2011. In August 2015, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals published their order affirming the district court's order dismissing the case. The ruling notes that Xcentric had sued over the consumers' underlying attempted racketeering extortion claim, which "alleged that Xcentric attempted to extort money by encouraging third parties to post negative reviews, manipulating the posts to highlight negative reviews and to further highlight the negative reviews if the businesses posted rebuttals, and then charging high fees to 'turn the negative into a positive.'" "The claim was tenable because a district court had previously held that similar allegations stated an extortion claim against Xcentric," the 9th Circuit wrote in its order.<ref>http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/08/25/ripoff-report-publisher-hammered-in-9th-circ.htm</ref>

In 2015, the [[United States District Court for the District of Utah]] stated that, although the Ripoff Report homepage shows the tag lines "By Consumers, for consumers" and "Don't let them get away with it. Let the truth be known", the site allows competitors, and not just consumers, to post comments. The Ripoff Report home page also says: "Complaints Reviews Scams Lawsuits Frauds Reported, File your review. Consumers educating consumers", which allows a reasonable inference that the Ripoff Report encourages negative content. Moreover, Ripoff Report's webmaster affirmed that positive posts about a company are not allowed in the website. Therefore, the court concluded that the website's owner is not a neutral publisher, because, through large fees that companies must pay for the website's advocacy programs, it has an interest in, and encourages, negative content.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9d2c2ba9-efa2-4e58-9f82-16534eab2023 |title=Federal court rules against Ripoff Report in CDA case |date=23 September 2015 |accessdate=19 August 2016}}</ref><ref name=utah-court>{{cite web |title=Ripoff Report and Ed Magedson: Federal court rules against the website |date=30 August 2015 |url=http://www.presto.news/ripoff-report-ed-magedson-lawsuit-utah-6153646570.html |accessdate=19 August 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Judge [[Clark Waddoups]] |title=Case No. 2:13-CV-00926 |date=27 August 2015 |url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2428558/vision-security-v-xcentric-ventures.pdf |accessdate=19 August 2016 |format=PDF}}</ref>


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 10:56, 23 August 2016

Ripoff Report
Type of site
Private, for-profit
Available inEnglish
Created byEd Magedson
URLwww.ripoffreport.com

Ripoff Report is a privately owned and operated for-profit website founded by Ed Magedson.[1] The Ripoff Report has been online since December 1998 and is operated by Xcentric Ventures, LLC which is based in Tempe, Arizona.[2]

Reports and rebuttals

Ripoff Report allows users over the age of 14[3] to complain anonymously about any firm or person.[4] The site requires creating an account before "reports" can be submitted[3] but does not verify the identity of users. Reports are not automatically added to the website: they must be approved first. According to the site's Terms of Service, users are required to affirm that their reports are truthful and accurate, but the site says that it neither investigates, confirms nor corroborates the accuracy of submissions.

Companies or individuals who have been named in a report may respond with a rebuttal at the bottom of the same webpage, which explains their side of the story, if the rebuttal is approved by Ripoff Report. There is no charge to submit a rebuttal, but they must have a registered account. Alternatively, to "repair the reputation"[1] because of something that is written in the website, Ripoff Report asks them to pay for investigations of complaints and responses[4] carried out by "Ripoff Report's pool of Arbitrators",[5] and to edit the webpage.[6]

Operations

Ripoff Report sells ad space on its website[1][6] and offers companies the option to pay for complaint investigations, which can cost from US$5,500 to over $100,000.[4] It also offers an arbitration program.[7]

The site says that, with the exception of cases that are decided against the complainant in arbitration, all complaints remain public and unedited[8] and authors are not allowed to remove their own reports even in cases where a mistake has been made.[9]

In May 2013, Ripoff Report started a new service called "Ripoff Report Verified" that offers companies with no prior complaints an option to become "Verified". According to an interview with Search Engine Watch, for $89 per month, "Once a verified business gets any negative complaints, they would be alerted via email about the negative reviews and will be able to discuss a resolution with the person that left the negative reviews."[10][11]

By creating an account, a user agrees to exclusive venue in Arizona for any legal dispute arising from his or her posting. In June 2013, a federal court in Maryland found that that this agreement did not prevent a user from suing both the author of a report and Ripoff Report in Maryland, because the user agreement applied only to the rebuttal, not to the report.[12]

In the Blockowicz v. Williams case, 675 F.Supp.2d 912 (N.D.Ill. 2009), a federal district court in Chicago found that Ripoff Report was not required to comply with an injunction to remove reports because it had not been named a defendant in the original lawsuit.[13]

Two Australians sued Google over their failure to remove links to defamatory content on Ripoff Report. In February 2011 Dr Janice Duffy filed defamation proceedings in South Australia.[14] In 2015, Duffy prevailed in her defamation case against Google for serving libelous comments, originating from Ripoff Report, and allowing its auto-complete function to assist users in finding the content. As of October 27, 2015, unresolved issues in the case are "...the defences of triviality and time limitation, the application for an extension of time, and causation and quantum of damages." [15][16] In February 2013, Jarrod Sierocki filed defamation proceedings in Queensland.[17] Sierocki won $287,788.00 in damages and interest against a former partner and client who were forced to admit that they had defamed SIerocki on Ripoff Report's un-redactable forum. A related case against Google appears to be working its way through the Australian courts as of April 23, 2015.[18]

In website pages of Public Citizen, it was noted that Ripoff Report has received some criticism of its "Corporate Advocacy, Business Remediation & Customer Satisfaction Program,"[19] particularly whether Ripoff Report sufficiently discloses all facts that would influence the public's perception of the program.[20]

In July 2013 the Government of India ordered a block on accessing the site. The block was removed the next month.[21]

In May 2014 the Australian search engine Yahoo!7 blocked the Ripoff Report after multiple defamation complaints.[22] It was unblocked after about a week.[23]

Ripoff Report's publisher, Xcentric Ventures, LLC, unsuccessfully sued consumers and their attorneys for malicious prosecution in federal district court in Phoenix, Arizona in 2011. In August 2015, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals published their order affirming the district court's order dismissing the case. The ruling notes that Xcentric had sued over the consumers' underlying attempted racketeering extortion claim, which "alleged that Xcentric attempted to extort money by encouraging third parties to post negative reviews, manipulating the posts to highlight negative reviews and to further highlight the negative reviews if the businesses posted rebuttals, and then charging high fees to 'turn the negative into a positive.'" "The claim was tenable because a district court had previously held that similar allegations stated an extortion claim against Xcentric," the 9th Circuit wrote in its order.[24]

In 2015, the United States District Court for the District of Utah stated that, although the Ripoff Report homepage shows the tag lines "By Consumers, for consumers" and "Don't let them get away with it. Let the truth be known", the site allows competitors, and not just consumers, to post comments. The Ripoff Report home page also says: "Complaints Reviews Scams Lawsuits Frauds Reported, File your review. Consumers educating consumers", which allows a reasonable inference that the Ripoff Report encourages negative content. Moreover, Ripoff Report's webmaster affirmed that positive posts about a company are not allowed in the website. Therefore, the court concluded that the website's owner is not a neutral publisher, because, through large fees that companies must pay for the website's advocacy programs, it has an interest in, and encourages, negative content.[25][26][27]

References

  1. ^ a b c "WHY CORPORATE ADVOCACY: YOUR REPUTATION IS IMPORTANT TO YOU". Ripoff Report. Retrieved 2016-07-07.
  2. ^ "Federal Document listing address". News.justia.com. Retrieved 2013-01-22.
  3. ^ a b "Ripoffreport TOS". Retrieved 12 September 2012.
  4. ^ a b c Tanner, Adam (9 May 2013). "Love It Or Hate It, Ripoff Report Is In Expansion Mode". Forbes. Retrieved 14 December 2014. Asked about a comment alleging another woman had herpes, Magedson responds: "This f—— broad probably did something." He laughs when told about the downturn at Sarah Van Assche Interiors. If so much money was at stake, Magedson says, she should have sued her accuser for slander or paid Ripoff Report its $2,000 fee to conduct an arbitration.
  5. ^ http://www.ripoffreport.com/assets/arbitration/files/Arbitration_Rules_October_2015.pdf
  6. ^ a b http://www.ripoffreport.com/assets/images/content/Pages/CAP/example_ripoff_article_lucas_after.jpg
  7. ^ "Synergy Capital & Insurance Complaint Review Gardena, California: 624941". Ripoff Report. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  8. ^ "VIP Arbitration Program. Remove Rip-off Report? Better yet! Ripoff Report VIP Arbitration Program. Reputation Repair & Reputation Management services can't deliver. Complaint Review Tempe, Internet, Arizona: 626838". Ripoff Report. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  9. ^ This stated policy is disclosed to users in the site's Terms of Service: "ROR is a permanent record of disputes, including disputes which have been fully resolved. In order to maintain a complete record, information posted on ROR, subject to the Terms outlined herein, will not be removed. By posting information on ROR, you understand and agree that the material you post will become part of ROR's permanent record and will NOT be removed even at your request." (3 July 2016)
  10. ^ Pierre Zarokian (18 July 2013). "Ripoff Report Launches Verified, a New Program to Shield Businesses From Negative Reviews".
  11. ^ "Ripoff Report Verified". Retrieved 4 July 2016.
  12. ^ John C. Greiner (2013-06-25). "Is a Ripoff a minimum contact?". Lexology. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  13. ^ Blockowicz v. Williams, 675 F.Supp.2d 912 (N.D.Ill. 2009), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
  14. ^ "Google being sued over Ripoff site". The Australian.
  15. ^ Jenny Awford (27 October 2015). "Google found to have defamed Australian academic when its auto-complete function directed searchers to libelous comments about her". Daily Mail. Archived from the original on 8 November 2015. Retrieved 8 November 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  16. ^ Candice Marcus (27 October 2015). "Adelaide woman Dr Janice Duffy sues internet giant Google for defamation". ABC News AU. Archived from the original on 8 November 2015. Retrieved 8 November 2015. He [Justice Malcolm Blue] ruled that Google did publish defamatory material about Dr Duffy and ordered the case proceed to trial on the remaining unresolved issues.
  17. ^ "Google sued by Brisbane businessman Jarrod Sierocki for defamatory forum posts". Courier-Mail (Australia).
  18. ^ Joshua Robertson (23 April 2015). "Record defamation payout of $287,788 awarded to Brisbane businessman". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 8 November 2015. Retrieved 8 November 2015. The payout was four times as large as the previous highest amount awarded by a supreme court judge. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  19. ^ "Florida Appeals Court Recognizes That Section 230 Immunity Extends to Injunctive Relief — Even When the Content Provider Collaborates in Seeking an Injunction (CL&P Blog)". Pubcit.typepad.com. 2011-12-29. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  20. ^ http://www.citizen.org/documents/Giordano-Amicus-Brief-(2).pdf
  21. ^ "Govt lifts ban from consumer complaint website". Daily.bhaskar.com. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  22. ^ "Yahoo7 Australia Drops Ripoff Report From Search Results After Defamation Complaints". Search Engine Land. 14 May 2014. Retrieved 16 December 2014.
  23. ^ "Ripoff Report Is Back In Yahoo Australia's Search Results, But Not Completely". Search Engine Land. 23 May 2014. Retrieved 16 December 2014.
  24. ^ http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/08/25/ripoff-report-publisher-hammered-in-9th-circ.htm
  25. ^ "Federal court rules against Ripoff Report in CDA case". 23 September 2015. Retrieved 19 August 2016.
  26. ^ "Ripoff Report and Ed Magedson: Federal court rules against the website". 30 August 2015. Retrieved 19 August 2016.
  27. ^ Judge Clark Waddoups (27 August 2015). "Case No. 2:13-CV-00926" (PDF). Retrieved 19 August 2016.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&oldid=735829561"