You don’t like our products on Amazon? Well we will sue you for that review!

a reply to: introV

Thanks for that. He does make some some statements that can be construed as not being backed by facts. He didn't just leave a bad review. He attacks their business model and accuses them of fake positive reviews. This review goes beyond the "this product is crap" point.

He was however right that the product was a re-box.
www.smallnetbuilder.com...

The FCC ID reveals that the MWN-WAPR300N is actually a Tenda W368R, which is powered by a Ralink RT3052 SoC. The 2.4 GHz radio is built into the RT3052, but there are two external Richwave RTC6691 2.4 GHz power amps. The switch is an Atheros AR8236 5 port Fast Ethernet chip. Rounding out the major components, there is 16 MB of RAM (Hynix HY57v281620FTP-H) and 2 MB of flash (MMXIC KH29LV320).

I am reading alot of comments here but maybe im confused... if someone actually slanders your business why wouldnt you sue them? Of course a business has a right to protect themselves and to protect the jobs of the people working for the.. and their families.. from slander... I mean some off you are siding with a liar that is trying to destroy the livelihood of multiple people.. whats wrong with you?! ATS is turning into an emotional pool of garbage and not the logical place I thought it was when I joined if we are siding with the actual criminals now... I am really shocked
what I was expected from most of you when I opened thus that you would be appalled that big rich amazon would attack a small business alongside of a liar who was trying to slander them.. instead i am reading most of you are ok with a large corporate entity siding with the politically correct party to save face and crush the real victims

a reply to: Seiko

yep hes not being sued for a bad review hes being sued for lying about their product
pretty big difference

that said
it sounds like a piece of $(%* router and the company seems like its run by a bunch of overly litigious A holes

I have a problem with companies being able to sue online reviews like that. If the "slanderous" review came from an established media outlet, I think the litigation would be sensible, but with almost anonymous online reviews like the ones on Amazon and other online stores, it doesn't make sense.

When people read reviews on Amazon, WalMart, etc, most people take them with barely more than a grain of salt, unless there is a real problem with the product and a majority of the reviews reflect that. By attacking these types of ratings I think they are assuming that this guy's review had huge importance in people minds, but come on, who takes every review they read online as gospel? It's the perception that online reviews on Amazon and reviews from established publications are perceived the same way by customers, which is for the most part completely incorrect, as anyone who has actually used these services can attest.

a reply to: tonycodes

Sorry i disagree.

If you have a review section and somone has a bad experience and writes an unkind review, tough crap. Its a bloody review section, for reviews.

If you dont like the truth and thing bad reviews will hurt your business then dont have a damned review section.

If i sell a guy a, i dont know, some bread, and the bread sucks and i have a "tell me about your experience" board and the guy doesnt like it and writes "this was terrible" why on earth would i feel it appropriate to sue the guy for it, if i made better bread and didnt have the review board, i wouldnt have that issue.

a reply to: Biigs

except this is more like the guy saying your bread is rebranded chinese bread and all the good reviews for your bread are fake

originally posted by: sirhumperdink
a reply to: Biigs

except this is more like the guy saying your bread is rebranded chinese bread and all the good reviews for your bread are fake

well, if the quote is true and not clearly offensive then of course.

No one needs lies on their but a bad review is not the same as an offensive one.

If a service is bad you say its bad, you dont compare it to Hitler. Definitely some boundaries.

a reply to: Biigs


what if for instance someone reviewing your bread claimed you liked to sneeze in the dough?
you see it goes beyond being a bad review and becomes unlawful damage to the business (unless of course you do like to sneeze in the dough)

and thats exactly what this guy did
he made claims about the product that were not true
(again the company seems like a bunch of money grubbing A holes and shouldnt sue over it but this guy did cross the line)

a reply to: sirhumperdink

Shouldnt it be about moderating the lies and removing them rather than sueing?

People have opinions, likes and dislikes and if you invite them to express them you have to accept some bad stuff from time to time.

Its one thing to say somthing is bad its quite another to make up a lie like it gives you cancer or somthing.

moderators, not lawyers.

a reply to: Biigs

thats the thing though big difference between an opinion and a blatant falsehood he stated things were outright untrue about the product

if the company is harmed financially there should be legal recourse simply removing the post after the damage is done is hardly justice

(i do not think in this case his lies changed any more minds than the review itself but there should be there should at least be a legal avenue available to solve the problem for cases where significant damage has been done)

a reply to: Indigent

The right to sue over libellous statements is probably a good thing. If those statements are true then the court action provides a free arena in which to prove it and possibly win damages and certainly damage the dodgy company's rep and finances when they pay court costs.

If it's not true, then don't say it in the first place. Freedom of speech is a great power, but with great power comes great responsibility (as the web-slinger's uncle once kinda said).

OK, so all the above is in an ideal world. However, back in the real world, where big corps pay for big lawyers and judges are only human and therefore not invulnerable to favouritism for any range of reasons, this is a disturbing scenario. It may have ended happily this time, but sets a president for the threat of legal action for expressing an opinion.

I'm not a lawyer, so I may be completely wrong on this, but I believe one can sue for almost anything. As to whether or not something comes of it is a completely different matter, though.

Your not including if he is lying. And yes if a lie actually causes damage than thats the point of a lawsuit.. to recoup cost of damages.

Here lets talk this out for everyone... Hi.. I am going to lie about this company or person and its going to cost them a ton of money. Can I be sued for this?

Yea that's what it sounds like when you defend some of these reviewers....

originally posted by: Biigs
a reply to: tonycodes

Sorry i disagree.

If you have a review section and somone has a bad experience and writes an unkind review, tough crap. Its a bloody review section, for reviews.

If you dont like the truth and thing bad reviews will hurt your business then dont have a damned review section.

If i sell a guy a, i dont know, some bread, and the bread sucks and i have a "tell me about your experience" board and the guy doesnt like it and writes "this was terrible" why on earth would i feel it appropriate to sue the guy for it, if i made better bread and didnt have the review board, i wouldnt have that issue.

From ages 17-19 I wrote Amazon product reviews for compensation. About 50-75% of reviews on (young) products are not genuine. This is because having initial reviews greatly enhances the product page and sales, so gaming the system is a must to launch a product. If you want the most honest reviews, look tier 2-4 (but 10% of the time I was asked to write a 4 star review because they already had too many 5 stars and didn't want to look suspicious, so keep that in mind).

originally posted by: Surefire
I'm not a lawyer, so I may be completely wrong on this, but I believe one can sue for almost anything. As to whether or not something comes of it is a completely different matter, though.

Nah. I'm actually an attorney and you can't just sue for anything. In the civil arena you need duty, breach, injury, and causation. Someone has to have owed you a duty, breached that duty, and by their breach caused you an injury. You need to be able to prove each and every one of those elements to prevail on your claim. If you do not have a breach of duty or an injury, your claim is going to be viewed as frivolous and you are going to be counter-sued so that you end up paying the fees for the other side. It really isn't the crazy "sue everybody" field day that people think it is. When it comes to things like libel or defamation--which are two of the four areas where we limit freedom of speech, there are certain rules which apply to public figures and then there are rules which apply to individuals and companies. The gist of it is that pubic figures have a much harder time suing for libel or defamation than do private citizens or companies, especially when you introduce things like "parody" and "satire" in the equation. In short, if you make a demonstrably false statement about a company or their product in the public forum--be it in printed or spoken format--they are well within their rights to sue for damages. Proving those damages, of course, can be tricky...

Many hard-working employees whose livelihood depended on that business will likely be put out of a job, by a situation that has been distorted & blown out of proportion.” - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Its not amazon's fault that your employee's are going to loose their livelihoods, you have no moral ground to sue customer's and still expect people to trade with you. Silly business owner with no business sense.

Depends on what he posted. Can only be libel if he posted something that was knowingly false.