WEBVTT - Reputation Clean-Up Site Profits Off Smear Campaigns (Audio)

0:00:00.160 --> 0:00:04.200
<v Speaker 1>Imagine that untrue allegations appear on an Internet site about

0:00:04.200 --> 0:00:07.680
<v Speaker 1>your business tanking it. The site refuses to take them down,

0:00:07.720 --> 0:00:11.360
<v Speaker 1>but instead offers to sell you a reputation management service

0:00:11.440 --> 0:00:14.520
<v Speaker 1>to clean up the problem at a hefty price. The

0:00:14.600 --> 0:00:18.560
<v Speaker 1>powerful free speech protections for the Internet have allowed this

0:00:18.600 --> 0:00:21.800
<v Speaker 1>to happen in some cases. Joining me is Bloomberg Business

0:00:21.800 --> 0:00:25.079
<v Speaker 1>Week writer June Lawrence, who wrote about rip Off Report

0:00:25.200 --> 0:00:28.920
<v Speaker 1>dot com and Dr John Pittman's battle with it. Do

0:00:29.400 --> 0:00:34.800
<v Speaker 1>tell us about what happened to John Pittman, Hi, June,

0:00:34.960 --> 0:00:38.680
<v Speaker 1>thanks for having me. Um So. Dr Pittman is a

0:00:38.680 --> 0:00:42.599
<v Speaker 1>plastic surgeon and he practiced in Virginia and in two

0:00:42.640 --> 0:00:49.040
<v Speaker 1>thousand thirteen, these complaints started to appear on rip Off

0:00:49.040 --> 0:00:53.479
<v Speaker 1>Report about him and his practice. And some of them

0:00:53.520 --> 0:00:56.000
<v Speaker 1>had names on them, but they they don't know that

0:00:56.040 --> 0:00:57.480
<v Speaker 1>they were real names, and some of them were just

0:00:57.520 --> 0:01:00.880
<v Speaker 1>anonymous um and they all they said all these things,

0:01:00.920 --> 0:01:04.680
<v Speaker 1>saying he was a drug addict, his business was tanking,

0:01:05.560 --> 0:01:09.680
<v Speaker 1>he perjured himself in a trial against his ex wife

0:01:10.280 --> 0:01:12.880
<v Speaker 1>and taken money for it. There's just a lot of

0:01:13.240 --> 0:01:16.920
<v Speaker 1>really seen the allegations. So if you and they appeared

0:01:17.080 --> 0:01:19.679
<v Speaker 1>high up in his in search results on his name

0:01:19.760 --> 0:01:23.560
<v Speaker 1>and on the name of his practice. Um, so if

0:01:23.600 --> 0:01:28.560
<v Speaker 1>you're considering plastic surgery, you're probably not gonna go to him.

0:01:29.040 --> 0:01:32.200
<v Speaker 1>So and his business did tank after that. Now he

0:01:32.280 --> 0:01:35.840
<v Speaker 1>has filed suit and saying that all of those out,

0:01:35.840 --> 0:01:39.039
<v Speaker 1>all of those complaints, everything was false, but that when

0:01:39.120 --> 0:01:42.280
<v Speaker 1>he approached the website called rip Off Report to tell

0:01:42.319 --> 0:01:44.520
<v Speaker 1>them that it was false, then all of those were

0:01:44.520 --> 0:01:46.240
<v Speaker 1>false and to ask them to have it taken down,

0:01:47.200 --> 0:01:50.600
<v Speaker 1>they told him they couldn't do that, but they could

0:01:50.800 --> 0:01:53.200
<v Speaker 1>charge him money and they would make them go away

0:01:53.240 --> 0:01:58.360
<v Speaker 1>and turn them positive. And in your in your article

0:01:58.440 --> 0:02:02.240
<v Speaker 1>you say that according to in House Council a net Baby,

0:02:02.960 --> 0:02:05.720
<v Speaker 1>we don't want to assume that because somebody wrote something

0:02:05.800 --> 0:02:10.000
<v Speaker 1>really outlandish it's false, because it might be true. And

0:02:10.240 --> 0:02:13.920
<v Speaker 1>once a complaint goes up, it stays there unless you

0:02:14.760 --> 0:02:18.080
<v Speaker 1>pay this and tell us about this service that they offer.

0:02:19.000 --> 0:02:21.440
<v Speaker 1>So there are ways they so they there are ways

0:02:21.480 --> 0:02:25.200
<v Speaker 1>to make the to make the report go lower down

0:02:25.360 --> 0:02:28.560
<v Speaker 1>in search results. And I think what happens. You can

0:02:28.600 --> 0:02:31.600
<v Speaker 1>pay rip off and to become a member of one

0:02:31.639 --> 0:02:36.560
<v Speaker 1>of their service programs and they will sort of review

0:02:36.680 --> 0:02:41.160
<v Speaker 1>your business themselves. Um, they'll come and do an inspection

0:02:41.280 --> 0:02:46.040
<v Speaker 1>and take photos and then so that positive review replaces

0:02:46.200 --> 0:02:50.320
<v Speaker 1>essentially it sits on top of the original negative review. UM,

0:02:50.400 --> 0:02:52.960
<v Speaker 1>so that even though you still might have rip off

0:02:52.960 --> 0:02:55.520
<v Speaker 1>report in your search results. As a business, it would

0:02:55.560 --> 0:02:58.480
<v Speaker 1>be something saying, oh, this is a trusted business and

0:02:59.240 --> 0:03:01.880
<v Speaker 1>you should you the service, UM, and they have the

0:03:01.919 --> 0:03:06.959
<v Speaker 1>customer's interests at heart. UM. Tell about tell me about

0:03:07.000 --> 0:03:11.120
<v Speaker 1>the online free speech under section to thirty, which is

0:03:11.200 --> 0:03:14.440
<v Speaker 1>really at the heart of this. Well, so all of

0:03:14.440 --> 0:03:16.720
<v Speaker 1>this sounds a little bit, you know, from if you're

0:03:16.760 --> 0:03:19.520
<v Speaker 1>just it sounds a little bit counterintuitive that this would

0:03:19.520 --> 0:03:22.600
<v Speaker 1>be totally fine to do and also unfair, right, you know,

0:03:22.760 --> 0:03:27.440
<v Speaker 1>so something false? Why should Why shouldn't the website just

0:03:27.520 --> 0:03:30.880
<v Speaker 1>take it down? UM? And the reason for that is

0:03:30.880 --> 0:03:34.480
<v Speaker 1>that they don't have to under something called the Communications

0:03:34.560 --> 0:03:38.840
<v Speaker 1>Decency Act Section to thirty. It was. It's a law

0:03:38.920 --> 0:03:45.960
<v Speaker 1>pass It immunizes websites from content that third parties, but

0:03:46.040 --> 0:03:48.880
<v Speaker 1>from content from third party. So basically, if you're a

0:03:48.960 --> 0:03:53.320
<v Speaker 1>user and you put up the samatory complaint on this website,

0:03:53.400 --> 0:03:56.800
<v Speaker 1>the website is not liable for that. You could be UM,

0:03:56.800 --> 0:04:00.280
<v Speaker 1>but the website is not. UM. But you know, can

0:04:00.280 --> 0:04:03.920
<v Speaker 1>be very can be very complicated for businesses to respond

0:04:03.960 --> 0:04:06.680
<v Speaker 1>to this because you know, in a situation with report,

0:04:07.200 --> 0:04:10.720
<v Speaker 1>they won't take it down, um, so you basically have

0:04:10.840 --> 0:04:13.160
<v Speaker 1>to pay them even if it's fall So it sounds

0:04:13.200 --> 0:04:17.360
<v Speaker 1>like a nightmare. Are there any legal avenues? Are their

0:04:17.480 --> 0:04:21.080
<v Speaker 1>attorneys general looking into this? Are there any lawsuits that

0:04:21.160 --> 0:04:27.640
<v Speaker 1>have worked? Well? There there are lawsuits there. Judges seem

0:04:27.680 --> 0:04:32.320
<v Speaker 1>to be considering situations in which Section to thirty might

0:04:32.400 --> 0:04:36.520
<v Speaker 1>not apply. Now section is still remains a very powerful protection,

0:04:36.760 --> 0:04:43.159
<v Speaker 1>and and that's good for the internet. Um, but um,

0:04:43.360 --> 0:04:48.560
<v Speaker 1>there are cases in which judges are considering, well, um,

0:04:48.640 --> 0:04:52.520
<v Speaker 1>when might other laws afly like criminal statutes or something,

0:04:52.640 --> 0:04:55.680
<v Speaker 1>when might the website actually be liable for what they've

0:04:55.720 --> 0:04:59.120
<v Speaker 1>put for you know, the content up there. And and

0:05:00.040 --> 0:05:04.560
<v Speaker 1>in one particular case that's important for Dr Pittman's lawsuit,

0:05:05.560 --> 0:05:09.480
<v Speaker 1>the judge in Iowa it was it's not a it's

0:05:09.480 --> 0:05:11.560
<v Speaker 1>not a final ruling, but he did find in a

0:05:11.600 --> 0:05:16.080
<v Speaker 1>preliminary ruling that m rip offs section to the Section

0:05:16.080 --> 0:05:19.799
<v Speaker 1>to thirty immunity would not apply in that case because

0:05:19.880 --> 0:05:26.359
<v Speaker 1>ripoffs essentially had been too involved, um in creating the content,

0:05:26.480 --> 0:05:30.520
<v Speaker 1>like they had paid allegedly paid the man who wrote

0:05:30.560 --> 0:05:34.200
<v Speaker 1>a lot of the reports and may also have been

0:05:34.279 --> 0:05:37.080
<v Speaker 1>involved in writing the reports. Um. Now that is something

0:05:37.120 --> 0:05:40.600
<v Speaker 1>that the website denies, but the judge did say that,

0:05:40.839 --> 0:05:44.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, at trial, more likely than not ripoffs would

0:05:44.400 --> 0:05:47.920
<v Speaker 1>not get Section two thirty immunity. Well, so this is

0:05:48.000 --> 0:05:50.560
<v Speaker 1>as you said, this is really complex and it's a

0:05:50.760 --> 0:05:53.520
<v Speaker 1>nightmarish situation that you paint in your article for the

0:05:53.560 --> 0:05:56.160
<v Speaker 1>people who are subjected to this, And if you want

0:05:56.160 --> 0:05:59.200
<v Speaker 1>to read more about this, go to Bloomberg Business Week,

0:05:59.360 --> 0:06:04.039
<v Speaker 1>because it is it's really complex and very interesting. Thank

0:06:04.080 --> 0:06:07.000
<v Speaker 1>you so much, June Lawrence from Bloomberg Business Week for

0:06:07.080 --> 0:06:09.960
<v Speaker 1>being with us here on Bloomberg Law. That's it for

0:06:10.000 --> 0:06:12.839
<v Speaker 1>this edition of Bloomberg Law. We'll be back tomorrow at

0:06:12.880 --> 0:06:16.200
<v Speaker 1>one pm Wall Street Time. Thanks to our technical director

0:06:16.279 --> 0:06:20.240
<v Speaker 1>Chris try Comey and our producer David Suckerman. Bloomberg Markets

0:06:20.240 --> 0:06:23.640
<v Speaker 1>with Carol Master and Corey Johnson starts right now on

0:06:23.720 --> 0:06:28.600
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Radio. This is Bloomberg. I'm June Grosso. Thanks for listening.

0:06:28.920 --> 0:06:32.800
<v Speaker 1>Stay tuned for Carol Master and Corey Johnson. This is

0:06:32.800 --> 0:06:33.400
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg