fitness forum gets sued? can they do that!!!

[Cloughie]

Please everyone can you take some time to read this? Its pretty scary that a company of this size would be willing to sue a website for talk about their products on a discussion forum.

My members talk about their products also so where does that leave me?

heres the thread. Can a forum really get sued for the info it puts up? if so what should I include in a privacy policy to protect myself or does the vb template one do the job?

http://www.elitefitness.com/articledata/efn/020402.html

[Joe Gronlund]

for talking about products on the site and voicing their opinion, no it would not go far in court... they could try and sue but it would not go anywhere, even if it made it into court.

[Cloughie]

seems wierd they would go to such effort.. Muscletech is probably one of the largest sports supplement companies. They have money coming out their asses.

[WizyWyg]

I think its stupid as well.

How the hell can they sue a "webpage" that has opinions and critiques from normal everday people? Thats is plain unreasonable.

If they are so pissed over a website, then they should be suing those magazines that also "critique" their product. What happens if Consumer Reports gets ahold of their product and basically, in a more professional way, say its sucks beans? ARE they going to sue Consumer Reports for "false advertising ... unfair competition, product disparagement, trade libel, and interference with prospective economic advantage."

This is a perfect example of coporate bullying and I wouldn't be too surprised if an all out boycott happens.

[Steve Machol]

Actually Consumer Reports has been sued many times - most notably by Suzuki for their review of the tip-overs problems with the Samurai. Although CR won in the end, they lawsuit cast them $10 million to fight.

Which is really the point of all this. The lawyers are smart enough to know that they can't win. However they know that many people can't afford the costs associated with fighting a awsuit of this type. Therefore they do this with the expectation of getting the Board, magazine, etc. to back done without a fight. Unfortunately many times they're right. However if done properly, you can fight back in the realm of public opinion.

[Skeptical]

Originally posted by smachol
Actually Consumer Reports has been sued many times - most notably by Suzuki for their review of the tip-overs problems with the Samurai. Although CR won in the end, they lawsuit cast them $10 million to fight.

Which is really the point of all this. The lawyers are smart enough to know that they can't win. However they know that many people can't afford the costs associated with fighting a awsuit of this type. Therefore they do this with the expectation of getting the Board, magazine, etc. to back done without a fight. Unfortunately many times they're right. However if done properly, you can fight back in the realm of public opinion.

This is why the American justice system is so messed up. It's not about who's right. It's all about who can intimidate the other guy. What our government should do is, if you sue someone, lose, and the court finds that it was frivolous, you should have to pay ALL legal costs of the defendant, plus a big fine.

[krs-one]

"It's all about who can intimidate the other guy." Uhh, its called capitalism. Biggest and best win, and thats how it should be.

-Vic

[WizyWyg]

Originally posted by Skeptical


This is why the American justice system is so messed up. It's not about who's right. It's all about who can intimidate the other guy. What our government should do is, if you sue someone, lose, and the court finds that it was frivolous, you should have to pay ALL legal costs of the defendant, plus a big fine.

Actually, this can happen. Its allowed, should the case be thrown out of court, the party being sued can sue the company that tried to sue them for court costs and attorney fees.

Hope that elitefitness has the backing of its members to fight this bully company and show that you cant bully the smaller guy just because you dont like what they say.

Anyway, whatever, the company has no "backing" for its complaint, and I doubt any judge would take it seriously. Just another spoon fed lawyer being blinded $$$$ from a big company.


edit: re-read that letter, and boy is that lawyer blinded by $$$$ instead of looking at the law. Just goes to show $$$$$ moves the world.

[Prince]

Cloughie, I think the fact the Elite sells it's own line of supplements, and it's "commercial site/board", not to mention it's HUGE, has a lot to do with this lawsuit.

I do not think the "little boards" like yours and mine, especially when we do not sell supplements, would have this type of issue.

However, if your site continues to grow and becomes as large as Elite, and you start selling your own supplements, then you could run into trouble.

that's my $.02 :)

[Cloughie]

well i plan to sell products by this summer, this year at least.

I think this whole thing sucks anyhow. As much as I hate elite I hope they screw muscletech. either way its publicity for elitefitness which is only a good thing for them.

I love the way mr spewlin threw in the plug about paying for a platinum membership helps support cases like this lol.

[Valkyre]

Haha, that's hilarious. No really, it is. You can write them back and tell them that they have no grounds to stand on in court, so by all means, let them come, they will just waste money and look stupid in the process.

[Sinecure]

The opinion of the forum users are exactly that, the opinions of the forum users and not that of the webpage owner/operators. The company should realize this and perhaps take these opinions to make their product better, rather then trying to silence the hub for opinions on their products.

[Martin]

Actually, under current law they have plenty of ground to stand upon.

While they cannot do anything about people posting their opinion that MuscleTech products suck, they can say something about the illegal use of their copyrighted and trademarked advertising, and since the site allows it to remain, even after being notified that it was there and the owning company wanted it removed, they are opening themselves up to even greater liability than before.

You can claim that you weren't aware of it's presence, and that will get you off most of the time, as long as you remove it. Once you have been notified and refuse to remove, you become liable.
Since they do sell fitness supplements, a 2nd year law student could easily make the case that the illegal modification of copyrighted and trademarked materials was allowed to stay in order to boost their own sales and falsely disparage the competition.

It's really a no-brainer, and I have to agree with that part of MuscleTech's letter. Wanting people to not mention it is just horse**** and trying to bully them, though it could still be construed as unfair marketing by a judge they had in their pocket.

[WizyWyg]

Originally posted by Martin

You can claim that you weren't aware of it's presence, and that will get you off most of the time, as long as you remove it. Once you have been notified and refuse to remove, you become liable.
Since they do sell fitness supplements, a 2nd year law student could easily make the case that the illegal modification of copyrighted and trademarked materials was allowed to stay in order to boost their own sales and falsely disparage the competition.

It's really a no-brainer, and I have to agree with that part of MuscleTech's letter. Wanting people to not mention it is just horse**** and trying to bully them, though it could still be construed as unfair marketing by a judge they had in their pocket. ]


the only question i have is, doesn't the "parody" part of the copyright law fall on this?

If its a modded "logo" then it can be protected under the parody clause of the copyright law. Since none of the threads were listed, I can't see if they modded the logo or if they just plastered the logo right into a parody makeshift "ad".

if so, wouldn't shows like SNL, MAD TV be sued for defamation because of their skits? (anyone saw the Barbie one this past weekend with Britney Spears?)

[Martin]

There are links to the 2 threads between the letters. The person scanned what look like magazine ads and added their own cartoon bubbles to them.

SNL can get away with 'Parody' because they are not in direct competition with Mattel in the doll business. It's not the same thing.

Have you seen the 7up commercial where the guy is doing taste tests against things like dirty dishwater, spoiled milk, etc? Don't you think if a competing product could get away with 'parody' that, at some point in that commercial, someone would have spit out Sprite and said it tasted like carbonated horse piss?

[thewitt]

Originally posted by Skeptical
This is why the American justice system is so messed up. It's not about who's right. It's all about who can intimidate the other guy. What our government should do is, if you sue someone, lose, and the court finds that it was frivolous, you should have to pay ALL legal costs of the defendant, plus a big fine.
Support politicians who are for Tort Reform, and you might actually see this happen.

The problem today is the Trial Lawyers Association is one of the largest lobbing groups in the country - and most of the current crop of congressmen are lawyers...

-t

[Martin]

the biggest counter-argument is that corporations could then run up legal bills enough to intimidate people out of suing them.

[Valkyre]

Originally posted by Martin
Actually, under current law they have plenty of ground to stand upon.

I was talking about the insults when I said they had no grounds on that. Not sure about the other stuff.

[WizyWyg]

Originally posted by Martin
There are links to the 2 threads between the letters. The person scanned what look like magazine ads and added their own cartoon bubbles to them.

SNL can get away with 'Parody' because they are not in direct competition with Mattel in the doll business. It's not the same thing.

Have you seen the 7up commercial where the guy is doing taste tests against things like dirty dishwater, spoiled milk, etc? Don't you think if a competing product could get away with 'parody' that, at some point in that commercial, someone would have spit out Sprite and said it tasted like carbonated horse piss?

Then pepsi has a big problem because of their "TASTE Test" commercials. They're basically stating that Pepsi tastes better than Coke (which I think pepsi stinks as a soft drink).

Or how about that famous super bowl commercial of the Coke and Pepsi guys sitting in a diner and they trade "drinks" (and it was a Pepsi commercial) and the Pepsi driver throws the coke guy out of the diner's window?

What-ever it is, its just muscletech, muscling in on public opinion.

[Martin]

Pepsi and Coke also acknowledge each others' trademark symbols in the commercials.

[eva2000]

Originally posted by Cloughie
Please everyone can you take some time to read this? Its pretty scary that a company of this size would be willing to sue a website for talk about their products on a discussion forum.

My members talk about their products also so where does that leave me?

heres the thread. Can a forum really get sued for the info it puts up? if so what should I include in a privacy policy to protect myself or does the vb template one do the job?

http://www.elitefitness.com/articledata/efn/020402.html the same happened over at http://forums.overclockers.com.au and a certain Australia pc retail vendor www.sunlit.com.au

sunlit suxs... my pc i got from them was crap and support was very poor.. ie. the have warranty stickers on the case and inside parts.. remove one and bye bye warranty and also i had to go back and forth with my tower pc for repairs 10 times in 1 month! i just gave up

the last time i went they power drilled my screws into my case so tight i can't open it to see what's in it!

alot of people voiced their comments on overclockers forums and sunlit went after OCAU which caused their webmaster alot of money just consulting a lawyer...

because of this OCAU's forum rules do not allow mentioning sunlit or anything relating to them..

you may not get to court but either way you'd have to spend money on consulting a lawyer about your particular case...

[WildWayz]

Hmmm sounds like what happened to me recently - well a big company threatening legal action for a website I own.

Basically I have/had a website called kevlar-killers.com - been up since about june 2000. Just before Christmas I got an writ from DuPont telling me to cease using the domain name and remove the web content as I was violating their trademark.
kevlar-killers.com is a Counter Strike clan site, and only mentions Kevlar in the domain name.

I basically told them that I was not violating their trademark as their website says it is a violation to add the name "Kevlar" to any service or product not associated with DuPont.
I even talked to 2 domain name laywers and they said DuPont don't have a case and they know it, but they would throw money away fighting for it.

Anyway, I told DuPont to sod off as we were not breaking any laws. Then they came back saying that we can keep the content but MUST change the domain name.
I told them I would do so if they paid for a new site (I was not after a a cash settlement as that wasn't the point). They agreed and paid for 0wned.me.uk :)

Now I had to point kevlar-killers.com to some dead DNS servers so it doesn't resolve.

We are featured in the next issue of PC Gamer in the UK as we once starred in their magazine - so they wanted the story on it :)

So basically they went from "give up everything now" to "keep content, and we will buy you a new domain name".

--James

[ukdiver]

Originally posted by krs-one
......its called capitalism. Biggest and best win, and thats how it should be.

-Vic

oh, you mean like Microsoft?

[WizyWyg]

Originally posted by ukdiver


oh, you mean like Microsoft?

hey at least Microsoft does it right
Offer YOU money for your "tech" and they spend $$$ to make it better (or worst) and market it off

At least the guy getting stepped on, got something out of it.

[dancefrequency]

Dun know if you guys heard this case of a hardware company suing members of a certain forum members in a competitor forum in Singapore and they actually won.

They actually managed to get a court order to reveal the identity of the forum members who posted hurtful remarks towards that company.

This is a landmark case in Singapore.