Oh wow, so I can go to an internet cafe and using a fake name and fake email address create a report on anyone I hate with any kind of fake accusation and a fake story and get away with it since your friend Ed Magedson will not verify my id and my story? For example: If I would create a story that for example Erik Goldman is an alleged pedophile and a serial killer and that he allegedly raped his own daughter and then killed her and her classmates and that would fall under Communication Decency Act?

Thanks for the good information, Nick.

My case does not involve companies, but one person attempting to blackmail another by writing a vengeful and untrue pretend review that ripoff report refused to check the facts, like a real publication would.
In effect, they are allowing personal person to person attacks in their report which would probably prevent them from being protected under the First Amendment. I don’t have the money to battle them. However I can be allowed to co join with another Plaintiff that wants some real meat in the case.

Also, Google is an extraordinary ethical company, and this will help weaken their status as a having Publication status.

Anyone looking to sue Ripoff report can contact me to see if we can help one another.

Nick, I have filed a pro se lawsuit Against Ed Magedson personally, and Xcentric, because he is working with a convicted criminal by the name of Darren Meade, as well a convicted murderer, perjurer and welfare fraudster by the name of Tracey Richter (my ex-wife who is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole), as well as a couple of other co-conspirators. I have proof that Ed Magedson is financially compensating the people who are attacking me. Ed Magedson’s motivation is presumably my boycott action against RipOffReport.com, and my exposés on his appalling business practices.

Details the lawsuit can be found here:

http://goo.gl/7A4ll0

The story abount my ex-wife’s conviction is here: http://fathersfight.org

Ripoff Report wants me to go away so badly they suggested I come to work for them. His attorney also tried to get me to commit a crime. Google Social Waterboarding. I promise interesting things are coming.

I wish I had you to assist me in my issues with RR.

Are you saying there would be solutions against RR with the right preparation and would it be possible to bring a class act against them?

If so I am sure you could find enough people to start this (thousands one would think).

Any thoughts on the matter?

Custom Help
Desk Software

Sorry for the polemic but I have been thinking about these issues for some time and your posts on this issue struck a nerve:

The result in the case you cite seems to be based on a lack of evidence to support the claim, rather than some fault in the legal theory plead. Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., No. C-10-1321 EMC (N.D. Cal. October 26, 2011), would seem to be more on point in supporting a blanket Section 230 immunity for all state law torts. .

I noticed that Seldon’s complaint appears to allege that RR had created a new seo optimized web page with fresh content. The excerpt from the opinion (a link would be helpful) suggests that this page was the product of an automated software writing system. I can’t help but wonder – without having access to the opinion – whether this was a case where the Federal judge granted summary judgment without giving the pro per plaintiff a fair opportunity to develop facts through an adequate opportunity for discovery [I was a judicial clerk for a U.S. District Court Judge in the District of Arizona]

Immunity under a similarly plead state law claim filed against against RR was denied by a different judge of the Arizona District Court. See
Hy Cite Corp. v. Badbusinessbureau. Com, LLC, 418 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (D. Ariz. 2005). I can’t find any indication – although I’m sure you’ll correct me if I am wrong – that this decision was overturned on appeal, reconsidered or disavowed in a subsequent opinion . An unpublished opinion by a United States District Court in Texas also refused to extend Section 230 immunity to a similarly plead state law claim, See MCW, Inc. v. badbusinessbureau.com, L.L.C. 2004 WL 833595, No. Civ.A.3:02-CV-2727-G, (N.D. Tex. April 19, 2004).The court disposed of the case by declining to exercise pendant jurisdiction and dismissing the state law claim without prejudice.

Blogs like yours overstate Section 230 immunity for state law claims based on criminal conduct and, as a result, plaintiffs’ attorneys are discouraged from taking these complex civil cases. In addition, Pro per plaintiffs and many plaintiffs’ attorneys who do prosecute these claims, frequently do not know how to work with the right experts to establish a material issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment.in what are relatively complex theories of civil liability. Clearly, using an intentional tort or negligence per se theory of state law liability has yet to be foreclosed by all Federal circuits (how many have even issued an opinion on this issue?)

I also read your Santa Clara article on the AG’s proposal to create a state crimes immunity exception to Section 230 and noticed that it omits some important information..For instance, you failed to mention in your article that the Orlando Weekly’s classified advertising director and two account executives were successful prosecuted in 2007 on charges of aiding and abetting prostitution and receiving the proceeds of a prostitution enterprise., The Weekly was also served with a civil racketeering forfeiture complaint “for contributing to the prostitution industry,” The individual defendants later entered into a plea agreement that allowed for pre-trial diversion on the condition that the Weekly pay a $10,000 fine and voluntarily eliminate the escort section from its adult services classified ads. .

The current problem that the state AG’s have with Backpage.com,, and similar UGC websites, has less to do with the advertising of consensual prostitution services, and much more to do with the fact that escort ads are being used to provide a cover for underage sex trafficking. See

http://www.myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/newsreleases/1EFC7F967EA4096B85257BB2004D7F48

and

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2605689/Florida-police-save-14-year-old-girl-sex-trafficking-arrest-44-three-day-prostitution-sting.html

It’s no longer possible to defend taking these ads on the basis that their contribution to the underage sex trafficking problem is limited to a few isolated anecdotal incidents. The use of online classified advertising has become the preferred business model for most sex trafficking operations in the United States.

VVM has been successful in disguising the real issue as a question of consensual prostitution. However, I have spoken to prosecutors, police officers and sex trafficking advocates who tell me that online ads are now the number one mechanism used by sex traffickers for the retail marketing of underage girls for sex. One prosecutor told me that 100% of the cases she has prosecuted originated from online advertising of underage girls, all of whom were forced into sexual slavery and then peddled on classified ad websites like Backpage.

An argument can be made that if sex trafficking has been charged as a Federal crime, a publishers actions may not be immune from liability under Section 230, But state AG’s should have the ability to hold publishers accountable for actions that violate either state or federal sex trafficking laws.

I simply can’t buy the argument, from a public policy perspective, that the economic health of the UGC industry outweighs the interests of society in prosecuting businesses that collaborate and conspire with sex traffickers..Especially when you consider that classified advertising websites are of such a fundamentally different character than the traditional UGC information sharing websites that Congress intended to protect when enacting Section 230’s safe harbor provision. Websites that only sell user generated classified advertising should, as a matter of policy, receive less immunity than websites that provide the traditional opinion and comment function of a traditional UGC website.

Finally, the obvious contempt in the tone that you consistently take with defendants who dare to file lawsuits against RR report betrays a bias that may be preventing you from correctly evaluating the policy considerations at issue here. Liability issues aside, RR is a bad actor. Their business model stinks. They exploit and take advantage of vulnerable people for a profit. Their “champion of the consumer” justification for their conduct is a canard. Just because its ‘legal’ doesn’t make what they are doing right..

Yes, several times, and those lawsuits have all failed. See, e.g., https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/07/ripoff_report_b_1.htm