Oops. Yes. My bad (acknowledged 9 months after the fact.)

I believe you’re referring to the Doe #14 v. Internet Brands case, not this one…?

The initial draft of my letter actually went in a different direction with the “provocative” argument thing — I pointed out that ROR’s policy is basically the exact same thing as the policies used by virtually every court in this country; i.e., people can say almost anything in a pleading. People can (and do) present claims in court they know are 100% false.

Despite this, courts typically don’t destroy their records or hide them from public view just because a claim has been proven false. Rather, the only relief given to an aggrieved litigant is a final order/judgment which explains the outcome of the case.

ROR works in exactly the same way — people can make any allegation in a report, and if that allegation is later proven to be false, ROR will post a copy of whatever document/order/judgment shows the outcome of the dispute. I see no material difference between that policy and the one employed by most courts.

Also, most courts permanently maintain their records and often publish them online (indeed, the federal government even makes money by selling online access to records containing false information @ .10 cents a page!) Of course, the public is always free to publish statements contained in court records (as you often do), regardless of whether the statements are true or false.

So while it might be provocative, it seems inappropriate for courts to instruct website owners to: “Do as I say, not as I do.”

That isn’t a legal argument, but it’s still something to consider.