Hi, I was just wondering (I'm not seeking legal advice etc. as this has not happened; I am merely curious) as to the proceedings in place when someone reads something on a website, written by a content writer and something negative happens to said person as a result. That seems awfully confusing so I'll use an example. I'll choose health since lots of people on DigitalPoint own websites in the rather high-paying health niche: 1. A content writer is commissioned to write an SEO article on how the benefits of some sort of vegetable, let's call it a sprout! 2. Content writer writes their article titled "Why Sprouts are Good for You" and goes onto describe a number of properties of sprouts that make them good for you. All the information has been sourced from reputable sources and is factually correct. 3. Website owner receives article, pays, and uploads it to their website. (The website has a disclaimer saying that the advice on the website shouldn't replace medical advice, not be followed by people with other conditions, under the age of majority, pregnant women etc etc etc) 4. Some time later a visitor comes along, reads the article, decides to eat nothing but sprouts and subsequently gets ill - in our example I would imagine that it would be a very serious case of 'gas'. 5. The visitor then sues the website for providing information that ended up her being ill. Perhaps they would sue for medical expenses or something, I don't know. In this situation, who would be liable? The website owner for posting the information, or the content writer for providing the information in the first place? What steps could be taken to reduce the liability placed on either party? Does liability vary by country? Thanks! (Apologies for the long post)
I am not an attorney, but I have been in business more than 40 years and I have had an interest in this issue for a long time. I have always been guided by a simple principle: anyone can sue anyone they want to, any time they want to. Many times the person who sues (plaintiff) is guided entirely by whether or not they think the defendant has money (assets, resources, etc.). As a defendant, it can be extraordinarily expensive and time consuming to defend yourself, whether or not you have liability or are guilty of anything. The plaintiff merely counts on the defendants willingness to settle to avoid the time and expense of a defense and also to avoid the risk of an adverse judgement. People routinely get wealthy with frivolous lawsuits, depending on the defendant's aversion to legal proceedings. Some people like to sue. There are attorneys who don't even represent clients. They just file lawsuits for themselves and get settlements. Many years ago (my only real legal encounter) I sued someone. I won and collected. After paying my attorney there wasn't enough left for lunch. I spent months highly distracted, unable to get anything else done. There is an expression "no one wins a lawsuit but the attorneys". It has always struck me as slightly crazy to get involved in a business where you have a heightened risk of legal action. I have never regretted that for a moment. Life is tough enough, business is tough enough, without flushing precious energy down the toilet.
People can, and will sue for almost anything. Whether they win is a different matter altogether. Anyway, the website owner would most probably be liable since he owns the content and has (Willingly) put it on the internet for public consumption. A disclaimer would help the website owner's case.
It certainly seems correct, however when I checked a similar manner with an Internet attorney, it seems what you are saying works differently. The way the real world views matters, and the way the internet does are very often not the same. I would suggest that maybe this might be good for the portion of the DP forum about legal issues. Both Carl and Lightless give 2 different points to my 3rd, and there may be even more. I know Americans go against FTC (American authority) by doing no opt-in email blasting say from Turkey, where they can then escape real world penalties. However, since it appears you are talking about the internet, I personally find earthly people will take your money and right or wrong you still lose. I am sure the other Forum section can be be of better service even though this does involve writing. Have a good day.
I think about involvement in a legal action much like an auto accident where the other party is admittedly at fault and is fully insured. You still have all the hassle and inconvenience of dealing with insurance companies and getting your vehicle repaired. Being involved in a lawsuit is a brutal distracting experience at best. After that, it just gets worse.
CarlDia I totally agree with you. I had a similar experience with my previous mobile carrier Vodafone. They wrongly charged me 200 bucks and I spend many hours with their customer service and writing letters just to get the money back that actually belonged to me. They never paid me for spending all those hours. It's a loss-loss situation for the customer. Sue and loose valuable time or don't sue, loose your money and encourage the other party to get on with their fraudulent behavior.
CarlDia has it right — it's the attorneys who win it really. As for the OP's case — the website owner is probably purchasing all rights from you and not even acknowledging who wrote the article on the website. So the plaintiff probably wouldn't even know you unless the website owner decides you need to share the blame. But then how does he prove that that article in question was written by you and not someone else? Sure you transacted with the website owner citing payment for content writing services, proving that your wrote "something" for him/her. But as to which one it was — no one can prove unless there is a byline with your name on it. But then Carl is right, defending is the the most annoying and expensive part no matter what the verdict is.
All you have to do is to look at the pro health sites out there to see how they do it. And, yeah, people sue over anything. Winning is something else. Oh, great. ... Now I'm hungry for sprouts! ... And I don't have any! I'm suing you!!
As a writer, I always consider my statements carefully, particularly my usage of absolutes. Using your example, even if 100% of my sources agreed, I would not write, "A diet of sprouts will cure breast cancer." Instead I would write, "Experts agree that eating sprouts may help in the treatment of breast cancer." Then there's the sneaky but true statements like, "Everyone on the sprout diet lost weight." While that could be 100% truthful, it also conveniently leaves out that they were also all admitted to the hospital for malnutrition. As far as I know, sneaky statements aren't truly actionable but certainly devalue the credibility of the source and could taint the writer's credibility. A smarter statement would be "A diet limited to sprouts will lead to weight loss but does not provide everything the body needs." Even if the results were measurable, I would still employ a bit of wiggle room as in: "Eating sprouts on a daily basis was found to clear acne in 10% of study participants." or "Sprouts Linked to Acne Cure" instead of "Sprouts cure Acne!" I second and even third guess everything. I look for ways it could be negatively mis-interpreted and unfortunately check to make sure it even protects stupid people from themselves. Not truly an answer to your question, just some advice on how I would handle a writing assignment in the circumstances you outline. If a client wanted me to write materials that I know are factually inaccurate or intentionally misleading, I would fire the client before risking my own reputation. The money I make today from a single content writing client isn't worth risking the money I might make tomorrow.