OK I asked in general marketing how to bump a website search from 1st page to 3rd-4th. They mention a cease and desist letter to be sent to Google to remove this website all together, this of course would be ideal. So I want to ask, if I sent Google such a letter and then this letter to the company the has posted this website. I would like to know how you gathered you're information for this story. Did this story brake because of a "F" rating from a paid subscriber to your website? How many reviews from paying subscribers do you have against the company being mention "Censored for privacy" The statement made from (Censored for privacy) " (Censored for privacy) says (Censored for privacy) left her a phone message, allegedly using ethnic slurs and discriminating remarks about her age" to your site was made directly to one of your reporters? If so did your reporter contact (Censored for privacy) to gain his comments on the mater? This looks like someone personally joined you're site to accuse someone in such a way to hurt his business in his local area, How many people has this guy worked for? have you contacted anyone of the others? you had one of them who happen to be his lawyer, What rating did he give this company?. You mention this at the very end of a post that has the viewer seeing said company as being such a terrible company, but if it's such a bad company how could they kept their license from the state while the other people during this proceeding with the attorney general all lost their licenses but (Censored for privacy) kept his. “A consumer settlement was reached in April for $16,628 to be paid to consumers,†says( Censored for privacy), attorney general deputy press secretary." TO be followed in the same paragraph with ( Censored for privacy) declared bankruptcy in November, two days before ( Censored for privacy) was scheduled to take ( Censored for privacy) to civil court. to make it look like ( Censored for privacy) this, but that's not true is it? ( Censored for privacy) actually told you this right? The way it's written is to trick the reader into drawing a conclusion which paints this whole ordeal (At time of the new construction season, where he would be getting work to bring up a dead article the ( Censored for privacy) newspaper that broke 6 months ago. This to me seem like a costumer out to ruin ( Censored for privacy) and brought this to your attention at the right time to hurt his bottom line, he has been doing work since the story first released and was finally get past the bad PR from the news paper then your company digs up old news which has cost him thousands of dollars I'm sure. I did how ever see that your reporter took the time contact his lawyer, why was that? I'm glad to see his lawyer making this comment “(Censored for privacy) does good work,†says (Censored for privacy) . “I’ve had him work on my roof and gutters.†Here is someone else who had work done for him, probably how he became his bankruptcy lawyer, how come I see no mention of what grade he would give? is that because you don't care what grade he will give this company because he is not paying a 8 dollar fee? To me it seems you take advantage of a bad PR that happen 6 months ago because of a bitter person who wants to ruin the name of this company at stack, thats been around 35 years, and in pa they just passed a law a few years ago that required them to register to the state and I looked into it, and he seems to register in 2004, so that means his company was registered shortly after the law took place. And he is an L.L.C company as well has been when he registered, some of the complaints he has to pay restitution to have been deceased for some years now and even the general attorney can not locate living relatives so the restitution is being paid to whom? Can this be enough to stop the website who posted it to think about fighting the cease and desist? and if it is not enough does the company owner who is being said to have made these slurs, have any chance at winning a law suit by either party involved? Does the fact that this company will only let paid users review a company in their area hold any ground of proving a profit was made during this case of false accusations? And if so does that give the company the right to sue both the individualism and the company? Sorry for the improper English and grammar.
I did not see the other thread. I realize English is not your native language. I mean to help you with this post and not insult you. To do that I have to say things in pretty simple terms. 1. A cease and desist is something you send to the website you have an issue with. It is not something you send to Google or any other third party. Your first step is asking a site to remove material that you have a problem with. Your second step is demanding they take it down. Your third step is to have a lawyer file a C & D letter. 2. What you posted above is very poor grammer and will not be taken seriously by anyone. REMEMBER no insult is intended. 3. If this site is posting untrue statements about you or your site you can file a complaint with them and with their host. 4. If they have copied your work you may want to file a DCMA complaint. 5. Lawsuits are best avoided if at all possible only the blood sucking lawyers really win. Without knowing more, I will stop now and wait until you post again.
Very good Colbyt. I would just like to ad that libel (same as slander, only in writing. Basically saying information is false) is something you could sue someone for if you really wanted to, and you would have a decent chance at winning. However, as Colbyt said, it is best to avoid that avenue, as it is very time consuming.
If you are sending a cease and desist, it is too the website itself or the website's host. You can send a DMCA letter to Google if they violate your copyright, but you can't make up that they violate your copyright just so you get ranked higher and they are removed, because that is almost certainly illegal in itself - and Google are not stupid.
You are right with both statements hostlonestar. If the material is as bad as the OP's statement seems to indicate I imagine most hosts would encourage the site to modify the content to a a less libelous nature. However the contact with the host needs to be after the contact to the site IMO and needs to be very courteous in style.
I think the DMCA would be faster than other means. I could be wrong but one of my friend had went this route and Google took the other site from the search results for a specific keyword. Cheers
Thing is, with DMCA notice the site has to be violating the copyright. I will verify all DMCA notices when I get them for my clients, before I do anything. If I don't believe it to be a true notice, I will not take any action until I get some kind of proof. And I would still be covered by immunity for doing my due diligence to verify copyright ownership. Google is the same way, they will not just take it down without investigating it. You have to show them you actually own the copyright. They will not alter anything if you send them a DMCA notice about libel. Also, I agree with Colbyt, contact the site owner/webmaster first, before the host. The host is still obligated to try to rectify the issue, otherwise we loose our immunity, however, things can often times be taken care of at the lowest level possible. The C&D is not usually sent to the Host (except as a Carbon Copy to notify them). If you try serving a C&D on me I will tell your attorney to take it to my client first. I have done it before, and my immunity held up (granted this was about 4 years ago). From the looks of what you posted (if I've read this correctly, please correct me if I didn't) it appears your issue is more libel than a copyright violation. If that is the case, don't even look into a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) notice, as it will not get you anywhere, since it only deals with copyright. I would recommend consulting an attorney to make sure the Cease and Desist Letter is very professional as well as showing them you mean business. Now, if they are in another country than you, you may have some issues, especially if the files are also located in another country that you do not have easy access to file suite in. This could turn into a bigger headache than common sense dictates is worth it. I would send a C&D but think really hard about actual court. What would be the advantages over the disadvantages. Sit down with an attorney, and don't allow them to BS you into a suite.
From what I have read, and came to the conclusion is that I can send a D&C to the company isp, and the host will usually pull the site, and does or doesnt need to notify the company. But then the company could request the site is placed back up, but If it is, I want the slanderous sounds of this article removed or changed. What I am thinking of is IF the host doesn't notify the company who owns the material then maybe it will be over spotted. And if they do notify them, To then start contacts with them. Because most likly the isp will remove the comment to be immune to any future law suits , I don't want to file law suit but only want the site taken down or changed. Can anyone tell me what type of lawyer would handle this type of case?
A Civil attorney that specializes in libel. However, I would like to stress, send it to him first. The issue could be taken care of quicker if you do it that way.