Blogger Insurance

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Heard about this last night and would be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter. Little bit of research into a company called riskeye (Riskeye.com) shows up that they're a unique Irish company offering Irish beauty and fashion bloggers protection from negative reviews online.

They go on to inform their prospective customers that using PR and Legal leaders, they can get defamatory articles and reviews removed "which will protect your reputation from being damaged". They go on to offer protection from "trolls and competitors from damaging what you've worked hard to build up".

So, for the princely sum of just 360 euro per year you're given 24/7 access to PR and Legal teams to deal with anything that's aimed at their business.

They claim to boast some of Ireland's top bloggers as their clients and inform prospective customers they protect them online. They go on to say they have the means "to shut down facebook and instagram accounts and get reviews and comments removed".

And it's not just items in the here and now, the advise would be customers that they can look at and assess older content with the review of having it removed.


I don't know what to make of it to be honest. I don't think anybody should be at the risk of being defamed but the truth is not defamation and I would wonder if the truth is being shut down, is this company interfering with the freedom of expresssion?

Sunny Dayz

Ah here!!


*rolls eyes*

retro:electro

This certainly explains how the one who shall not be named *cough* Ciara O Doherty, had all her comments deleted on her Taylor and Rose page in actual seconds. I had a feeling there was a bot or something at work there. It also explains why some other stuff about her was deleted on here.

It's beyond stupid, isn't it? If you have to hire a private company to make sure you have a clean online reputation and clean up the gunk- (not even gunk, some of it honest and worthy critique) maybe it's time to look inward at yourself and your practices and how you operate as a public figure.

Cria

That’s insane if anyone signs up for that they deserve all the negative reviews they get .. I’m sick of this bloggers only want a happy space like get a grip .. rosie talking about a positive space today and she was the one that slaughtered a company online who wouldn’t have her chairs ready until a week after the date they agreed that’s hardly positive Rosie lol..
my pet hate is how they practice one thing and preach another ,, <removed>
Here’s positivity accept a company might be a little late with chairs accept a restaurant might not cater for children , tell your partner people are entitled to their opinions <removed>,,, do these bloggers not even realise how they behave

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Chria, they clearly do but pay insurance that it's kept under wraps

Cria

Linda Salmon Sophomore wrote: »

Chria, they clearly do but pay insurance that it's kept under wraps

True ,, like they are bloggers not A list celebrities ireland is a small country everyone knows everyone you can’t hide your secrets on this small island lol

wendydoll

I’m not even surprised. You speak ill of these people! Fecking sick of them all. Say Ms. Wrynne will be signing herself up so she doesn’t have to remove comments herself when she posts pictures of animal cruelty. As for rosie, she’d want to get a grip of herself! A few dining room chairs late and she’s bitching and moaning about them being delayed. First world problems.

retro:electro

Cria wrote: »

That’s insane if anyone signs up for that they deserve all the negative reviews they get .. I’m sick of this bloggers only want a happy space like get a grip .. rosie talking about a positive space today and she was the one that slaughtered a company online who wouldn’t have her chairs ready until a week after the date they agreed that’s hardly positive Rosie lol..
my pet hate is how they practice one thing and preach another ,<removed>
Here’s positivity accept a company might be a little late with chairs accept a restaurant might not cater for children , tell your partner people are entitled to their opinions<removed>,, do these bloggers not even realise how they behave

Cria this made me howl out loud!
You're dead right!

wendydoll

Christ almighty the censorship on boards it nuts. I don't see it anywhere else but blogger threads.

Cria

wendydoll wrote: »

Christ almighty the censorship on boards it nuts. I don't see it anywhere else but blogger threads.

You can say what you like about anyone except make up fairy rosie connelly And Suzanne Jackson cause they threaten legal action that is too funny .. if they only realised the groups , threads on other platforms plus the amount of private messaging that goes around discussing the carry on they wouldn’t even bother threatening legal action , ireland is so small everyone knows everyone,, with these censorship’s it just means people private message each other asking what was censored,, if I was these girls I’d give up the threats it’s like pissing in the wind and makes them look so up themselves ,, no one is perfect #fact #notanad #positivity lol

wendydoll

do they think just because its not being discussed on a forum that its not being talked about. Unreal!

Maybe we should start our own blog, the honesty squad. Have code names for these ones that threaten legal action so everyone know who you are talking about but it a wink wink nudge nudge way

ace_irl

The reality of it is that they would never actually pursue any legal action unless it was extremely serious.

The bad press alone from there being a court case would damage and destroy their brand far more than anything individuals on boards or other forums could.

They are empty threats, I'm sure if they tried to go after anyone for voicing an opinion on an online platform, a quick reply of a counter suit would have them running away in their Loubs!

Cria

wendydoll wrote: »

do they think just because its not being discussed on a forum that its not being talked about. Unreal!

Maybe we should start our own blog, the honesty squad. Have code names for these ones that threaten legal action so everyone know who you are talking about but it a wink wink nudge nudge way

I’m in lol

Cria

ace_irl wrote: »

The reality of it is that they would never actually pursue any legal action unless it was extremely serious.

The bad press alone from there being a court case would damage and destroy their brand far more than anything individuals on boards or other forums could.

They are empty threats, I'm sure if they tried to go after anyone for voicing an opinion on an online platform, a quick reply of a counter suit would have them running away in their Loubs!

That’s what makes me laugh who takes them threats seriously look at the chicken roll page when Suzanne threatened them they just slaughtered her

wendydoll

wendydoll wrote: »

do they think just because its not being discussed on a forum that its not being talked about. Unreal!

Maybe we should start our own blog, the honesty squad. Have code names for these ones that threaten legal action so everyone know who you are talking about but it a wink wink nudge nudge way

Cria wrote: »

I’m in lol

Would be some laugh, we could have guest editors writing little blogs. Imagine the outrage if it took off and you got invited to "blogger events" and sat next to those you were outing as phoneys :D:D

SusieBlue

This is hilarious. They can threaten to sue and send cease and desist letters all they want, the truth is out there for all to see and they can't stop people from discussing amongst themselves. The notions these people have never cease to amaze me, don't put yourself in the public eye if you don't want people talking (negatively or positively) about things you HAVE ACTUALLY done.

Its tough being a jealous hater, but some of us have to fly the flag. I've no doubt at all this thread will be shut down in about 5 minutes so I won't say any more. Love and light to you all xxxx

wendydoll

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Its tough being a jealous hater, but some of us have to fly the flag. I've no doubt at all this thread will be shut down in about 5 minutes so I won't say any more. Love and light to you all xxxx

Jealous haters grow devil horns to knock #girlboss crowns off...we could bring out our own bespoke (aliexpress) designs of devil horns. Imagine the mark up we could charge:rolleyes::rolleyes:

dudara

Linda Salmon Sophomore wrote: »

I don't think anybody should be at the risk of being defamed but the truth is not defamation and I would wonder if the truth is being shut down, is this company interfering with the freedom of expresssion?

More accurately, truth is a defense against defamation.

Good reading here on defamation.

An actionable defamatory statement has three ingredients:

• it must be published,
• it must refer to the complainant and
• it must be false.

Referring to the complainant (the person who says they have been defamed) is not limited to explicit naming. If the person can be identified through nicknames etc, then that counts.

When it comes to the statement being false, defamation differs from other torts in that a statement will be presumed to be defamatory until proved otherwise. If a defendant (the person accursed of defamation) wishes to plead justification as a defence, he has to prove the truth of the statement.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Well then, let's say for example, hypothetically speaking of course, someone sets up a business, leaves "untrue" articles uncorrected for months in regards to said business being a design of the founder and the collection contained bespoke pieces. This article let's say is published on a well known website available for all to read. Months pass, and the article is still online.

Then one day, somebody sees an item for less than 10 euro on another website when it was on sale on this business for over 100 euro. The consumer is rightfully annoyed, and informs other people where to buy item for over 100 euro cheaper.

Is that defamation?

I'm looking at a mirror online on a furniture website for 250 euro. Pennies have the same one for 25. Am I defaming the furniture shop by purchasing it in pennies, or can the furniture shop sue me for telling another person where to buy cheaper?

Surely if that falls under defamation then those splurge vs save and designer dupes that those bloggers post would be defaming the more expensive brand.

In regards to the ingredients to defamation, 1/3 of the requirement is it must be false. So you'd assume one is asking themselves the question
"Is that item from Ali express?" Or "did that ladies husband/brother threaten to inflict harm on another person online?" its either false (it didn't happen) or its true (and it did happen). Once you can back up what you're saying, you should be fine, no?

dudara

There's nothing wrong with saying "X sells this for €500, but the same item is here for €50". What you have to be able to prove is that is it the same item, but otherwise, it's a factually correct statement. The burden of proof increases if the statement is "X sells this for €500, but she buys it here for €50". Now you have to prove that she buys it.

Defamation often enters into matters when the statement also includes reference to the person's character or business nature, because ultimately, "a defamatory statement is one which tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society".

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

But in effect these people are just defaming themselves? Selling items bought cheaply for a very high profit is all well and good until you're found out. At that point, you as the consumer should be well within your rights to say "this is the item from Ali express" (especially in cases where they've not even bothered to change the stock photo) as I'd argue that you saying that is not what's damaging their business in the eyes of reasonable members of society, it's them purchasing and reselling items from a Chinese website with a luxury price tag and leaving factually incorrect and misleading articles online when it suits them but having them redacted within hours when it doesn't, then paying a private company 360 euro for a years protection, and paying for discussion to be censored and shut down. If you're being defamed, speak to your solicitor and initiate legal proceedings, instead of hiring a private company to bully and intimidate.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

wyrn

Only €360 for an annual fee, that's just shy of a euro a day. If I were a blogger, I'd probably hire them.

It makes much more sense now. I was wondering how certain people had the time (and money) to pop into their solicitors to get letters written up.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

They don't cause the solicitors would laugh them out of their office. I see one blogger threatening to sue someone for asking if she was related to her fellas ex as they look alike. I mean, are you able?

retro:electro

From what I can see, people are only discussing the parts of their lives that they themselves put up for discussion. It's fecking madness then to be issuing legal threats because someone on a forum talks about your private life. The only way to stop people talking about it is to stop showing it. But then they wouldn't get all the back slapping omg your life is goals Hun where'd you get the top what paint is on your walls you're my idol type comments that feed their egos.

Cria

Looks like a certain blogger got a post deleted by threatening legal action again she is getting worse than MUF what she doesn’t realise is people have seen it it’s been discussed and now people are putting their own status up
About what she did , <snip> and stop getting threads deleted and acting in Snapchat like everything is perfect... I don’t understand how companies still
Work with her after what she said in that article

StripedBoxers

Blogger insurance? Is this a new thing? Madness it is.

Cria wrote: »

Looks like a certain blogger got a post deleted by threatening legal action again she is getting worse than MUF what she doesn’t realise is people have seen it it’s been discussed and now people are putting their own status up
About what she did , <snip> and stop getting threads deleted and acting in Snapchat like everything is perfect... I don’t understand how companies still
Work with her after what she said in that article

What article was this?

aine92

StripedBoxers wrote: »

Blogger insurance? Is this a new thing? Madness it is.

What article was this?

Oh mas who drink, people were discussing RC threatening legal action over a thread that discussed her physical similarity to Stephanie Mc Namee, in which people mentioned the fact RC other half has a baby with Stephanie.

meeeeh

If that was my livelihood I would want to protect it. Can anyone guarantee that some troll won't start spreading lies and seriously hurt the business?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Yes i can understand lies, anyone with a business I'm sure faces the same issues, but these people are paying a group to **** down relevant topics, and leaving it so that media will not report on certain influencers - despite the topic being newsworthy because they're fearful of the repercussions.

Sunny Dayz

aine92 wrote: »

Oh mas who drink, people were discussing RC threatening legal action over a thread that discussed her physical similarity to Stephanie Mc Namee, in which people mentioned the fact RC other half has a baby with Stephanie.

Was the post on that group where the girl had mentioned and shown a screenshot of the message she received from RC also deleted? I was reading it yesterday morn and then last night when I when to pick up where I left off, I couldn't find the post.

idunno78

Just looked to see and yes it's all gone now!

mel123

aine92 wrote: »

Oh mas who drink, people were discussing RC threatening legal action over a thread that discussed her physical similarity to Stephanie Mc Namee, in which people mentioned the fact RC other half has a baby with Stephanie.

This crosses my mind every time i watch Stephanie

heretoask

Can someone direct me how to start a new thread on here - I have a questions about #ad and legalities

mel123

heretoask wrote: »

Can someone direct me how to start a new thread on here - I have a questions about #ad and legalities

You cant, you cant be a new member to post in this section

SpillingTheTea

dudara wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with saying "X sells this for €500, but the same item is here for €50". What you have to be able to prove is that is it the same item, but otherwise, it's a factually correct statement. The burden of proof increases if the statement is "X sells this for €500, but she buys it here for €50". Now you have to prove that she buys it.

Defamation often enters into matters when the statement also includes reference to the person's character or business nature, because ultimately, "a defamatory statement is one which tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society".

I was just thinking about this, wouldn’t the Evoke/Mail on Sunday article that came out last weekend prove that the items were from China and anyone saying that they were aren’t defaming said seller?
They items are literally identical and I’m sure that the these publications wouldn’t be allowed to publish articles that could cause them to be in some sort of legal trouble.

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

Graham

sashafierce wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not quite, the insurance covers the legal costs in attempting to get defamatory statements removed.

I would guess the majority of the time it's just a case of a solicitors letter being sent to the organisation hosting the statement threatening legal action if it's not removed.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

THe letters are sent by risk eye not solicitors

Graham

Linda Salmon Sophomore wrote: »

THe letters are sent by risk eye not solicitors

You could well be right, I've never been on the receiving end of one of the letters.

The theory is the same, insurance covers the cost of the letter being sent to the organisation hosting the statement threatening legal action if it's not removed. Insurance also potentially covers legal costs if the threatening letter is ignored.

The point is bloggers aren't paying to get bad reviews removed, they're paying for someone to threaten legal action against those hosting the bad reviews.

I know it's a subtle difference but that subtle difference is likely to be important to the entities who take-down the reviews. They're taking down reviews because of the legal threats, not because they've been paid to remove them.

SpillingTheTea

From the actual site:

‘TAKEDOWNS
Positive customer feedback is an asset to any business but unfair and untrue feedback still counts. Using our knowledge of platform policies we can assist in the removal of false and unfair reviews.’

Also, just a point about this. Riskeye were involved with the removal of the posts on boards and the Instagram page set up, in relation to Ciara O’Doherty, yet Evoke/Mail on Sunday’s legal team obviously cleared their piece to allow it to be printed so if it’s defamatory, then how come Evoke/Mail on Sunday’s post is still up?

These guys are just PR group that sell an ‘insurance’ against bad press.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Yes they are. In the email they send to bloggers it states that they can even have past bad reviews removed. In the opening post I posted pretty much word for word what was sent to a blogger to try get them to join.

They have no way of backing up their bark with a bite they're a PR company who promise to stop bad reviews damaging a business. It's insurance against bad press.

They do not have a solicitor send the letters it's sent through riskeye, therefore it means **** all

Graham

Linda Salmon Sophomore wrote: »

Yes they are. In the email they send to bloggers it states that they can even have past bad reviews removed. In the opening post I posted pretty much word for word what was sent to a blogger to try get them to join.

They have no way of backing up their bark with a bite they're a PR company who promise to stop bad reviews damaging a business. It's insurance against bad press.

They do not have a solicitor send the letters it's sent through riskeye, therefore it means **** all

The riskeye website states:

The policy comes into affect in the event that following an online reputation attack, there is a clear requirement for PR and / or Legal intervention.

You don't have to be a solicitor to threaten legal action but you are right, the initial letter does mean SFA.

It is effective though as other posters have attested. It basically suggests to the hosting organisation/company that they may be up against insurers that have the resources (deep pockets) necessary to take legal action if needs be.

Most companies will delete a post/review rather than go down that road.

The only time I can see a genuine need for this kind of policy is where someone is being genuinely defamatory, i.e. posting harmful untruths about a person/product/company.

Personally, I don't think a bad review should be classed as an 'online reputation attack'. If a company gets a genuine bad review, they should take it on the chin, learn from it and move on.

meeeeh

SpillingTheTea wrote: »

From the actual site:

‘TAKEDOWNS
Positive customer feedback is an asset to any business but unfair and untrue feedback still counts. Using our knowledge of platform policies we can assist in the removal of false and unfair reviews.’

Also, just a point about this. Riskeye were involved with the removal of the posts on boards and the Instagram page set up, in relation to Ciara O’Doherty, yet Evoke/Mail on Sunday’s legal team obviously cleared their piece to allow it to be printed so if it’s defamatory, then how come Evoke/Mail on Sunday’s post is still up?

These guys are just PR group that sell an ‘insurance’ against bad press.

You can have some sort of an oversight over articles that apear in press. Journalists know they could be sued, they are trained how to write, to check information and so on. Social media posters tend not to be aware of defamation laws how ever they are subject of exactly the same rules as journalists. About month ago some genious was fined 60k euro irc for defamation statements they posted on fb about someone else. You might think the statements in those articles are exactly as they were on boards but you can't know until the information is checked and every post ran past legal department or someone who knows the law. It's not enough that everyone knows something you must be able to prove it and back it up. And it's a lot harder to police social media where 10 different statements can be made in ten minutes in comparison of one article being published in a week.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/hospital-worker-awarded-65k-after-being-defamed-on-facebook-36345960.html

Graham

+1

Newspapers may run potentially legally contentious articles past their legal team before publication to make sure they're sticking to the absolute verifiable facts. Even then, they occasionally get it wrong and end up on the losing side of an expensive court case.

Social media posters often aren't as considered in their posts so while the factual elements may be similar, the personal opinion/judgement can wander into the defamation territory.