Blogger Insurance

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.