Home » Reputation Solicitor
Category Archives: Reputation Solicitor
Social media users are like the coffee farmers but only in the sense that they work extremely hard in return for very little. Social media users work for the social media corporation by producing never-ending internet content and by falsifying friendship and relationships. Social media users dance and sing before their masters and often strip themselves off the rights to privacy and basic dignity. Social media sites will not exist without the hard labour of users in the same way that coffee chains will not survive without an army of coffee farmers. Read the full article: Social Media Sites and Corporate Social Responsibility
By: Yair Cohen
Lord Rennard’s lawyers are still considering grounds for legal action against the Liberal Democrats Party following his suspension from the party and the announcement that a second investigation into his conduct is to commence.
The lawyers are expected to have an interesting time preparing their case. There are plenty of evidence and good legal material to play with. Professionally, they are like kids in a toy shop.
So has Lord Rennard got a reasonably good case? It seems he has.
So on what grounds may Lord Rennard win a judicial review?
Under UK law, there are only three circumstances where a Court might declare administrative decisions unlawful. Read more on Lord Rennard legal case here
By: Yair Cohen
I have identified 7 different categories of fake online reviews. Each of these categories is unique and should be approached and dealt with differently.
Fake online reviews by competitors, fake online reviews by disgruntled customers, fake online reviews by ex-employees, fake online reviews by former business partners, fake online reviews by suppliers, fake online reviews just for fun! and the last category – defamation on forums.
Read about each of these categories of fake online reviews on the website I dedicated for this purpose.
By: Yair Cohen,
Social Media Lawyer
Have you ever left an online review? If you have, then this article
will interest you.
Recently I came across a few cases where people who left a review
following a purchase from Amazon Market Place, ended up being
bullied, harassed and trolled by what appeared to be an organised
network of Amazon vendors.
In one instant a man who left a review following his
dissatisfaction with the return policy of the vendor, received over
130 posts responding to his review, many of which were derogatory,
insulting and to be frank outrageous.
He was being ridiculed and embarrassed and even his home address
was placed on the discussion forum. The assault went on for a
number of days before Amazon agreed to remove some of the offending
comments. However, these were replaced by more cruel and vicious
attacks on the buyer.
Is this a new trend? I hope not.
I will keep an eye on this issue. If you have had a similar
experience after you left an online review, I would love to hear
Social media and online reputation solicitor
Learn more about business and online reviews [
http://www.internetlawcentre.co.uk/ ] here:
- Fake online reviews (defamationagainstacompany.co.uk)
The number of fake online reviews is constantly growing. A significant number of fake online reviews is written by business owners who often act in despair after becoming themselves victims of fake online reviews.
On the internet, bad reputation both stinks and sticks. Once a customer’s bad experience becomes viral, traces of it might follow your organisation for years to come, and the story might be resurrected just when you feel that it has gone away forever more.
Five, six or ten years ago, companies that delivered terrible customer experience could have perhaps be forgiven for not realising that the internet had the tendency of tattooing certain stories in the minds of millions of people who will in turn never forgive or forget.
Today however, there is no longer an excuse….Read more on Social Media and reputation lawyer’s blog
By: Yair Cohen
- Social Media For CEOs: I’ll Frame The Debate – You Decide (ceo.com)
- JC Penney Handled Their Hitler Teapot Debacle Like a Pro (melissaagnescrisismanagement.com)
Online defamation is likely to strike without warning. This leaves you with minimal time to prepare yourself for an appropriate response to the defamation.Here are the 5 most important steps you must take as soon as you become aware of the internet defamation about you or about your organisation:
1) Be sensible. Evaluate whether it is in your interests to respond to the internet defamation. This depends on the nature of the defamation that you are experiencing. Be cautious about how people will perceive your business following your online response. Some victims of online defamation reply out of anger but… read more on our NEW social media solicitor blog.
It is possible to remove web content from Google quickly and here is how to do it:
You do need to bear in mind however, the recent data which was published by Google which shows the type of requests to remove web content that Google is likely to accept.
This is good information to have for anyone who is involved in any sort of business or has been the subject of a recent threat of internet defamation against them. Unfortunately … Read More on Internet Law Expert Blog.
By Yair Cohen
Remove Defamation on Money Saving Expert. Defamation Lawyer Yair Cohen wins court order against Money Saving Expert
By Kit Chellel – Bloomberg News
Sep 30, 2011 12:00 AM GMT+0100
People who use fake names to post critical comments about companies on websites may not be as anonymous as they think, as firms use the courts to unmask online accusers.
MoneySavingExpert, a British personal finance site with 5 million readers, was forced to hand over personal details about three users calling themselves Againstjpc, GomerPyle and Ladybirds, following a London court ruling in August. The three wrote comments on the website accusing JPC Group Sales Ltd., an affiliate of a U.K. publishing company, of being a “criminal enterprise” and “a scam,” the company said in court filings.
Similar orders have been granted in the U.K. over comments posted on Google Inc. (GOOG) blogs and comment boards at its YouTube unit’s website, said Yair Cohen, a lawyer for JPC. Louise Rutter, spokeswoman for Mountain View, California-based Google, declined to comment.
“There have been a few of these cases and they are becoming more common,” said Korieh Duodu, a media law specialist at London firm Addleshaw Goddard LLP. “It is clear there is a significant footprint left by Web users, who are not always aware of how much information can be revealed about their identities when they publish material online.”
While Internet users have traditionally enjoyed the freedom to air controversial views without using real names, courts can order websites to hand over e-mail and Internet-protocol addresses, and other personal details, if anonymous comments go too far. A person who disrupts Web forums with inflammatory or offensive remarks is known as a “troll” in Internet slang.
Disclosing the identity of Web users shouldn’t be taken lightly, said Eric King, human rights and technology adviser at advocacy group Privacy International. It could even be illegal, unless the comments caused serious harm.
“Online anonymity is a hugely important aspect of the right to privacy,” he said.
In 2007, the owner of a fan site for soccer club Sheffield Wednesday was forced to disclose the identities of several users after what a judge described as a “sustained campaign of vilification” against the club’s directors. Financial websites Motley Fool and Interactive Investor had to provide information about a user known as Zeddust in 2001, following a lawsuit filed by internet service provider Totalise Plc.
In the U.S., with stricter laws protecting freedom of speech, judges have sometimes found in favor of victims of online abuse. Former model Liskula Cohen won an order from a New York judge in 2009 requiring Google to identify a blogger who defamed her, while another model, Carla Franklin, won a similar ruling in 2010 over comments made on YouTube.
Cohen, the JPC lawyer at firm Bains Cohen, said the company would now apply for an order against Internet provider TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc (TALK) to get the physical address of one of the individuals who posted the remarks on MoneySavingExpert. The company plans to sue the person for defamation, he said.
TalkTalk said in a statement that it “would never disclose any information” without a court order.
JPC, part of the Wyvern Media brand which publishes the Lincolnshire Telegraph and the North London Chronicle, said in an e-mailed statement that anonymous posters of abuse cost small businesses hundreds of thousands of pounds every month. “We are determined to bring our abusers to justice,” it said.
“The job of balancing the consumer viewpoint and right to give their views without letting people unfairly tarnish companies’ reputations is never an easy one,” he said.
Duodu said the issue of freedom of speech had to be considered by companies deciding to tackle online abuse.
“The other concern for corporations is that they should be wary of stifling genuine debate. Seeking the closure of websites because of a few detractors can lead to a massive public relations own goal,” he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Kit Chellel in London firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Anthony Aarons at email@example.com