"Direct-marketing firm Quixtar Inc., a sister company of Amway Corp., has sued 30 people who anonymously posted what it considers disparaging remarks about Quixtar in blogs and online forums and in YouTube.com videos." link
To enter a coupon code in your post please enter the following info:
Coupon Code:
Coupon Offer:
Merchant:
Expires (optional):
Restrictions (optional):
saving...
Quick Summary is created and edited by users like you... Add FAQ's, Links and other Relevant Information by clicking the edit button in the lower right hand corner of this message.
I can see their point if the posters are who they think they are: "former distributors who unsuccessfully sued Alticor and are under court order not to disparage the company or disclose proprietary information". However, suing "John Doe" for $25K before they've found out who it is? It seems it would be appropriate to first find out who it is before doing the suing. However, I have no legal expertise, so for all I know maybe this is how the law requires them to do it. I'd reserve judgment until I see what they do once they actually figure out who the posters are. If they are NOT people under court order and they still continue with the suit, that would be bad.
LordKronos said:I can see their point if the posters are who they think they are: "former distributors who unsuccessfully sued Alticor and are under court order not to disparage the company or disclose proprietary information". However, suing "John Doe" for $25K before they've found out who it is? It seems it would be appropriate to first find out who it is before doing the suing. However, I have no legal expertise, so for all I know maybe this is how the law requires them to do it. I'd reserve judgment until I see what they do once they actually figure out who the posters are. If they are NOT people under court order and they still continue with the suit, that would be bad.
The reason for suing "John Doe" is to get websites/service provider to reveal the name of poster. The internet service provider will usually not reveal the real name without a court order. Once they have a court order that orders the websites to reveal the names, they proceed to the next step of actually suing the person. This is the standard way the music industry uses to get internet service provider to reveal the people who are downloading illegal shared music.
snake253 said:LordKronos said:I can see their point if the posters are who they think they are: "former distributors who unsuccessfully sued Alticor and are under court order not to disparage the company or disclose proprietary information". However, suing "John Doe" for $25K before they've found out who it is? It seems it would be appropriate to first find out who it is before doing the suing. However, I have no legal expertise, so for all I know maybe this is how the law requires them to do it. I'd reserve judgment until I see what they do once they actually figure out who the posters are. If they are NOT people under court order and they still continue with the suit, that would be bad.
The reason for suing "John Doe" is to get websites/service provider to reveal the name of poster. The internet service provider will usually not reveal the real name without a court order. Once they have a court order that orders the websites to reveal the names, they proceed to the next step of actually suing the person. This is the standard way the music industry uses to get internet service provider to reveal the people who are downloading illegal shared music.
Yeah...but as I understand the music industry has power under federal legislation to make the ISP's turnover the names...MLMs should have been included on that one...
these people will make a lot of money if: 1. they're not under a gag order 2. they're in CA or another state that has a SLAPP statute 3. their attorneys file a SLAPP motion to stay the proceedings
remember this applies to people ALREADY UNDER COURT ORDER not to disparage Quixtar. If these people are subject to a gag order and are violating it, there's nothing wrong here.
Luckily most of us are not required to keep silent about Quixtar and can letthe whole world know about how to avoid getting sucked into the MLM scam.
I live in Ada, a suburb of Grand Rapids, MI. Ada is the world headquarters of Amway, Alticor, Quixtar, etc. The family has given billions of dollars to the development of this area, for everything from medical facilities to sports arenas. My dad owns a mechanical contracting company that does probably 80% of its business with Amway. So every time I try to say anything bad about Amway's MLM, my dad starts getting angry.
I think I'd rather get sued by Quixtar. At least then I have my rights.
KingUltra said:Your Town ( and Dad? ) is getting Rich on everybody else expense.Actually, I think they are getting rich on everyone else's stupidity and gullibility.
SUCKISSTAPLES said:remember this applies to people ALREADY UNDER COURT ORDER not to disparage Quixtar. If these people are subject to a gag order and are violating it, there's nothing wrong here.
Luckily most of us are not required to keep silent about Quixtar and can letthe whole world know about how to avoid getting sucked into the MLM scam.I don't see what "irreparable damage" could be caused by these people telling THE TRUTH. what a f'n joke.
ArbolLoco said:SUCKISSTAPLES said:remember this applies to people ALREADY UNDER COURT ORDER not to disparage Quixtar. If these people are subject to a gag order and are violating it, there's nothing wrong here.
Luckily most of us are not required to keep silent about Quixtar and can letthe whole world know about how to avoid getting sucked into the MLM scam.I don't see what "irreparable damage" could be caused by these people telling THE TRUTH. what a f'n joke.Sigh. Why do you continue to make remarks about matters that you apparently not only know nothing about but also fail to understand even after they are explained to you by others?
As SiS has already alluded to in the post you are quoting, truth is NEVER a defense to an alleged breach of the contractual anti-disparagement clause and/or a court order related thereto, which is what Quixtar is alleging here. In other words, if people being sued have executed a contractual agreement wherein they agreed not to make disparaging remarks about Quixtar, it generally does not matter whether the disparaging remarks are truthful. In this context, truth is only a defense to allegations of slander/defamation, NOT breach of contract.
LawDawgAtl said:ArbolLoco said:SUCKISSTAPLES said:remember this applies to people ALREADY UNDER COURT ORDER not to disparage Quixtar. If these people are subject to a gag order and are violating it, there's nothing wrong here.
Luckily most of us are not required to keep silent about Quixtar and can letthe whole world know about how to avoid getting sucked into the MLM scam.I don't see what "irreparable damage" could be caused by these people telling THE TRUTH. what a f'n joke.Sigh. Why do you continue to make remarks about matters that you apparently not only know nothing about but also fail to understand even after they are explained to you by others?
As SiS has already alluded to in the post you are quoting, truth is NEVER a defense to an alleged breach of the contractual anti-disparagement clause and/or a court order related thereto, which is what Quixtar is alleging here. In other words, if people being sued have executed a contractual agreement wherein they agreed not to make disparaging remarks about Quixtar, it generally does not matter whether the disparaging remarks are truthful. In this context, truth is only a defense to allegations of slander/defamation, NOT breach of contract.Maybe I'm old-fashioned... but my interpretation of the 1st Amendment is that it does not end at the front door of Quixtar.
Fine... you want injunctive relief... where is the imminent and irreversible harm from speaking TRUTH. Since when does the TRUTH cause imminent and irreversible harm? Just because a court issues an order does not mean that it is right, justified or fair. In this case I have a big problem with an order that prevents individuals from exposing a corrupt and morally bankrupt corporation for exactly what it is. If you think that this is an appropriate outcome, then honestly I feel sorry for you.
I disagree with the order on the basis that I do not feel it is an appropriate remedy to warrant equitable/injunctive relief by the court. I also disagree with it on many other bases... including the fact that these people probably got steamrolled by Quixtar legal and are now subject to an unjust and idiotic order.
Also your breach of contract analysis is irrelevant, because if you RTFA you would know that there is no applicable contract in place... merely an order that would likely not withstand appeal had the subjects of the order had the money and lawyers to challenge it.
My firm obtained one of the largest defamation verdicts in California in the past 10 years so spare me your dimebag legal analysis. Just because a judge signs some law firm's proposed order does not mean that the outcome was appropriate or even based in law. I have dealt with these kinds of companies as an attorney, and without fail they spare no expense to steamroll a critic into submission without subjecting themselves to SLAPP [or anti-SLAPP] liability. Scientology would be an excellent example... I'm sure you can find that many of their critics have obtained legal outcomes that were nowhere near just... all because Scientology outspent them $500:1.
The SLAPP analysis is a little more complicated... but maybe you can call my office and make an appointment and I can explain it to you.
Anyways, this all boils down to one question:
Do YOU think, irrespective of the order in place, that this outcome is the most efficient for society? That preventing what amounts to corporate WHISTLEBLOWERS from exposing a quasi-criminal enterprise's abusive and destructive business practices is a just and appropriate legal outcome? Maybe I've read too much Posner... but I think these types of of orders are harmful, inefficient and serve no real purpose other than to discourage future whistleblowers from speaking out.
Hey, maybe you should send your resume to Quixtar... they could probably use someone like you.
instead of infighting between FWF readers, I think the best public service we can do here is alert people to MLM scams and steer people away from joining them.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
