Badmouth Quixtar, get sued.

"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

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.

StevenColorado said: LordKronos said: If they are NOT people under court order and they still continue with the suit, that would be bad.

As in, they could countersue for harassment.

It's not like anyone has anything good to say about Quixtar...Better watch it Steve,or you'll find yourself added to the suit <g>.

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.

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

watch em before youtube pulls em

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAwJrP1_ZeE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-gfJOmCgZw

this was a good one, how to sucker your friends and family into joining your MLM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLtqNYWsq7g

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.

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.

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.

i havent seen the order to be able to form a decent opinion on it.

Believe me, there have been a number of topics in this forum I would have liked to share details/specifics, but cant due to similar restrictions. And yes it sucks, but thems the rules. I got a good result for my clients and thats where my oblugation rested. While I would love to share a step-by-step at FW or on youtube to help others, I cant. Perhaps I need to get into class actions rather than helping indivdual claimants. That way I could start getting FWFers some coupons while I collect six figure fee awards

P.S. I'm not defending Amway's business practices or actions in this story in question...far from it. In my mind Amway is just of bigger version of a get-rich program like Don LaPree or whatever his name is. I'm just saying that people have a choice.

ArbolLoco said: Maybe I'm old-fashioned... but my interpretation of the 1st Amendment is that it does not end at the front door of Quixtar.You are not old fashioned, you are clueless. I realize that you only graduated from law school in the summer of '06 and don't have a clue about things but this already very simple matter has already been explained to you. TWICE!

You do realize that you can almost always limit your first amendment rights by contract, right? This is done routinely, every single day and courts generally do not have a problem with this concept. What do you think it is that you do when you sign, let's say, a non-disclosure agreement? What do you think is a confidentiality agreement? Both types of agreements limit your first amendment rights and you absolutely cannot defend your breach thereof by asserting the truthfulness of your statements. An anti-disparagement clause is in the same exact category.

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.For the third time, depending on the circumstances, a breach of contract claim/judicial order cannot be defended by explaining that you spoke the truth. Truth is a defense to a slander/defamation claim, which this is not. So, depending on the language of the disparagement clause and state law, an injunction may very well be an appropriate remedy. Are you done embarassing yourself yet?

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.Wow, the depths of cluelessness! The legal analysis in this case is exactly the same regardless of whether we are talking about a court order or a contract. For the fourth time, truth is only a defense to a defamation/slander claim, NOT to a breach of contract/court order. As to the existence of the contract, in this case there was either a court sanctioned settlement agreement with an anti-disparagement clause or a judgment on the merits which contained such a clause. What is so unclear?

My firm obtained one of the largest defamation verdicts in California in the past 10 years so spare me your dimebag legal analysis.I've been reading this nonsense from you for a while now. Aren't you a summer of '06 law school grad? Don't you work for a very small plaintiff's side law firm and make very little money there? Weren't you a real estate agent/broker prior to all this? Alluding to other people's past successes in a pathetic attempt to give yourself credibility while hiding your true credentials, or the lack thereof, is pretty sad.

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. -Mark Twain

P.S.
Just to make it clear, I am in no way defending Quixtar, MLM's or other similar business ventures. What several of us have tried to explain to Arbol, however, is the rather basic distinction between slander/defamation and breach of contract/judicial order. If you are subject to an anti-disparagement clause, whether it is contained in a contract or a court order related thereto, the fact that you are telling the truth is NEVER a defense to a breach thereof. Regardless of how vulnerable (or not) an anti-disparagement clause might be, you generally cannot attack it by explaining that you are speaking the truth. This is about as basic and self explanatory as it gets.

Dont forget, last i heard, the head guy at amway owns the orlando magic basketball team.

Pyramid schemes ALL WAYS benefit the first ones to get in.

What people don't realize is that there is a huge market for motivational seminars, tapes, books, etc. And those markets are produced by other get-rich-quick schemes. In this case, the get-rich-quick scheme is multi-level-marketing...but the only people who really make any money are those selling motivational materials. The same industry is huge in real estate business. There are ways to make money at real estate, but the fact that there are so many real estate gurus selling seminars, tapes, and books shows that there is a whole lot more money to be made by some people selling motivational materials.

OP said: Alticor, a $6.3 billion company based in Ada, Mich., announced in June that it will start phasing out the Quixtar name and rebuilding its Amway brand in the U.S. and Canada.
So now we're getting ready for another name???

A bump for additional comments.

ArbolLoco said: nice profile on blackuniverse.com.

you one of those "down low" bruthas?Pretty pathetic. After the thrashing you received above, you come back with the post I am quoting here? Wow!

Just for the record, I've never heard of blackuniverse but, upon googling it, see a profile with the same screen name as mine. Not that there would have been anything wrong if I was the author of that profile, but I am actually younger than the author thereof, am white, married and have a child. So, so far, you are 0 for 5 in this thread. Anything else you'd like to add? Do you have a substantive reply to my post above? If there are substantive inaccuracies in my posts, I'm sure that you'd love to let the world know about it.

Crickets...