Slashdot Mirror


PetsWarehouse vs. Mailing List

klaun writes "Salon is running a story about a federal suit against members of an Internet mailing list. Seems a company got a bad review on the list and the owner sued the person that said it and everyone who agreed. But the case grew bigger from there, including a suit against the legal defense fund set up to support members of the list being sued and anyone who linked to the defense fund. The ultimate rub of it all is that it basically worked. Most of the defendants have settled." This is a truly bizarre story.

9 of 629 comments (clear)

  1. It worked because..... by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 5, Informative
    It worked because people didn't stand up and fight.

    New York has an anti-SLAPP statute. I wonder why this was not used to kick out the case.


    Some of these fights have to be taken and some of these SLAPPERs have to be hit with large enough damages to make others think long and hard before bringing another SLAPP action.

  2. History repeats itself by Ali+Jenab · · Score: 5, Informative
    A number of years ago, when I was just getting into the digirati, Oracle filed lawsuits against several members of a DBA discussion group because they were posting less-than-glowing reviews of their database software. Since these victims were highly-paid professionals, not just a bunch of whiny kids (as in the PetsWarehouse case), they had the resources to fight Oracle in court. What happened next was a victory for free speech on the Net and for American justice: every single case Oracle filed against the users was summarily dismissed, and the 4-5 defendants who countersued Oracle received several hundred thousand dollars in punitive damages - more than enough to cover their legal bills and buy themselves something nice.

    The moral of the story here is that giving up on what you believe in gets you nowhere. If you cave in to corporate pressure, you will lose your money, your good name, and your credit rating when you settle out of court. If you stand up for your rights when you know you're correct, justice will prevail and you will know you've made a difference for netizens everywhere. What would you rather be - a victorious hero or an unprincipled loser? Don't answer here - save your response for the judge.

    /ali

    1. Re:History repeats itself by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you cave in to corporate pressure, you will lose your money, your good name, and your credit rating when you settle out of court.

      Very few people know just how bad it is for your credit rating to lose or settle a lawsuit against you. It basically destroys it - if you cave in to or lose a lawsuit then nobody will loan you ANYTHING - you probably will have trouble getting an apartment, non-pre-paid cell phone or even a job or insurance.

      If you cave in you might not lose that much money - but you'll lose everything else. People won't trust you - they'll think you must've been at fault to some degree.

      Heck you are better off representing yourself if it truly is frivolous - at least you have a chance at not having your life ruined - if you settle, kiss having a decent life goodbye forever.

      Of course, the DeCSS case proves that even people who are innocent (the judge ignored fair use, the US Constitution, and all the exemptions listed in the DMCA itself) can and sometimes do lose, even when they do have good lawyers. And if you lose, you will be required to pay damages and sometimes even be required to pay for the court and/or the plaintiff's lawyers. This is just like in some countries where when someone is executed, the family is billed for the cost of the bullets that were shot into his/her head.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  3. It's federal... by sterno · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the lead in it said that it was a lawsuit filed in federal court, thus New York's anti-SLAPP statutes would not be applicable (to the best of my knowledge).

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
  4. Original Message that started the whole thing... by neo · · Score: 5, Informative

    In case it get's S'dotted.

    Thinking of buying plants from Pet Warehouse? Don't.

    Actually the plants I received were average to maybe a bit below
    average, but they'll pull through in my tank. What is crappy is their
    service! And they're maybe even a bit dishonest.

    Way back in the beginning of April (April 10th to be exact) I was
    seduced by the huge list of plants for sale on their web site. I
    ordered 4 types of plants, all quite common. Though it states on their
    web site that they directly import their plants, I didn't realize that
    they'd import the plants you ordered *after* you placed your order! Or
    at least that's the way it seemed ...

    I received my order today, May 15th. It only took them 4.5 weeks. And
    this is after 6 phone calls. Twice they promised they'd be shipped on
    a certain date, then nada. And dealing with them on the phone is,
    well, let's just say they stick to their pat answers and work very
    hard at getting you off the phone as quickly as possible. My 6th call
    was last week, and when they realized I was calling about a plant
    order they proclaimed "They will be shipped on Monday". Click. And I
    didn't even give them my name or order number! Maybe *all* orders
    finally went out on Monday?

    There was never a "sorry for the delay" or any sign whatsoever that I
    was the valued customer and they were the business providing a product
    that I was paying for.

    Though I found all of this very annoying, it wasn't what annoyed me
    the most. On my order confirmation I was quoted a shipping price of
    $7.50. Nice ... it was one of the selling points for me. Then the
    order arrived complete with an invoice stating that shipping was
    $18.50! When I called them today to straighten this out, they
    informed me that the original quote was wrong and that I was stuck
    with the $18.50. Again, no "sorry for the mixup" or any indication
    that they would fix the problem (with the web site and order
    confirmation system).

    Another hassle - their shipments *require* a signature. I quote their
    email notice telling me the plants had been shipped: "You must be home
    to sign for it. We guarantee live arrival if the order is accepted on
    the first delivery attempt." Yikes. This was the first I knew of this
    policy. So I actually had to take a half day off work in order to be
    there to receive the order! These plants are getting *very* expensive.

    The whole organization has the feel of someone who started yesterday
    out of your neighbors garage. It even sounds that way when you talk to
    them on the phone.

    Maybe I expect too much?

    Though I have a few gripes about Arizona Aquatics as well, they're
    light years ahead of this outfit as far as service.

    As always, your mileage may vary.

    dan
    --

  5. Digging a little further ... new article on Novak by pgrote · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the Long Island Business News ...

    http://www.libn.com/Column_details.cfm?ID=1249

    "Novak, meanwhile, said he has further legal targets. One is the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan New York. The BBB gives Pets Warehouse an "unsatisfactory rating," the organization's lowest. Novak said some of the complaints were from another business that licensed the Pets Warehouse name and that he didn't get adequate opportunity to respond. "

    Shoot for the stars ...

  6. Re:I don't know by cameroncase · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, that isn't exactly what happened. On that list there is a long time trend of getting advice on where to shop (think about it, there aren't that many places to buy aquatic plants...tiny hobbie). One guy offered his opinion. Dozens more chimed in with similar stories (not just "me too"). One guy's complaint was overcharged shipping, but there were many others (including delayed shipping running into the multiple weeks, dead plants upon arrival, etc). There are just too many people that agreed for me to think he made it up. Plus, check the history of the case. The plaintiff continuously adds people each time someone says something negative about this their experiences, or even about the suit. My favorite part? Two of the defendants are John Doe and Mary Roe (in essence anyone else from the APD that he decides to add). More confusion is that he has claimed, in another article that filing suits is his "hobby." He also admits that the court is five miles from him, so it is a short drive, while each defendant has to pay for a plane ticket and motel to appear in court. The guy enjoys this. Read some of the amended complaints he has written, some are funny, most are sad, and generally all are poorly written. Why? Oh, he's representing himself. Wait, you say, how can a non-lawyer represent a corporation (Pets Warehouse Inc.)? Well, it can't, but he is doing it anyway. As soon as they sort out whether or not his company is incorporated or a sole-proprietorship maybe this will go away (if is is INC as he says, he can't represent it). For more information (and trust me, this is more about free speech and the internet than it is about plants or aquariums) here are some sites: Forum for the suits discussion (generally pro defendants) Forum hosted by the plaintiff (he has a habit of deleting messages, and blocking posters, as is his right, but be aware it will only have ONE side) The defense fund's web site A collection of court documents hosted by the lawyer in charge of the fund And, finally, to archives of the original messages, so you can read it yourself, and see what REALLY happened

    --
    .sig on vacation
  7. Re:I don't know by bitchx · · Score: 5, Informative

    The suing individual regularly posts to usenet and to the mailing lists. Here are some messages you can look at to evaluate his behavior. Or, read the article where he talks about his suing "hobby.". The mail to the list where he calls a defendant a bum and teases people with "PS: any monies collected will be the subject of a cause of action to have those monies turned over to the Plaintiff--Give generously." is probably the best.

    Hope that helps your evaluation of the plantiff. Most people get lawyers to sue. This plantiff did not. Most people don't talk about a suit in progress. Certainly, they don't try to browbeat the defendant without lawyers present. What do you think now?

    --

    I'm the best IRC client ever.
  8. Re:But the people can do this, too by jamesmartinluther · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some business partners and I had a contractual disagreement with a company several years ago (they mistakenly thought that they did not have to pay for some work that we did for them). After several collections attempts, we decided to take the matter to small claims.

    We did not make use of a lawyer, even though we were facing a moderately large company. Amazingly, they failed to appear (perhaps they did not take us seriously) and the judge awarded the full amount to us.

    It works.