Mom Makes Website, Gets Sued for $2 Million

An anonymous reader writes "A Canadian stay-at-home mom of 3 recently created a website to report on environmental problems around her neighborhood. The general public and governmental workers lauded her for her efforts. The environmental Ministry spokesman was even quoted as saying 'Obviously we can't have staff everywhere all the time, so we depend on the public out there as surrogate eyes and ears for the ministry'. However, not everyone was quite as happy, as she soon found out, when one company decided to sue her for libel to the tune of $2 million."

Comments

I thought...

[supersocialist]

"The truth" was a solid defense against libel claims?

But she has to prove it, and they've got the bigger pocket books...

Re:I thought...

[ctr2sprt]

I RTFA hoping to get more details, specifically what parts Activa is claiming are libelous. The article just lists examples of complaints Lanteigne has, not which ones are at issue (unless I misread). I kind of think there must be something to this, because David-vs-Goliath cases always result in significant bad press for Goliath. I just can't see this working out well for them unless they can really prove Lanteigne is full of shit.

People will bring up the RIAA suing grandmothers, and rightly so. The difference, as I see it, is that the RIAA believes - rightly or wrongly - that they're losing millions and millions of dollars to piracy. Look at it that way and it makes sense that they're willing to trade some bad press for a lessened erosion of their bottom line. Nothing in the article led me to believe that Activa was being so seriously affected by this one little site.

I guess what I'm saying is there's just enough information to make me think something else is going on here, but not enough to know what.

Re:I thought...

[xigxag]

Guess what, Activa? Now hundreds of thousands of people who knew nothing about this woman's website are reading what she has to say. Good move!

Re:I thought...

[cheezus_es_lard]

From TFA:
The statement of claim outlines stories by Lanteigne involving diesel oil spills on subdivision sites, unlocked oil tanks, roofers working without proper safety equipment and possible contamination of soil and water.

Activa claims the website has caused damage to its reputation and launched the lawsuit only after Lanteigne refused to apologize and take down the site.

--end cut--
So, it appears she is stating on the website that they have been spilling oil, etc., even possibly as a one-liner somewhere, and not documenting with photographs. If I were her, I'd find some law firm to take the case on pro-bono and spend my money getting GreenPeace out there to do soil/water testing to _prove_ that there has been oil spilled.

Voila, case won, and probably legislation started about this corporate behaviour too, so good for Mom.

I sure hope she has pictures of these spills, to start with... ;-)

Peace!
-cheez

Re:I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

If all they wanted was to clear their name, the wouldn't be asking for $2 million, they'd just demand that the site be taken down. They want to DESTROY her for her audacity, and make an example of her.

Re:I thought...

[mothlos]

This is the case in most of the world and one of the few reasons I am proud to be an American where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in such a case. This barrier makes it very difficult and expensive for citizens and reporters in other countries to report on anything. The rule outside the U.S. is, if you can't prove it in court, don't say it. In the U.S. we expect that people will say anything on their minds and as long as nobody can prove that you are lying to deceive then you are usually in the clear.

Re:I thought...

[Senjutsu]

I imagine Canadian law would be similar.

It's not. That's why I posted the link to a discussion of the differences. Thanks for playing "Do You or Do You Not Have Basic Reading Comprehension Skills" though. In a defense of Justification (ie. "It's not Libel, it's the truth!"), the burden of proof is on the Defendant in Canadian law. Canada is not the US; our legal system is not identical to yours.

Re:I thought...

[crucini]

That was my first inclination, too. But I read what seems to be the page in question, and her claims are mostly specific, minor and down-to-earth. The company's claim that she is "high-handed" didn't really ring true. Either she is lying about very specific events, like:

At 5:47 I spotted a high level of debris that has obviously been left uncleaned for a rather long time located at 586 Violet St.

or the company is improperly using a libel suit to silence a legitimate critic.

She is a bit overzealous, treating each drop of diesel spilled as a life-threatening calamity, but she appears to have the law on her side.

Re:I thought...

[pugugly]

No - you can spam the world saying I raped babies and I can't successfully sue you without proving that
a) There's no evidence to that effect
b) My reputation is such that a statement that I rape babies would damage it and
c) I can prove that you said so without making certain minimal efforts to substantiate your claims.

My problem always comes in point b. My coverups are masterful, and my enemies far too lazy, but my rep sucks.

Pug

Re:I thought...

[cnerd2025]

So... I can spam the world with the news that you rape babies, and you can't stop me unless you can provide hard evidence that you have never raped a baby?

Nice. Sounds like a great system.

Erm...No...

Two things:

a) If you get news from a spammer, does it really have any standing?
b) The defendant would have to prove that the spammer was false, not that he or she did not rape the baby. Remember, US law says there must be damage for one to have legal standing. It's a much better system. It keeps our police honest and keeps justice sound. Here, circumstantial evidence does rear its ugly head, but you'll find much more that people are justly prosecuted in the US than other countries. I agree with the original poster...I'm glad in this case to be an American citizen. Our lawyers may be the biggest scum bags in the world, but at least our justice system can compensate.

Re:I thought...

[pugugly]

Due Process - just like all those people at Gitmo, right?

Please, quit trying to claim a difference in legal procedure is a vast cultural divide. I happen to agree with the U.S. system leaving the burden of proof where it is, but to make this into a "Capitalism vs Socialism" issue?

Get a grip. We're hardly perfect, and at least if she loses the suit and files bankruptcy, she can still get her kids to a doctor.

Pug

Re:I thought...

[IdleTime]

As a foreigner who has been living in US since 1999, I must say that I wish neither one upon my homecountry. I don't think there is a single country outside USA who wants the same system. In most countries, the American justice system is used as an example in law school of how a judiciary system is supposed not to work, And this thread once again shows the reason behind this. If you are going to put out something publically that possible can hurt either a person or a company, you better have proof to back it up.

My homecountry does not need any additional amendment to give people free speech, it's part of the constitution. But then again, it has a better standard of living, better almost everything according to globally used statistics. So, you can continue to believe in your own propaganda, but people outside this country are maybe not as stupid as you may think. But then again, I find that most of the loudmouths screaming about American freedom etc, have never been outside their own country, so the material used in their comparison is generally missing alltogether.

Re:I thought...

[scruffyMark]

This barrier makes it very difficult and expensive for citizens and reporters in other countries to report on anything.

So, what's the excuse for the American media's failure to report on anything?

I mean, really, with all these great freedom of speech protections in law, why are the US media so often the most saturated with bullshit (not counting reports coming from the Iraqi information minister, and such)?

Re:I thought...

[Dashing Leech]

"The saddest part of all of this is that this mom is just trying to fight back"

Has anyone here considered that she might, in fact, have done harm to an innocent company? We don't know anything about her or the company. I've known people who think they know everything, what is safe and what isn't, what's the law and what isn't (sound familiar anyone?), and just get in everyone's face. It's quite possible that she is wrong. TFA states that she said roofers weren't using proper safety equipment. Does she know what's proper safety equipment for a worksite? The point is, everyone is just assuming she's right and the company is wrong. Check your assumptions.

As for the "better law" argument, neither is better or worse. The U.S. system gives you more freedom to say whatever but at the cost of having people (or companies) slandered without remedy. The Canadian (and English) system requires that you be more careful about what you say, but means you are less likely to be unjustly attacked or at least remedied if you are. Neither is perfect.

Re:I thought...

[75th Trombone]

Not that a lot of us Americans aren't idiots, but I don't think you're quite right here. Americans don't make those assumptions about Canada because of geographic proximity, we do so because Canada is generally seen as being, in very general terms, a lot like the US -- or, at least, more like the US than western Europe.

Whether that ends up being true in specific issues varies, of course. But to whatever extent the typical American thinks about Canada, it's usually safe to assume a /bit/ of cultural similarity.

Contrast that with Mexico --- they're just as close to us as Canada is (obviously), and they probably have more influence on us than Canada does, but I daresay most Americans (myself included) wouldn't be nearly so quick to make assumptions about government policies there.

Maybe it's because of the language thing, maybe it's something else. But I seriously doubt it's because of something //quite// so superficial as geographic location.

Re:I thought...

[DigiShaman]

Due Process - just like all those people at Gitmo, right?

For the last bloody time, terrorist are not entitled to due process according to the Geneva Convention! Read it for yourself. You can see they fail to adhere to parts B, C, and D.

PART I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Re:I thought...

[Eccles]

Everyone believed that Iraq had those WMD

The poeple who believed this, believed it because the U.S. government was saying it, with the credibility it used to have. If you lie to me and I believe you, my believing you doesn't make it not a lie.

Regardless of whether they actively lied, however, prior to the invasion the U.S. pressure had gotten Hans Blix and the U.N. inspectors back in the country, with very liberal rules about what they could inspect. I knew Bush and co. were lying when this wasn't good enough, that even with basically full access they were arguing for an invasion because the Iraqis hadn't filed all the paperwork. (Missing a coversheet on their TPS report, perhaps?) Clearly they didn't have solid evidence, otherwise said evidence could have been used to help the inspectors find these purported weapons.

They could be in some other sand laden country even as we speak.

Right. Hussein resorted to hiding in a shabby hole in the ground because he'd been so busy smuggling WMDs out of the country, he didn't get around to getting his family out.

Re:I thought...

[Guppy06]

You're a Slashdotter, so we know you can't be speaking from experience.

Re:I thought...

[bickerdyke]

Free speech doesnt guarantee a free press.

Press and media may be free from gouvermental influence, but still be under strong influence from shareholders, ad-clients and so on.

Re:I thought...

[PietjeJantje]

After reading the website through Google cache, I can't see how this case will hold in court. There's nothing there. In short, the woman is saying things as "I see roof workers without harness. Took photos. Am worried Contacted authorities." Etc. etc. She's raising valid concerns. The pictures speak for themselves. How's Activa gonna say "Hey how on earth can you claim to see unharnessed roof workers, how on earth can you be concerned, how on earth can you write about it? Libel!"

Typical STFU lawsuit

[Pecisk]

If there were just misunderstanding (wrongfully interperted information), then company would have invated this lady, described problems and how they will solve that and then all problems with bad PR would go away. Of course, if they choose this course, they have something to hide - because it is typical defence nowadays - attack.

Of course, a little bit more details about which claims company thinks are false would be helpful for more concrete judgement.

Re:This is all good

[Sugar Moose]

I don't think you really undestand the way the world works, buddy.

This is not a "you have wronged us, we deserve damages" lawsuit. The company knows she couldn't ever pay $2 million. This is a "we know you can't afford to defend against our coporate lawyer onslaught, so you'll have to settle" lawsuit. If she tried to defend herself, they would ensure the attourney costs would financially ruin her. I'm sure they just want to settle out of court for her taking the site down.

Let's hear it for coporate censorship. If you say something we don't like, make sure you're willing to give up your life for it.

Re:Freedom can only be complete

[Mr. Slippery]

If you don't like a certain form of expression, don't allow it on your property.

...therefore, to silence others, acuqire their property. Landlords can silence tenants, shopping malls can evict patrons wearing political slogans the management disgrees with, etcetera.

Typical libertarian capitalist fallacy that puts property as a primary right, rather than as a secondary tool to ensure primary rights.

Haven't we been over this already?

[ZachPruckowski]

Here are the rules:
1) Money is all that matters.
2) If you are not a millionaire, you are a second class citizen
3) You are not allowed to buy from a small company if there is a bigger one available
4) If something a company sells you is crap, well, too bad.
5) If you buy something from a company, they own you
6) Speaking against anyone or anything richer than you is illegal.
7) It is the government of the companies, by the companies, for the companies.
8) Anyone who doesn't go to the Commerce School deserves to be screwed over

Let's see, we're all guilty of...well, pretty much everything.

Re:Haven't we been over this already?

[TrappedByMyself]

Wow, it's nice to see that you've done a good job of surpressing yourself.
Who needs to bother creating a Big Brother when the cowards take care of themselves?

Re:Freedom can only be complete

[Lifewish]

To me, all speech is a natural right as a form of expression. Swearing, discrimination, yelling fire in your own theater, or even preaching the murder of another. If you don't like a certain form of expression, don't allow it on your property.

But discrimination results in people not being able to make so much money, and thus not being able to own property, and thus not being able to reduce the acreage available for bigots to be bigoted on, and so on. Seems like that'd create an underclass, which never ends well.

I could care less about what media companies might do with the freedom to libel. Who cares. If you're in the public eye, accept it. If you run a big business, combat it with great quality of service.

But how do people find out about your excellent quality of service or great product if the people getting paid to talk loudly are all saying it sucks? The system you describe would allow any company to cover another with as much slime as they could buy, which would tend to lead to horrific monopolies - a classic market breakdown effect. Slime does have an effect, and it's not always trumped by quality of service. Besides, do you really want to produce a system in which only the biggest liars are able to survive? We're close enough to that already without adding fuel to the fire.

Re:Eh

[WestCanadaCitizen.ca]

You're absolutely right that not everyone who cries environmental foul is right, or even legitimate. But when this woman received letters from Environment Canada (like the EPA) about her efforts, this lends a bit of credibility to her claims. Also, the fact that this development company didn't post a rebuttal that disproved her claims but rather filed a lawsuit intending to shut her up and shut her site down makes me think she was on to something.

Re:Freedom can only be complete

[general_re]

I don't believe in libel or slander. Words, in the long run, can damage a reputation -- but creating a quality product will always trump it.

So then, as a matter of principle, you won't be suing me when I rent a few billboards near your house and put your name, address, and photo on them, along with labeling you a known liar, thief, and pedophile. Hope you produce some seriously high-quality products, my man.

Re:Thinking of setting up a website?

[TrappedByMyself]

Before anyone sets up any kind of web site, I strongly advise you to purchase an Umbrella Liabliity Insurance Policy. Among other things, these policies protect you from accusations of libel and slander.
While truth is an absolute defense against libel or slander, you don't want it to cost you your life savings to defend against a frivolous lawsuit because you spoke the truth someone didn't want to hear. For the cost of the umbrella policy - typically around $300 per year you can virtually stop any potential frivolous lawsuit. Such lawsuits are designed to intimidate the little guy and you're much less of a little guy when a multi-billion dollar insurance company is the one that is paying to defend you against the suit.

hmmm.... lets fix this one

Before anyone sets up any kind of web site, I strongly advise you to research an Umbrella Liabliity Insurance Policy. Among other things, these policies may protect you from accusations of libel and slander.
While proof is a defense against libel or slander, you don't want it to cost you your life savings to defend against a frivolous lawsuit because you spoke the truth someone didn't want to hear. For the cost of the umbrella policy - typically around $300 per year you can possibly prevent any potential frivolous lawsuit. Such lawsuits are designed to intimidate the little guy and you're much less of a little guy when you have adequate protection.

ahh much better. Only thing worse than financial disaster is financial disaster after you realize your poorly researched insurance policies really don't help you in your case

Be sure of what you are buying.

Re:in Canda?

[Nugget]

I was going to make a joke about GOTO war versus GOSUB war but in light of the current trend of never letting soldiers leave when they were originally supposed to I figure GOTO is probably a lot closer to reality.

Maybe someday our soldiers will be able to RETURN.

Perfect test case for Canada's libel laws

[Hamster Lover]

The U.S. has the Sullivan decision that defined libel and, if memory serves, ruled that the offending party has to prove that the particular writings at issue were made with malice and without regard to the truth. Prior to this the defendant had to prove that what he said was the truth.

This could prove to be an excellent test case of Canada's libel laws vis a vis our Charter or Rights. If Activa Holdings is successful in their lawsuit then just about any negative comment about any company made in the press, on the radio or TV or by the public is actionable. Some provinces, such as British Columbia, have SLAPP legislation that helps in defending such lawsuits but Ontario, where this lawsuit was filed, to my knowledge does not.

Mod parent up.

[RealityThreek]

Also, go read the woman's site if you haven't already. The entire website is full of "I saw this, I took pictures of that. Activa is the developer of this site."

How can it be libel if she is simply reporting what she sees? It's obvious from her tone that she has concern for her neighborhood including many sincere warnings to parents in the area about specific threats (stagnant water, pressure treated wood).

I'm at a loss here as to what Activa's case is.

Re:Hooray for loser-pays

[amliebsch]

There are also problems with the "loser pays" rule. One is that it would discourage the opposite scenario here: knowing she would have to pay if she loses, would this women even consider suing the polluters? It discourages meritless lawsuits, but at the expense of also discouraging meritorious lawsuits, and the meritorious ones are discouraged right at the margin where they are particularly usefull. Another problem is that it strongly discourages the ability of groups like the ACLU or NRA to file "test cases" to challenge the exact meaning of unclear judicial rulings or legislations, leaving the law in a more muddled and possibly unjust state. Finally, it encourages wealthier parties to intentionally run up their legal expenses, to try to force the less wealthy party to withdraw opposition once their cost-benefit expectation climbs too high. In poker, terms, this is exactly the same as raising the stakes to make the other players fold.

The loser-pays rule is appropriate in some circumstances, which is why judges should always have the option to allocate legal fees. But it is not a panacea.

Re:Hooray for loser-pays

[Mateorabi]

Unless she loses because they hired a whole slew $400/hr lawyers who were better than the single $100/hr lawyer she could afford. Loser pays just discourages the small guy from filing suit, because even if there is only a 10% chance of failure the corporation can screw him by hiring the best/most expensive legal costs possible.

Loser pays the would possibly work a bit better if you were forced to pay the other side the equivalent ofyour legal fees instead of theirs. I.e. if you loose your legal fees can only double (if your lawyer doesn't give you a "win or I'm free" gaurantee.)

The added bonus is that both sides are encouraged to make the case more breif, with fewer lawyers involved.

Re:just planned a "save the earth" site :(

[kyhwana]

Try doing it anonymously, if you can?

Re:Eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, the two million dollar threat does nothing to preserve or rebuild their image. It is specifically designed to destroy this woman and to send a message to other would-be activists. They are trying to put her head on a pike here and its up to the canadians to do something about it.

Re:Simple really

[GameMaster]

Yes, and according to Canadian law (so says the article), win or loose, she has to shoulder all of her own legal costs. So, unless she happens to be wealthy, she will end up with monumental debt and/or really poor quality legal defense. What does it matter if she wins or looses if she ends up living in the gutter when it's all over either way? The moral victory of winning means nothing when you're still hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt from defending yourself in the trial and any other appeals the company may try. I fail to see much of a difference between that and simply agreeing to pay the $2 million in the first place, unless she happens to have a massive yearly income.

This is one of many reasons why treating corporations as "people" under the law (a.k.a. corporate person-hood) is a stupendously bad idea. Anti-SLAPP laws seem to do some things to mitigate this but Canada doesn't seem to have this kind of thing and even in places that have it the corporations are sometimes allowed to use the same laws against individuals when they libel them. Corporations aren't people. They are large, abstract, organizations driven solely by profit motive in which group mentality (much like the mentality that takes over in riots) is used to override the morals of the individual employees. Pair this with the sheer disparity of resources (both intellectual and fiscal) of a corporation versus the average person and you have a situation where the two parties are almost guaranteed to enter any legal battle with the corporation at a massive advantage.

I can't speak for Canada, but I was always taught that the U.S. was supposed to be all about the rights of the individual. Of course, it was our supreme court that started this ball rolling by declaring corporate person-hood in the first place (Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886)...

-GameMaster

Corporate Responsibility

[zokrath]

Currently, corporations are blessed with many of the benefits of citizenship, and few of the limitations.

What we need are reforms to greatly limit the impact that corpotations can have on individual citizens.

To start, a corporation suing an individual citizen must cover that citizens legal fees, up to a certain percentage of their own legal cost, for instance 25%.
The money will be paid up front on a monthly basis, and does not need to be returned under any circumstances.
Any taxes for the legal fee reimbursement will be paid by the corporation, such that the citizen recieves, after all applicable taxes, the required amount.
The legal fee reimbursement will not be considered income for purposes of welfare, disability, unemployment, etc, and can be used for any purpose with no limitations.

Obviously the first things corporations will do is claim that their legal costs are next to nothing, because all of their lawyers are on retainer, and thus 'free'
Good job at finding the loophole, Mr. Suit, that simply means that the assumed legal cost will be the monthly salary of each lawyer who touches the case, times the number of years that the case. Alternate compensation would also need to be considered, including stock options, company cars and houses, so forth and so on.

Under current market and legal conditions, often it is such that citizens have little to no recourse when corporations violate laws in a way harmful to said citizens.
And yet, the same corporations that are effectively immune to citizen retaliation can effortlessly bankrupt numerous citizens via legal entanglements.

Corporations should not be able to force citizens into disfavorable settlements that entail large fines and the sacrifice of the citizens rights and future liability by threatening a never-ending legal battle that will cost the citizen large amounts of money even to enlist a single lawyer for the duration of their defense.

Corporations may exist solely to turn a profit for the shareholders, but they are allowed to exist solely to benefit the economy and thus the country. Suing private citizens rarely has any kind of benefit beyond establishing corporate dominance over the citizen, which is certainly bad for the country, as the country is, in fact, said citizen.

Of course, I am in no way qualified for legal or economic analysis, so obviously all of this will no doubt cause an economic recession as the rights of the pitiful corporations are simply trampled upon by an uncaring, unfeeling mass of citizens, who the corporations have no means of stopping. Which would be rather similar to the current situation, except with the trampling being the other way around.