Supplement Company Suing

[jimmybro1]

Apparently supplement companies can suing people that give their product negative reviews on social media such as YouTube and Facebook. 

This is one preson that has been singled out. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyE1tPlyCOE

Anothers response.. pretty funny

[Kigorri]

Wow.... thats just ridiculous.... in some ways, I can see how it can cross into defamation, but knowing the foolishness that people get sued for, I would imagine that is just legal drama gone wrong.

Elliot was a crack up....supplement companies are so full of shit... not only that, but wtf are those tubs so big and only half full? ALWAYS.... bodybuilding and health supp industry is built of hype and false pretenses.... selling dreams.... with few true fixes. 

[Pseudonym]

Damn. That doesn't surprise me, sadly. Americans seem obsessed with sueing each other.

I could be wrong, but I think in NZ, for a company to sue, it has to prove the defamatory statement has negatively impacted it.

In the Mod Forum, we have a topic on defamation which mods can refer back to if in doubt. It says "...a body corporate, such as a company, will not succeed in a defamation case unless it can prove financial loss or the likelihood of it."

I think anything further than that would have to be a personal defamation case - eg, the company directors alleging you'd said they were all crooks.

Of course, that doesn't prevent such defamation cases happening here, but at least it puts the burden of proof on the company.

[Kalidane]

I can't see how reviewing a product can result in a defamation conviction.

 

I can imagine cease and desist letters and take down notifications (i.e. do what we say or we'll take you to court) but it's only the expense of the defense that prevent one from winning.

 

I know of a company which did a bunch of the above wiping out numerous websites and small businesses and all was well.  Until their latest victim got top shelf pro bono counsel and kicked the shit out of them.  Prosecution counsel has since retired, pending lodgement of appeals from both parties.

 

An aggressive legal department is an important part of business strategy.  All we can do is cheer when it occassionally backfires.

[Kigorri]

I understand the basis for a defamation case but what I don't understand is what happens if the defandant can prove that what they said was the truth? 

[FellowshipOfTheRon]

thats strange whatever happened to freedom of speech. wonder if that icecream guy is legit or just playing the 'victim'. i heard hes been calling all kinds of people out recently and might be trying to pull a stunt to get viewers back to his channel. also lold at elliots vid good acting haha

[Kalidane]

 

I understand the basis for a defamation case but what I don't understand is what happens if the defandant can prove that what they said was the truth? 

The truth eh?

 

That doesn't really enter into it.

 

Ordinarily the plaintiff (i.e. supps company) will have to prove defamation (statements made in the review were false and injurious to the supps company).  Until defamation is found in court the review stays in place, unaltered.

 

Buuut then there is youtubes terms and services.  There is a notice and takedown process followed when libel is claimed.  From what I can see, their libel/defamation criteria is actually more concerned with personal bullying and threats, as opposed to negative product reviews.  I suspect they don't actually give a damn (because the law allows this attitude to a content distributor).  This is very different to their response to claims of copyright infringement, again due to the law.

 

I could have my lawyers send you a letter declaring that unless you swim from Auckland to Portugal I will take possession of all your property.  Good luck to my legal team finding a judge to enforce that.

 

The problem appears to simply be that to defend against the charges, once filed with a court, is a very costly process (generally).  Particularly spurious civil disputes brought before the court can have the court find in favour of the defendant, with the plaintiff to pay the defendants costs, and penalties as well.  The defendant can also file counter-claims.  I recall him mentioning receiving a letter - I don't recall mention of anything going near a court room.

 

So I'm no lawyer but this guy is either media-whoring or cannot find/afford representation.  Pretty sure that smart counsel would tear this a new one.

 

Has he referenced the prior instances of reviewers getting the legal-bash??  Keen to see them.

[Leeroid]

Mate, there are tons of supplement company-sponsored 'studies' out there proving the muscle building benefits of supplements. If ICF went to court, he would have to prove that the supplements don't work as advertised. But trying to convince a judge or jury panel who are most likely your average joes who think that protein powder is steroids, I don't think he'd have much luck.

 

He said in the video that he was quoted $40,000 to defend the case. Don't think any individual has that sort of money lying around to spend on a court case that they may not even win, not to mention the time and stress of a court case that could drag on for years and the loss of income from not being able to work. I don't blame him for wanting to avoid the courts.z

 

Dunno what basis an anti steroid group would have for a court case against him though?

[Destamoon]

I agree with Leeroid. Also Layne Norton was one of the four who sued him.

[Pseudonym]

Really, that's interesting. I always thought Layne came across as being one of the "good guys" in the industry. I wonder what was said that was supposed to be defamatory?

[AZIDE]

Really, that's interesting. I always thought Layne came across as being one of the "good guys" in the industry. I wonder what was said that was supposed to be defamatory?

people think hes a masive frauding fagot because he claims natty and clearly isnt

[jimmybro1]

I agree with Leeroid. Also Layne Norton was one of the four who sued him.

I think Layne didn't go ahead with the charges... was more of a warning. 

 

[Destamoon]

 

I agree with Leeroid. Also Layne Norton was one of the four who sued him.

I think Layne didn't go ahead with the charges... was more of a warning. 

 

Oh ok, I read the document that Jason recieved from Layne's lawyer. That shit was so extortionate man.

@Pseudo - I think Jason called out Layne on some of his studies on BCAA's he did for his PhD, saying it was a biased or poor study or something along those lines.

[Kalidane]

Bah video has been taken down.  Rather annoying.

 

Edit for moah:

 

If he said "I took supplement x and it did nothing for me", then that's not defamation.  Adding "They should up the meth content" would likely be defamatory.

 

Negligence and false statements of fact are right up there, and context is not ignored.

 

This is not legal advice lalala