Coordinators

Other Contributors

About Us

www.clpblog.org

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« CAFA Symposium | Main | More on the Arbitration Trap »

Friday, October 05, 2007

Comments

Samuel

LMAO, I, too, find that line hilarious: "yes, you can link to this page."
Uh, okay, you're a smart one, aren't ya?

elad

What I love about Dozier's response is that he's playing the good cop and the bad cop in one letter.

I'm ashamed for the Junior legislator, and hope that he's at least happy with the money he's getting for demeaning himself and being Devil's advocate. I would rather go work for Mcdonald's.

Rick Pali

The part I absolutely love about Dozier's response is the small note at the top: "Yes, you can link to this page."

As if we need his permission.

Gordon

I just read the Dozier response, and I have to say I found it very enlightening. It was well written, i.e. it did a very good job of masking faulty logic and innuendo.

Aside from the personal attacks ("you are struggling with many legal concepts") and implications that Public Citizen is only in it for the money ("donations flow when you are pushing the envelope and exciting your constituency into a frenzy"), there appear to be two major thrusts to the response. The first is that labeling Direct Buy as a "scan" really is defamatory. Of course, there is no mention of the fact that the "scam" complaints appear in posts submitted to the website from third parties; the worst you could say about the website owners is that they briefly characterize the nature of the (many) complaints about the company. However, the Dozier response seems to gloss over that inconvenient fact.

The second thrust is a discussion of "scam sites" (i.e. sites which display posts that accuse companies of running a scam). Dozer claims that some (most?) of these sites are extortion rackets that demand "protection fees" from businesses to ensure that negative posts do not appear on their sites. The clear implication is that the three sites in question, www.infomercialscams.com, www.infomercialblog.com, and www.infomercialratings.com, are extortion rackets that somehow engineer false claims against DirectBuy and then demand money from DirectBuy to remove those claims. This is a good way to imply that all the negative claims about DirectBuy are false, but it's also a pretty serious accusation, and there's no evidence in the Dozier response to support it (and there's plenty of other evidence that the posters' claims about DirectBuy are actually true). I note in passing that this implication has nothing to do with a legal argument, but rather seems to be an attempt to generate sympathy and goodwill toward a law firm that defends poor, helpless businesses from the evil extortionists.

Good try, but I'm not buying.

Anderson Sils

The Dozier response is quite amusing. Now that we all know about a British case that may tangentially support Dozier's absurd copyright claim, we should all feel enlightened.

Missing from the answer is whether Dozier intends to enforce its "copyright" against Public Citizen and others. Instead we get the standard "quality discussion" BS from Mr. Dozier. Dozier, if you honestly believe that your letter is protected, you should file suit so that we can resolve what you consider an issue of first impression. You are brilliant!
I have a feeling that we will never see this suit.

Calling your bluff (again).

John W. Dozier, Jr.

Dozier Internet Law has released a commentary addressing many of the issues raised. There is a link on the law firm homepage.

Fred

I'm not a lawyer, but isn't forum shopping a disbarable offense. I know that administrative actions have been brought against attorneys for this. It seems that threatening to bring a suit in Canada based on a (percieved) more favorable legal environment would qualify as forum shopping. Maybe it's time to start hitting back?

dan tdaxp

I have been following this case, from both the DirectBuy and Dozier Internet Law angles, on my own site

http://www.tdaxp.com/tag/directbuy
http://www.tdaxp.com/tag/dozier

Antipodean Lawyer

I invite the elitist Mr. Tavares to publish his model response to the Cease and Desist letter, so that we can then have the opportunity to commend or condemn his "first-tier" writing skills.

robert

Canada's Constitution states :

Fundamental freedoms 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

I am no lawyer but it seems to me that InfomercialScams.com is about thought, belief, opinion, and expression as well as being a media of communication.

Max Powers at http://ConsumerFight.com

I have a big mouth on my consumer website against all unethical, unfair, scam, rip off, fraud and misleading companies. I understand the current laws about the "third party postings" protections to a website but as the owner of my own website could I become the victim of a bullying company due to my own personal opinions? What if my negative opinions about a company can be validated by several hundred complaints of this company at other websites, the BBB and the F.T.C.

I'm not worried about a judgment as I am truly "sue proof" but would hate the idea of having to remove the website if I lost such a case.

John

Just to make a point, Morris is neither an idiot, nor a buffoon. No mistake about it, he's WRONG, and flirting with an ethical violation (Model Rule of Professional Conduct 4.1: "a lawyer shall not knowingly... (a) make a false statement of material fact OR LAW to a third person...", also, 4.3 "The lawyer shall not give legal advice to an unrepresented person, other than the advice to secure counsel, if... the interests of such a person are... in conflict with the interests of the client.")

However Morris is smart, or at least cunning, in the fashion of a playground bully. He knows (from experience, I'm certain), that if anyone stands up to him (or his clients), they'll get a good, old-fashioned whoopin', exactly as they deserve. So instead, he uses big words, cites a few cases, and puts an "Esq." after his name. This is the legal equivalent of walking tough, striking karate poses, and having a nickname like "Butch." And they are, to quote The Bard, "...sound and fury, signifying nothing."

It's pure BS, but until someone calls him (and all the other attorneys using similar tactics) on it, he'll rack up a string of clients who are just thrilled with the way he got rid of those troublesome information-sharers, and their damn First Amendment.

Kudos to Public Citizen. And, as someone who did graduate from a tier-two law school, I saw nothing wrong with Mr. Levy's writing at all. But perhaps Mr. Tavares went to Harvard?

BeatsJarheads

In my opinion, any damage they are suffering in Canada would be as a result of their business practices - including this attempt to regulate peoples' expression of their opinion of the service.

Jeremy

Blogged it :)

Lawrence

I think it's rather nice of Dozier Internet Law to refer to themselves as "spam lawyers" offering to defend senders of unsolicited email.

http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/commercial-email-spam

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

December 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31