Other Contributors

About Us

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.

« SEC Charges Former Top Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Execs of Defrauding The Companies' Investors | Main | Think There's No Such Thing as Debtors' Prison Here in the USA? »

Friday, December 16, 2011


The Truth is a website that got it's start by stealing and reproducing (plagarizing) Google even de-listed them for nefarious activity.

With so much obscurity regarding all else, it seems unlikely they'll ever agree to a neutral academic audit. The consideration that they are "open to the idea" seems ridiculous.

These are all typical statements and actions of a Russian-based company doesn't at all care for the actual cause.

Ron Coleman

Paul (or should I call you "Levy"?) thanks for doing the best you could to be objective -- which is not the same as balanced; balance, I must admit, you did achieve.

Notwithstanding Public Citizen's self-appointed role as ombudsman for whoever, it is not entitled to sworn statements from parties involved in litigation, or contracts under a protective order, just because Public Citizen has deemed someone "sleazy" and would like some questions answered.

The fact that you think the claim by Ascentive that critical comments were "taken down" despite the fact that after a year of litigation -- including the full range of discovery fishing, starting with an order for expedited plaintiff's discovery before our clients could even begin to defend themselves -- Ascentive could prove nothing of this sort does not shift some burden onto Opinion Corp. to now disprove it to Public Citizen.

Ascentive, and its co-plaintiff Classic, have and had one goal in mind in this case: To get their clients off the website. They were prepared to and pretty much did submit anything they thought could possibly achieve that goal. In that regard Marc is pretty close to the target, from what I can tell (I'm not really privy to the other side's machinations), in his comments. It appears that these plaintiffs were led to expect a certain result, much of which was probably premised on a somewhat weaker defense than was provided and a far less thoughtful judge than was assigned to the case (not exactly hard to find). Either way, that result certainly has little to do with vindicating the public interest as anyone would identify that elusive stuff, even Public Citizen or Steve Rhode.

If nonetheless, Paul, "to your mind" Ascentive has proved its case about something or another, then I guess "to your mind" Opinion Corp. is liable in the court of Public Citizen due to its failure to meet the burden placed on it by the arbitrary and secret procedural rules of that tribunal. It would not be the first client of mine to enjoy that distinction and I'm not sure I'm even admitted to the illustrious "PC" bar anyway, notwithstanding our past (and, I hope, future) adventures together.

Steve Rhode

As someone that ries to do my best to assist consumers, the revelations about the criticism sites you mentioned is disturbing.

It's one thing for consumers to be critical of a company and post it to speak their mind, it's a different matter if that site it's posted on intentionally buries the criticism or removes it for specific financial gain.

Don't consumers deserve better?

Marc J. Randazza

"Reputation Management Attorney" is a pretty interesting marketing angle. Unfortunately, that would seem to attract a lot of thin-skinned people who want to sue for the tort of "this guy is mean and I am butthurt." Of course, thin skinnned butthurt rich people are excellent clients. They will spend a fortune to try and bury someone for butthurting them.

But then here comes the paradox and the boomerang. If you represent people like that, you wind up filing bullshit claims that harm your own reputation as an attorney.

The real bummer here is that Ms. Arena seems like a relatively young attorney with some decent skills that could be cultivated into real talent. Therefore, I presume that she has a mentor or a supervisor somewhere who is pulling some puppet strings. While she is the one who is likely to find her reputation destroyed in relatively short order, there is some asshole who should have given her better career advice. He (or she) is the one who really deserves to be pilloried here. There's no way that this firm let a 2005 graduate run off on this adventure unsupervised.

If she wants to manage someone's reputation, the place she should start is with her own. She ought to go find the prick who told her this was a good idea, or who just failed to tell her it was a bad idea, and she ought to piss in his coffee, and then start sending her resume to firms that will actually give her some good mentoring and training.

The real shame is that she might have a client with valid claims at some point. But, whoever is teaching her the art of litigation is taking advantage of her, burning her reputation, burning the client's money, and profiting from it without a care in the world as to the fact that he's messing up some kid's career. A mentee and supervisee deserves better than that.

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

September 2022

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