Removal Of Content

We understand if there is false information submitted by users of our web service it can be frustrating which is why we have a strict policy against users submitting false information on our site, and if they do they are violating the terms of service they strictly agreed to opening themselves up to liability from both us and the law. Of course we are an open forum for people to post claims, if they decide to risk breaking the law and lying you likely could file a law suit against them for defamation any other sort of violation they are committing. We are not a legal authority though and cannot make judgements as to the accuracy of claims.

As a way to allow people to have content removed we have implemented two options for companies or people who have complaints submitted to our site by users:

File a Dispute

Submit a Response

Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act immunizes websites such as ComplaintsList.com against any potential liability arising from content posted by third parties to the website. (#1 – See Below) This is the case regardless of the whether the underlying post is defamatory (which ComplaintsList.com in the instant case is not in a position to determine), and even if the website has actual knowledge of the defamatory nature of the post. (#2 – See Below) Courts have applied this reasoning consistently in dismissing lawsuits against websites similar to ComplaintsList.com that provide forums for consumers to post criticisms of bad businesses, scams, and general fraudulent practices. (#3 – See Below)

For More Information About The Law Click Here.

The Communications Decency Act also provides absolute immunity to websites for exercising any editorial discretion to select, remove, or format posts by third parties. (#4 – See Below) Quite simply: “Absent a changing of the disputed reports’ substantive content that is visible to consumers, liability cannot be found.” (#5 – See Below) ComplaintsList.com. never changes the substantive content of user posts.

Because the Communications Decency Act provides ComplaintsList.com with complete immunity for any allegedly defamatory posts by ComplaintsList.com users, be advised that we will vigorously defend ourselves if you choose to initiate litigation against us. In addition, given the voluminous and well-established case law conclusively establishing immunity in these types of situations, we are also prepared and willing to request sanctions and attorneys fees for such frivolous lawsuits, such as through Rule 11 and anti-SLAPP laws.

Our terms of service require ComplaintsList.com users to specifically agree that they are not posting false or defamatory content on ComplaintsList.com. However, ComplaintsList.com is not in a position to investigate and adjudicate claims of falsity. If you believe a false statement by a ComplaintsList.com user has been made about you or your company the appropriate course of action is to pursue legal action against the individual user whom you believe has made a false statement.

If you obtain a judgment in a court of law against any such individual based on false statements made on ComplaintsList.com and present it to us, we will remove the post at issue.

Alternatively, if your initiation of litigation against a user of ComplaintsList.com prompts the individual to request our removal of the individual’s post, we will do so. Otherwise, as noted at the outset, ComplaintsList.com is prepared to vigorously to defend its rights to the fullest extent of the law.

——————

#1 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) (“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”); Fair Housing Council v. Roomates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

#2 See, e.g., Fair Housing Council, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); Universal Commc’n Sys., Inc. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413 (1st Cir. 2007); Zeran v. Am. Online, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997); Goddard v. Google, Inc., 2008 WL 5245490 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2008); Mazur v. eBay, Inc., 2008 WL 618988 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2008); Barrett v. Rosenthal, 146 P.3d 510 (Cal. 2006).

#3 See, e.g., Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 254 (4th Cir. 2009); Asia Econ. Inst. v. Xcentric Ventures LLC, 2011 WL 2469822 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2011); GW Equity LLC v. Xcentric Ventures LLC, 2009 WL 62173 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2009); Giordano v. Romeo, 2011 WL 6782933 (Fla. App. Ct. Dec. 28, 2011).

#4 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2)(A) (“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be . . . objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”); see, e.g., Fair Housing Council, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“[A]ny activity that can be boiled down to deciding whether to exclude material that third parties seek to post online is perforce immune under section 230.”).

#5 Id. (emphasis added).

Find Complaints About YouComplaint NavigationGET COMPLAINT ALERTS
Close

Follow Us To Receive Complaint Alerts

Get Complaint Alert Emails