NatWest Realizes It Screwed Up Sending Cease & Desist To Website Reviewing NatWest
from the nice-of-you-to-notice dept
UK bank NatWest apparently let its legal attack dogs off their leashes a bit prematurely recently, sending a nastygram cease & desist to a website that was merely reviewing different banks for students looking to open up bank accounts. This is the sort of thing that you might think NatWest would appreciate. Instead, it sent the C&D. Of course, once the press started asking questions, it appears that NatWest realized that perhaps it had made a mistake, and withdrew the legal request. Perhaps, in the future, they'll think before sending in the lawyers.
17 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Real Estate Firms Slipping 'Non-Disparagement' Clauses Into Rental Agreements To Stifle Online Criticism
- Dentist Who 'Invoiced' Patient For Negative Reviews, Getting Slammed On Yelp
- Dentist Forced Patient To Sign Away Future Copyright On Any Online Review; Then Billed Him $100/Day For Negative Reviews
- How Do You Promote A Bad DRM Scheme? With A Bad Movie Of Course
- Hollywood's Kinder, Gentler DRM: UltraViolet, Getting Slammed In Reviews






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
How silly.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Given the number of bogus C&D letters out there, they might be approaching the point of being considered an infinite good.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Subject
Naturally they also sent their fee requisition to the bank and of course they got paid.
In the end, the bank lost money to their lawyers, pissed off their customers and the public and are left to deal with the crap. In the meantime, the lawyers just deposited their big fat pay cheques in to their bank accounts.
Go LAWYERS!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Simple
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
So the email says that the review was deceiving NatWest's customers, but that the deception was not done deliberately. Which is complete BS. How could anyone read a review of different banks and think that the review was actually written by one of the banks reviewed?! That makes no sense. Clearly, there was no deception or market confusion at all. Why wouldn't NatWest admit that obvious fact?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Penalties
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Seems to me...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Seems to me...
It should be part of legal canon that lawyers are responsible for telling their clients when an action can do real harm to the clients.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Validreference Agent
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Validreference Agent
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment