“It appears that these statements were made for no other purpose than to harass and defame Roca Labs.”

Hmm. Lawyer for litigious company can’t see negative comments about said company as having any other purpose but to give them an opportunity to pursue billable hours and possibly monetary settlements/judgments. I am Jack’s legal filing of a motion to be sarcastically surprised.

Roca Labs is desperately trying to force a cone of silence over each and every customer that discovers that Roca Labs’ product is not only a specious remedy for their weight issues, but a potential cause of additional health problems. Plaintiff, desperate to sell as many of its tubs of goo to the public as it can before regulatory agencies come knocking does its best to bully its former customers into silence. “

Please provide us with an independent verification of this factual statement or retract the statement.

OK.

The article said that the filing said this. The filing did say this. The article was therefore accurate. Independent verification can be obtained by the copy you already have of the filings. If you want a retraction of what’s in the filings, perhaps you should do what you’ve already apparently done and ask opposing counsel to retract it, even though that’s still kind of ridiculous.

Oh, you wanted verification of the underlying claims? For that, you can refer to your OWN filings, where you admit that you do not allow your consumers to publish anything negative about you or your products in any forum. Sounds like a “cone of silence” to me. As far as the “bully its former customers into silence” claim goes, we have Roca Labs vs Alice King, where you sue a former customer for her negative comments. I don’t think you dispute the general idea that you want to “to sell as many of [your] tubs of goo to the public as [you] can”, although you might not like your products being called “tubs of goo”. As far as the “regulatory agencies” go, certainly you have your factories inspected every once in a while, so they do occasionally “come knocking”, right?

If you were interested in a retraction based on an actual mistake of fact, you would point out the actual mistake of fact. For example, if you factories were overseas and therefore not subject to any knocking regulatory agencies, you could say so. Or if you had one designated customer who you allowed to make negative comments without repercussions, you could point out that the phrase “each and every” was not quite true. Or perhaps you could point out that no company who actually wanted to stay in business long enough to sell as much of its product as possible would have terms of service like yours. Or perhaps your understanding of the Streisand Effect was such that you did not believe that your actions would actually silence anyone. Who knows? We certainly don’t if you don’t tell us.

So how many more stories are out there about rocaslabs , you could run a new one everyday , sooner or later they’ll run out of printer ink.

Is he really saying what I think he’s saying here?

“in publishing the articles without attempting to verify the alleged facts in the pleadings…”

I thought that verifying the facts was the job of the court? Is he claiming that Techdirt has the responsibility to decide the outcome of a pending case before a judge has ruled? Or perhaps he’s trying to claim that it’s improper to report on a case that hasn’t been decided yet?

Just what the hell is he trying to claim here?