Bogus Defamation Lawsuit Using Fake Plaintiff And Defendant Challenged By Public Citizen

from the managing-reputations-right-into-the-ground dept

More evidence has surfaced that the online reputation management business is shady as all hell. Previously, we’ve covered the use of fake websites used to generate bogus DMCA takedowns by copy-pasting negative reviews in full and claiming these were the original works of bogus contributors by backdating the posts. We’ve also covered the even shadier and more legally-dubious tactic of filing bogus lawsuits — using both fake plaintiffs and fake defendants — to obtain court orders to delist negative reviews, bypassing the site where they’re actually hosted in attempts to force Google, Yahoo, Bing, et al. to make them vanish from search results.

Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen — thanks to the investigative skills of FIRE employee/Popehat contributor Adam Steinbaugh — has uncovered another bogus libel lawsuit targeting negative reviews and comments. The standard M.O. is in effect. “Plaintiff” magically locates person behind anonymous review and gets them to sign a retraction. This legal paperwork never makes its way to the site where the review is actually hosted, however. The court order obtained through bogus means is instead served to search engines, resulting in the desired effect: the vanishing of negative content.

This follows closely on the heels of a bogus lawsuit in which the person whose name appears as a plaintiff claimed to have no input in the legal proceedings. While the jury (not the courtroom one) is still out on those claims, in this case it’s been confirmed that the supposed plaintiff had nothing to do with the lawsuit containing his apparently forged signature.

After I wrote about the Patel case, I heard privately from Adam Steinbaugh, who sent me copies of some papers he had located on the ECF site of the US District Court for the District of Rhode Island – a complaint along with a “consent motion” and a proposed “consent order,” also signed by a pro se plaintiff and defendant, that contained some awkward phrasings that are suspiciously similar to the language in the Patel v. Chan papers. This time, though, instead of directing that the order be sent to the site hosting the comments – this time, the “Get Out of Debt Guy” web site, a blog about the debt relief industry which has a policy of not removing comments, preferring that the poster make a public retraction — the “consent order” provided that it was to be provided to Google and other search engines so that the entire article (which was not alleged to have anything tortious) could be removed from search engine databases.

Levy happens to know the owner of the site indirectly targeted by the bogus lawsuit. Steve “Get Out of Debt Guy” Rhode reached out to the supposed plaintiff in the lawsuit, Bradley Smith. Smith claims the signature on the lawsuit is not his own.

In addition, the defendant — located mysteriously swiftly by the apparently fake “Bradley Smith” — is also a fraud. There’s no indication the person named in the lawsuit — “Deborah Garcia” — had anything to do with the negative comments targeted. Somehow, “Bradley Smith,” acting on his own without the benefit of compelled discovery, managed to locate the person behind the comments and obtain her signature on a proposed consent order. Even more magically, the supposed commenter resides in a state with a very long statute of limitations.

Among other things, anonymous comments said nothing about Bradley Smith, although the blog article to which they were posted criticized Smith’s company. Another oddity – neither of the URL’s that the “consent order” called on Google to delist was the article to which the comments were posted, although one of them featured comments supposedly received from “Bradley Smith” (whose authenticity Rhode had contested in these comments) And then there was the name of the defendant – the articles were posted using generic pseudonyms, yet plaintiff had apparently managed to identify the commenter by some mysterious means, and by some coincidence both comments had the same author, and she happened to be located in Rhode Island, where the statute of limitations for defamation is three years!

Unfortunately for whoever’s behind this bogus lawsuit, Steve Rhode was able to determine the information claimed in the filing was bogus.

Garcia’s supposed residence also justified claiming diversity jurisdiction, yet the blog host could tell that the IP addresses for both comments were in California; and the address listed on the documents for Garcia does not exist.

Even more unfortunately for the entity behind the bogus, apparently forged filing, Public Citizen has chosen to pick up the case. It’s attempting to intervene on behalf of Steve Rhode — not just because the filing is clearly bogus, but also because the plaintiff (whoever that actually is) may have taken advantage of an extra-long statute of limitations, but overlooked a more critical factor.

As it turns out, assuming that the choice of Rhode Island as the venue may well have motivated by its unusually long limitations period for defamation claims, choosing to sue there was a colossal blunder in a different respect: like California, where Bradley Smith lives and whose anti-SLAPP statute is well-known, Rhode Island has a tough anti-SLAPP statute.   Today we have entered the Rhode Island case to help the Get Out of Debt Guy retain its access to search engine listings as a way of telling consumers about useful information on its web site. Thus, in addition to moving for leave to intervene and to vacate the judgment, we have moved to dismiss the complaint citing the anti-SLAPP provisions, which include an award of attorney fees. It seems to me that the facts here are sufficiently egregious that sanctions may be warranted on an inherent power or bad faith litigation theory.

The upshot — so far — is that Google is taking a bit more skeptical look at court orders telling it to delist content even though it’s not named as a defendant in the lawsuit. The other upshot is that Levy and others are getting closer to identifying the entities behind this extremely shady misuse of the court system to clean up online reputations.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,
Companies: public citizen

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Bogus Defamation Lawsuit Using Fake Plaintiff And Defendant Challenged By Public Citizen”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

The same can be said about those companies who upload fake files using the names of media that are copyrighted to some site that they have a grip against and then send that site a dmca take down notice to remove those fake files that they uploaded and then when the site fails to remove one single file then sue the site for facilitating piracy and not acting on the dmca take down notice. Kerching profit.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

When you find someone who tells you they can do what no other lawyer you have spoken to could do… perhaps you are hiring scum.

With any luck not only will the lawyer(s) get smacked down, but the client will face some problems having decided playing by the law is for suckers.

Of course by the time the bar gets around to addressing these lawyers behavior, it’ll be 8 years later and they will have pocketed millions & wasted the courts time on bogus suits.

If your reputation actually meant this much to you, you wouldn’t hire scumbags. Time to name and shame those who chose this shortcut, and have Ms. Streisand sing.

Manabi (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Well there’s no lawyer involved (at least via the papers). They were filed by a pro se litigant, and the defendant is also pro se. I would have thought such lawsuits where BOTH parties are pro se would be unusual enough for the judge to give it extra scrutiny. But maybe such lawsuits are more common than I think.

Now there might be a shady lawyer doing this behind the scenes, but I’d be willing to bet it really was done by that Brad Smith (and he’s lying to cover it up) or by a scummy reputation management company, either with or without Smith’s knowledge. (I give that one 50/50 odds, both seem equally likely.) Either way I doubt a real lawyer drew up the fraudulent papers and filed them.

Still doesn’t let Smith off the hook for hiring a scummy reputation management company.

Quiet Lurcker says:

Re: Re: Re:

Not a lawyer here, either, but the overwhelming majority of the briefs I’ve read for this or that reason has included boilerplate demanding the address of the person/lawyer making the filing.

Now I think about it, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a federal filing without the address of the filer.

And, a quick check of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure reveals Rule 4, which in part demands the name and address of the person filing or their lawyer on any summons filed.

As to whether or not ID is required when filing, I’ve no concept, but wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »