Proposal: Right to Fair Review (RFR) Association

[amirm]

FYI, I will offer up the $10,000 that I made available to Erin's defense for this cause as seed capital.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

Just curious. How do automobile (ie car) reviewers avoid adverse liability concerns?

And restaurant reviews on Yelp?

And hotel reviews on TripAdvisor etc?

 

[Lambda]

I would just wait and see how this plays out.
I don’t know how the north American System works in this regard but if you did nothing wrong why would you need to have a legal deface and why would it be costly to you.
Don’t you have "presumption of innocence"?

Sure if you ask a lawyer if you need a lawyer you will need a lawyer... but realistically i don't see why he or i would or should care about threads from a private individual.
If they think he did something illegal the burden of proof i on them?!

 

[SnakeOil]

Reviewers of anything from cars to motorcycles to kitchen appliances should be asked to join. This could be a huge win for consumer rights.

Consumers already have rights. The right not to purchase

 

[SIY]

Don’t you have "presumption of innocence"?

That's criminal law. This is civil law.

 

[SnakeOil]

If the ones doing the reviews post that this is the opinion of the reviewer. It would probably relief them of any legal issues. If they are saying it is objective fact that is where it’s a slipppery slope. Because IMO everyone to an extent has Bias. Measurements taken from machines are not an excuse to say that this objective fact. Especially in a court of law. Machines are not accurate 100% of the time. Many lawsuits on Red Light Cameras which resulted in the cameras being taken down because of even the slightest percent not working correctly.

 

[johnnyx]

YouTube lawyer Steve Lehto has advice for the RV lady; "DON'T BUY AN RV", because of the shady practices in that industry, see link below.

It would be a shame if a lawyer's advice to the HiFi industry was; "DON'T BUY SPEAKERS".

Don't Buy an RV

 

[Labjr]

I hope you and Erin will stand your ground. IMO, ASR is the best audio review source that exists.

I read this comment on that RV video. It's not my comment:

"I am a retired attorney. Among other issues, I defended hundreds of defamation claims during my 35 years of litigation practice. The "cease and desist" letter you received is a common intimidation tactic. Stand your ground. I will be amazed if Tiffin or Lippert is foolish enough to actually file suit against you for commercial defamation. It would not be worth the bad "press." Remember, truth is an absolute defense to defamation claims. So long as what you say in your videos is true, the law protects you. If you do get sued, I recommend you search for an attorney who will defend you pro bono, in exchange for the goodwill and positive "press" he/she would get."

 

[amirm]

YouTube lawyer Steve Lehto has advice for the RV lady; "DON'T BUY AN RV", because of the shady practices in that industry, see link below.

It would be a shame if a lawyer's advice to the HiFi industry was; "DON'T BUY SPEAKERS".

Don't Buy an RV

Yeh, I watched that a few weeks ago and was shocked at what they were putting in their contracts.

 

[jsrtheta]

This is absolutely awesome, and I can't wait to see where this goes! As an attack deterrent, I think this could be quite effective, not to mention the other benefits.

This is by no means my field, and what follows is NOT legal advice.

1. The main issue, I imagine, is on what basis can a lawsuit lie? For example, to take a hoary, but apt example, if you misstate (aka lie) about purely technical issues, such as how many and what kind of inputs there are, you may provoke a complaint. I would think such a minor issue can be resolved by printing a correction and highlighting it. The law generally doesn't sweat simple mistakes as long as they're corrected.

2. The reviews I've read here have been objective and factually supported. I haven't read every review here, of course, but the ones I've read have never raised red flags for me. (Again, not my area of specialization.)

3. It is nigh on impossible to be liable for a pure opinion. Cable makers often have claimed sonic benefits from their products. They are claims we know to be BS. If a cable maker, or magic box inventor, may be hard to sue because, how do you prove that what the reviewer claims is untrue? You can't - you don't have the maker's ears or brain. How many cable makers have been successfully sued for saying their cables have more "air" or "PRAT"? I imagine only if you know, and can prove, that he has stated to others that in fact his cables sound no different than others, can you prove fraud. And that's largely the only colorable claim any maker can invoke that will cause him trouble.

4. I practiced law for decades, mostly in criminal prosecution. Good lawyers, contrary to common thought, are people proud of what they do and proud of their ethics. Understand, this is what I believe in. This is what every serious, ethical lawyer believes.

Sadly there are lawyers who will litigate in bad faith because there's a buck in it. If they actually go to court (which many won't), they are quickly found out. I never personally hated a defense attorney, or a prosecutor, as long as he/she was operating in good faith. Which brings us to...

The bad guys. These are attorneys who will call up and threaten people to get what their clients want. And sometimes it works, the client gets a check, and everyone moves on. But these are bottom feeders.

 

[jsrtheta]

I hope you an Erin will stand your ground. IMO, ASR is the best audio review source that exists.

I read this comment on that RV video. It's not my comment:

"I am a retired attorney. Among other issues, I defended hundreds of defamation claims during my 35 years of litigation practice. The "cease and desist" letter you received is a common intimidation tactic. Stand your ground. I will be amazed if Tiffin or Lippert is foolish enough to actually file suit against you for commercial defamation. It would not be worth the bad "press." Remember, truth is an absolute defense to defamation claims. So long as what you say in your videos is true, the law protects you. If you do get sued, I recommend you search for an attorney who will defend you pro bono, in exchange for the goodwill and positive "press" he/she would get."

I just wrote a similar post without first reading yours. I agree with everything in that post.

 

[jayapple]

Just curious. How do automobile (ie car) reviewers avoid adverse liability concerns?

Car reviewers can lead to legal action. Adhering to the speech provided by the car manufacturer may prevent litigation and even result in financial compensation. However, baseless defamation can prompt legal consequences and harm the reputation of the car brand, particularly when influential individuals are involved.

Similarly, unfavorable results from professional testing may prompt some automobile manufacturers to take corrective actions or pursue legal recourse. Nevertheless, using objective measurement methods and avoiding intentional slander can protect against legal action. It is important to recognize that automakers have more at stake in these situations. Some may opt for monetary settlements while others may pursue litigation;

however, ultimately it is the manufacturer who stands to lose more. In conclusion, anyone with a modicum of intelligence would avoid going to court in such circumstances as it could prove detrimental for both parties involved.

 

[Easternlethal]

If the ones doing the reviews post that this is the opinion of the reviewer. It would probably relief them of any legal issues. If they are saying it is objective fact that is where it’s a slipppery slope. Because IMO everyone to an extent has Bias. Measurements taken from machines are not an excuse to say that this objective fact. Especially in a court of law. Machines are not accurate 100% of the time. Many lawsuits on Red Light Cameras which resulted in the cameras being taken down because of even the slightest percent not working correctly.

This is what manufacturers have been relying on for decades to sell poorly measuring products.

Just like EA can say his M-lore is "flat" and Erin's measurements are wrong.

I am still amazed that speaker manufacturers can use words like 'breathtaking', 'magical', 'best speaker ever made' and 'cutting edge technnology' with absolutely no problem, but reviewers are not allowed to post measurements because it's bias.

If this association buys a Klippel, buys products, takes its own measurements and goes after manufacturers when they make false claims I am sure it would be paying for itself very quickly.

 

[mikitm]

Sounds good on paper but ... I don't know, it looks like a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. A Q&A page with a list of possible resolutions to some problems would be better IMO.

 

[Robbo99999]

Sounds good on paper but ... I don't know, it looks like a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. A Q&A page with a list of possible resolutions to some problems would be better IMO.

My own gut feel on this whole topic is that it's using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I'm thinking it's not gonna really be required to set up this RFR association that's being talked about. I see it as more trouble than it's worth, so I think I'm agreeing with your overall viewpoint.

 

[Pe8er]

Sounds good on paper but ... I don't know, it looks like a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. A Q&A page with a list of possible resolutions to some problems would be better IMO.

IMHO we should do both, in stages. Start with simple and quick stuff:

1. Disclaimers in reviews (to prevent / diminish situations like Tekton one)
2. A welcome message for new members, explaining the purpose of ASR (to set expectations mainly for incoming subjectivists)
3. A strong FAQ section on the forum (so that old-timers can stop getting frustrated at repeated questions) - which is already in the works

And then, even with that foundation we can't expect to be fully covered because this is a pay-to-play game when lawyers get involved, especially in the US. An organization that holds funds and provides means to protect objective reviewers (and not just ASR, this is obviously bigger than ASR) should be established to deter business practices of manufacturers who seek to aggressively protect their oh-not-so-honest products from truthful (i.e. objective, scientific) criticism.

Remember, people like Erin or Amir are a dying breed. In 2024, influence of corporations on consumer's decision making process is so huge we should be fighting tooth and nail to protect our right to think and choose freely.

BTW @amirm I will chip in what I can too, including some form of branding if needed (logo, website etc.)

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Just used the "Account Upgrade" option, to chip in a little towards this effort.
Most of us can ... & Should.

 

[Toni71]

Indeed, it was time to donate some. What a great forum this is.

 

[rdenney]

I’ve been thinking about this.

An organization with an established legal fund and a logo is a deterrent. Member reviewers can post the logo…”Member of …” and adhere to a basic canon of ethics (rather than submit to some testing standard that may merely serve to make hobbyist reviews impossible. No need to own its own testing equipment or anything like that. “Legal Defense Fund” should be in the name.

That way, those making empty threats will know that empty threat intimidation won’t work.

The canon of ethics would start with: “We will not state things in our reviews we do not personally know to be true, through documented testing, analysis, or direct experience.”

The second might be: “We will clearly distinguish between statements that are the result of direct testing, analysis, or opinion.”

And the third: “all statements made as fact will include supporting detail of the testing, analysis, or observation demonstrating the factual nature of the statement.”

Amir’s description and reference to further detail of his use of the Klippel is an example of the third, as is JA’s description of the MLSSA system. But even if a reviewer uses REW, as long as the test was fully described, a fact is a fact. Clearly citing other generally available articles or videos should be sufficient.

The fourth canon might be: “Reviewers must provide an opportunity for manufacturers or vendors to rebut specific statements or conclusions in the review.”

Comments and thread entries would meet this requirement, it seems to me. The professional journalists already know how to provide for this.

Rick “respectfully submitted” Denney

 

[Billy Budapest]

Thanks good to know. I was thinking of the benefits some companies offer where for a monthly fee, you get access to a lawyer from a network. Is this kind of crowdsourcing of attorneys done differently? I always thought folks were moonlighting this way.

There are legal plans available as employment benefits for some jobs, but the plans themselves either contract with law firms or work as a referral network with a group of law firms. But for conflicts purposes, most (or all) state bars don’t allow “moonlighting” arrangements to my knowledge.

In any event, before starting up a legal plan or referral plan, you would really need to consult with a lawyer to devise how to do this in accordance with the state bar rules.