dCS threatens with a 7-figure lawsuit over a review

[JustJones]

Was Roger Ebert ever sued for giving a thumbs down?

 

[Whoareyou]

I sincerely doubt that your friends make the norm, specially in "high-end" audio, where verbose reviews on magazines have been the norm for decades.

How many people do you know who spend $90,000 on an amp or $30000 on a DAC who bought it for the measurements, and how many of those verbose reviews denigrated that $90000 amp ? And I believe my friends are the norm in this world of uber expensive hardware. They aren't buying a buckeye amp no matter how good it sounds.

 

[pablolie]

And the reply to the reply.

dCS Response and Story

For those who did not see, this was posted on The HEADPHONE Show yesterday. This video was made in relation to an ongoing situation regarding @GoldenSound by dCS in regards to a video review he did of the dCS Bartok in 2021 before he had joined The HEADPHONE Show and Headphones.com which...

forum.headphones.com

This whole thing is amateur hour by both parties.
IMO any professional reviewer should give the company -whose products they are publishing a review about- a platform to publish a response to the review, and visibly feature it. Failure to do so to me shows (a) silly butt-headedness in protecting your infallibility, (b) potential bias and ill intent.
dCS, like many small boutique companies, have spent a lot of their limited financial resources over many years in building a good reputation. Attacking it on a popular platform (not sure if it is, I don't follow headphones.org or wherever it is) with what seems to be subjective stuff is likely to escalate to legal issues. See how celebrities get million dollar settlements from publications/websites that publish sensationalist semi-true claims and such. Why would it be different in any other environment? Damaging reputation comes with severe potential liabilities.
In the end, I think both sides here are being stupid and not presenting themselves in the best light with the ape-like feces tossing at each other. They'd gain far more credibility by settling this out of the public's eye.

 

[kemmler3D]

Is there anything that companies deserve? Or is it just reviewers? Are there any fair and proper protocols that reviewers should follow?

Generally I think companies are fine if they notice factual errors in a review and politely ask the reviewer to correct them. Reviewers do well to avoid drama by sending reviews to companies in advance of publication to give them a chance to catch errors up front.

But nobody is actually obligated to change anything or send anything in advance, it's just considered good practice.

See how celebrities get million dollar settlements from publications/websites that publish sensationalist semi-true claims and such. Why would it be different in any other environment? Damaging reputation comes with severe potential liabilities.

There's a major bright line that defines this. Statements of fact vs. statements of opinion.

"this sounds bright" is actually a statement of opinion, things like that. You can't go after the reviewer for damages for statements of opinion, no matter how off-base they may be. "this DAC sounds like broken glass being shaken in a tin can" is in-bounds and legally airtight. Even if it damages the brand's reputation to the point of bankruptcy. Even if it's not true in any real sense, it's just opinion and is therefore not amenable to litigation.

"This DAC only does 16-bit" is a statement of fact, and if it's incorrect and you can prove damages (possible but not easy) you can go after the reviewer for damages.

No reviewer should expect to be sued over statements of opinion... because the law protects those.

 

[pablolie]

Was Roger Ebert ever sued for giving a thumbs down?

It is very different. No comparison. Being the worst movie ever is actually a selling point quite often. It is entertaining to watch those, and a terrible review may actually get more publicity and sell tickets.

 

[shuppatsu]

Is there anything that companies deserve? Or is it just reviewers? Are there any fair and proper protocols that reviewers should follow?

I have my own opinions, such as that DACs are easily ABXed and anyone purporting to make subjective judgments ought to avail themselves of double blind protocols. But this isn't the FDA. We can't outlaw subjective impressions.

From an ethical perspective, all that is owed is honesty. Particularly for a company like dCS, which would be completely unable to justify its outrageous prices if people relied solely on objective measures.

 

[ta240]

Remember - we live in times when content, clicks, clickbaits, and drama make living.

It does make me feel good when I find I'm not the only cynical one.
Remember when Gene from Audioholics got into it with the guy that owned some sort of company and his donations for the "woe is me, I only have two theater rooms" fundraiser went way up and his patreon membership multiplied? Anyone looked at Erin's patreon before and after his dustup? Based off his price and membership he is making a minimum of around $4,000 a month just off of that now. Before he was in the couple hundred dollar range.
Drama sells, division makes followers passionate and passionate people donate.

 

[pablolie]

How many people do you know who spend $90,000 on an amp or $30000 on a DAC who bought it for the measurements, and how many of those verbose reviews denigrated that $90000 amp ? And I believe my friends are the norm in this world of uber expensive hardware. They aren't buying a buckeye amp no matter how good it sounds.

But you *DO* buy those based on reputation because "you can't go wrong". Try being Vogue and publishing an article about Hermes' Birkin bag being made out of human fetus skin. With being a professional reviewer and capturing trusting eyeballs comes big responsibility and liability. It's really that simple.

 

[Human Bass]

dCS is not a big company by any means.LinkedIn says they have between 11 to 50 employees.

Car reviews are also quite careful with what they say and write. And car companies have thousands/millions of customers, so one bad review doesn't hurt them a bit. Very different for boutique audio companies that live in a crowded market and probably just sell a hundred (tops!) units in a good year.

That is quite clear

 

[shuppatsu]

In the end, I think both sides here are being stupid and not presenting themselves in the best light with the ape-like feces tossing at each other. They'd gain far more credibility by settling this out of the public's eye.

Do you feel the same way about Erin re: Tekton? GS and HP.com only brought this to light after getting the nastygram from the lawyer. They swallowed a bunch of totally unprofessional abuse by that guy beforehand. And GS made the video private for a long time in order for dCS to provide input about what they believed was factually inaccurate about the review. It was only made public again after multiple requests for specifics were ignored.

 

[shuppatsu]

But you *DO* buy those based on reputation because "you can't go wrong". Try being Vogue and publishing an article about Hermes' Birkin bag being made out of human fetus skin. With being a professional reviewer and capturing trusting eyeballs comes big responsibility and liability. It's really that simple.

They can't say that about the Birkin bag because it's (presumably) not made of human fetus skin. Vogue could say that the Birkin bag feels just like human fetus skin, and there's nothing that Vogue could do about it except pull their ads and lose their lawsuit.

 

[restorer-john]

IMO any professional reviewer should give the company -whose products they are publishing a review about- a platform to publish a response to the review, and visibly feature it.

Absolutely they should. Stereophile have done that forever with the "manufacturer's response" at the end of reviews. And sometimes a bit of a back and forth and re-measuring another sample etc.

A manufacturer's repsonse should be the second reserved post after every review here on ASR. They can choose to use it, or not.

 

[Human Bass]

This whole thing is amateur hour by both parties.
IMO any professional reviewer should give the company -whose products they are publishing a review about- a platform to publish a response to the review, and visibly feature it. Failure to do so to me shows (a) silly butt-headedness in protecting your infallibility, (b) potential bias and ill intent.
dCS, like many small boutique companies, have spent a lot of their limited financial resources over many years in building a good reputation. Attacking it on a popular platform (not sure if it is, I don't follow headphones.org or wherever it is) with what seems to be subjective stuff is likely to escalate to legal issues. See how celebrities get million dollar settlements from publications/websites that publish sensationalist semi-true claims and such. Why would it be different in any other environment? Damaging reputation comes with severe potential liabilities.
In the end, I think both sides here are being stupid and not presenting themselves in the best light with the ape-like feces tossing at each other. They'd gain far more credibility by settling this out of the public's eye.

Doesnt matter if they resources are limited or not, any product can get a bad review. And it wasnt even that bad. There are plenty of good reviews of dCS stuff, all previews of CanJams by head-fi promote dCS.

Are you telling me that one company cant handle a single negative video of 3 years ago of a single product when they have several other products?

Their Vivaldi Dac costs 46k. Cry me a river.

 

[Human Bass]

It is very different. No comparison. Being the worst movie ever is actually a selling point quite often. It is entertaining to watch those, and a terrible review may actually get more publicity and sell tickets.

Yeah but thats actually rare. Most bad movies are bad in a boring way and lose millions. Yet Hollywood survives just fine.

 

[ta240]

A lawsuit would be a fantastic opportunity for a company to have the quality and value for money of its products on record for reference on any subsequent review or internet discussion.

That is assuming the results in court were real. I get a kick out of Michael Fremer's story about being an expert witness, where the attorney for the apposing side allowed him to tell the jury exactly what they were about to hear in the recording and shockingly... they heard it.

 

[restorer-john]

Drama sells, division makes followers passionate and passionate people donate.

They desperately feel the need to be part of the so-called "community". Being up-in-arms makes them feel all warm inside- fight the good fight etc. Grifters and panhandlers.

 

[kemmler3D]

But you *DO* buy those based on reputation because "you can't go wrong". Try being Vogue and publishing an article about Hermes' Birkin bag being made out of human fetus skin. With being a professional reviewer and capturing trusting eyeballs comes big responsibility and liability. It's really that simple.

This is why any reviewer who prefers to remain un-bankrupt is careful to state opinions in the form of an opinion.

As @shuppatsu says, "feels like baby skin" and "this is made of baby skin" are not on the same legal footing. At least in some countries like the US, you never assume liability by expressing an opinion, no matter how influential you are.

 

[pablolie]

This is why any reviewer who prefers to remain un-bankrupt is careful to state opinions in the form of an opinion.

As @shuppatsu says, "feels like baby skin" and "this is made of baby skin" are not on the same legal footing. At least in some countries like the US, you never assume liability by expressing an opinion, no matter how influential you are.

not sure that's true. if i was a professional newscast person, I am not sure I'd be allowed to say "Trump definitely f----d Stormy Daniels" as a "personal opinion" on air even though both facts and recent court proceedings indicate it is a true fact. The news network would get a call from a lawyer for sure.

the risk of a personal opinion being declared "defamation" when using a public platform is very real.

all I know is that in my job I am asked to review any competitve claim with legal. no matter how evident publicly available information is.

 

[ElJaimito]

Interesting, you disapproved of the ethics of the company selling items you believed were substandard but you didn't have an ethical issue with collecting a paycheck while not doing the job you were hired to do.
The company effectively bought a substandard salesman based off of, what I'm assuming, was a good sales pitch

That's right. The ethics of 21 year old people are generally in development, hence my qualification. In my defence, I didn't know it was junk when I took the job And with what they were paying, it was a miracle they had any sales people at all
I did eventually grow an ethical pair...

 

[No one who matters]

Absolutely they should. Stereophile have done that forever with the "manufacturer's response" at the end of reviews. And sometimes a bit of a back and forth and re-measuring another sample etc.

A manufacturer's repsonse should be the second reserved post after every review here on ASR. They can choose to use it, or not.

There’s a dCS dealer in Bellevue, WA. Perhaps they could arrange a setup with @amirm, test the product and let it take its rightful place on the graph. No questions about proper setup. Just the facts… with the pricing beside it.

https://www.definitive.com/our-brands

And, like you say, reserve maybe Post 3 for manufacturer response (Post 2 is typically reserved for @AdamG to post specs).

I have low confidence this proposal will come to pass…