Proposal: Right to Fair Review (RFR) Association

[NADKEF listener]

i work in Marketing and in comparative advertising you are allowed to mention facts, according to the US law. But drawing a conclusion is always very dangereous territory. So, you could separate the measurements from the conclusion. Only members can read the conclusion. Because the member part is not public, it can hardly be defined as defamation. ideally, members accept a disclaimer agreement before being accepted. Not an answer to your question, but a short-term fix while you are look for a solution. Perhaps, call with macrumors how they deal with this. Somehow, they are allowed to write “don’t buy”.

 

[Kimbrough Xu]

Totally support, in order for reviewers to write their reviews fairly, they must be protected from this situation you an Erin encountered.

 

[johnnyx]

I think this is complementary to the "Right to Repair" advocacy.

Manufacturers want to control repairs to their products, just as they want to control reviews of their products.

Replace a broken screen in your phone and it now becomes counterfeit, and illegal, according to Apple.

There are threats of litigation in both cases.

 

[RayDunzl]

Such organisation would be funded and have a panel of lawyers who could then reply on Amir’s behalf...

Yes.

"Thinking by the Hour"

 

[BadSound]

Unfortunately, the laws in each country are very different. I will therefore describe some aspects of my understanding of the law. Of course, this may be different in the countries and legal systems of the other participants.

In my view, the RFAA idea presented by Amir could at least achieve the following:
1. reviewing the legal status for possible lawsuits: where are they possible, what precautions can be taken to tie them to a specific jurisdiction, how can lawsuits from other places be averted due to lack of jurisdiction, etc.
2. ensuring that manufacturers can object to measurements that have been taken: Assuming that manufacturers are not just suing for the sake of a dispute but have existential concerns, for example, you would need to be offered an acceptable form of clearly positioning a counterstatement. This could, for example, be a separate part of the forum with a link directly after the test result. This feedback could then be directly visible to everyone without a response from a third party and thus offer every manufacturer the opportunity to openly position their response to the test results without surrounding third-party opinions. This could be seen as a protected space that reflects the interests of the manufacturers.
3. review system: By this I mean the comprehensible and comprehensive presentation of the principles of the reviews carried out. Their subjective parts, essential measurement methods or possible fundamental weaknesses of the work. This would certainly be a lot of work that would also generate a considerable amount of costs. But in my understanding of the law, it would be necessary to explain transparently what the site and its reviews do and do not do.
4. dealing with legal disputes: This means a transparent but also author-protecting procedure which, in the event of legal action or, if necessary, successful legal action by the other side, shows this on the homepage in a legally secure manner.
This could be an area in which, for example, information on withdrawn reviews or reviews pending litigation is stored. For example, if I search for reviews of the manufacturer XXYYZZ in the forum, I find the note that the review of product 112233 has been removed from the site due to a legal dispute or the note that the review of product 112233 is being legally contested by the manufacturer.
This would satisfy the (legitimate?) interest of the manufacturer not to conceal the criticism and the visitor to the site is informed of the position / behavior of the manufacturer.

This would also be developed as legally secure as possible thanks to the idea presented by RFAA.
I could imagine that with such an approach, on the one hand (also as an example for other sites on the Internet with reviews), a somewhat more legally secure basis would be created in order to be able to continue the work with composure and, on the other hand, the transparency that we all value so much would be maintained can.

Allow me to reiterate my comment above.
I am of the opinion that Amir's approach in his opening comment is the right way to go.
What I'm missing here is the legal review of this site and its handling - even without looking at current events.

I am a CEO of a very small company (200 employees) and we work with people. There are always conflicts. But I also know the situation when a lawsuit is directed at me personally. Very unpleasant. Many years ago I also had the experience when the judge said to me, "If only you had paid attention to this little thing..."
I would like for Amir and possibly others to avoid something like this. At least there should be no obvious problems/legal areas of attack. If I am personally accused of something, it is very unpleasant and I at least want to be sure that I have done what was possible and thus improve my chances in the event of a legal dispute. What do you think about that?

 

[just1n]

I am not aware of any such resources.

Code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists - The Journalist's Resource

A good place to learn about journalists' rights and responsibilities is the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, which is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior.

journalistsresource.org

Consumer Review Fairness Act: What Businesses Need to Know

The Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) protects people’s ability to share their honest opinions about a business’s products, services, or conduct, in any forum, including social media. Is your company complying? Contracts that prohibit honest reviews, or threaten legal action over them, harm...

www.ftc.gov

I would think that by following these guidelines and minimizing the use of loaded phrases and bias languages would a good start. Sometimes it’s easy to be shocked or disappointed by something and want to convey that, but if it gives a borderline frivolous lawsuit window of opportunity why risk it.

Edit: To be clear, I am speaking of some of those who simply want to stir the pot, the abettors. Whether I agree with them or not is immaterial, they could take a page out the above sites.

 

[calugg]

There is a classic legal case from the early 1980s, where Consumer Reports PANNED a Bose product. Bose cried foul and promptly sued. To cut to the end, Bose lost, badly in court and Consumer Reports never looked back. If they had lost, they would have been out of business. It might be worth a call with their legal department, to check your ideas and experiences against theirs. I think you have an excellent idea. I've been a reviewer for academic research for 30+ years, and the bullying by a few audio companies is astonishing, pathetic and laughable (I once wrote that a think-tanker's approach to history was akin to taking magic mushrooms--it was a terrible book). Everything should be reviewed and judged. Someone is just butthurt because they really don't poop glitter......

The case actually went to the US Supreme Court: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1246

BOSE LOST 6-3: "The Court held that while the record revealed that the article's author mistakenly described the sound path of Bose speakers, he did not do so with actual malice. A review of the author's testimony showed that he heard the Bose speaker sounds as tending to wander "along the wall" between speakers, rather than "about the room." Despite this disparity, the Court held that the description of Bose speaker sounds as wondering "about the room," though a misconception, was not written with actual malice since its author was not aware of his mischaracterization in time to remedy the error. Therefore, his speech was entitled to First Amendment protection."

So, you do have 1st Amendment protections as a reviewer.....

 

[Morpheus]

The way Kurt Denker fron Blue Jeans cables handled the bullying from those Monsters Cablers....
Damn..!! After reading this, I feel an unredeameable urge to buy cables from them, should they still conduct their business with this kind of ethics..

 

[calugg]

I think suing someone for their personal opinions violates the right to freedom of speech. It won’t go anywhere because it would single handedly destroy the entire world where auto reviews, phone review, electronics and everything else we would all get sued! So I say let em file and take it to court unless there is something we aren’t being told???

Yes: See Bose vs. Consumers Union. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1246

 

[JeremyFife]

Sounds difficult to do in practice, but important in principle. Happy to support.

All the better if this moves the review community, and hopefully the industry, to an agreed set of measurement standards.

 

[Mnyb]

We could have a hall of fame and a hall shame sticky . And use the power of ASR’s reach ?
A little to much of cancel culture for my taste ? But maybe justified ?
I’m a bit unsure does not really like the walk of shame idea. Next time the mob is after you ?

But maybe like this , feel free to not like .

Don’t do business with these brands. With a short one line description on each .

Monster , Tekton . “Legal scare tactics, dangerous people” . Synergistic Research , Audiquest , “Fraudulent proponents of pseudoscience”

And do business with these brands with a like wise short justification in the other sticky.

KEF, Genelec, Neumann, Ascend , Sigberg . “god designs scientific approach, well documented”

 

[MakeItWain]

3. Insurance. The insurance market has hardly any products to offer for this type of defamation claim. They have policies to insure large newspapers and such but not necessarily for small independent reviewers. I know, I had my broker look for months for such a policy until they found one a few years ago. I paid them nearly $5000/year for the policy, just to have them write me a cold letter a couple of months ago saying they no longer wanted to offer such a product. The search continued and again took a couple of months for my broker to find another policy with similar cost.

The organization could do such a search and create a proper market for such a policy. Even the policy I found needs better customization as their application form had tons and tons of irrelevant questions that I had to fill out in order to be qualified.

FYI, just some slight insight - applications are meant to be broad because they need to cover a wide range of potential risks. You don't typically see dedicated applications or policies to each individual type of company and it's impossible to get a policy specifically tailored to your individual exposures when it costs a lot of money, effort and is highly regulated. It's not uncommon to complete an application and literally mark everything as N/A.

The misconception with insurance tends to stem from not realizing that insurance is meant to be a form of risk transfer and typically meant to protect people or businesses from an unforseen circumstance. But the more likely an entity has to having a claim (in this case a personal & advertising injury risk type of claim), the more likely it won't be available on standard markets and you'd be limited (reflected in your experience).

In potential claim scenarios, it isn't necessarily that you're not protected from first amendment rights (which you likely would be and you'd win your lawsuit if it went to trial) but the insurance company would represent you during these events and that can be the most expensive part of a claim.

(This is on a high level, don't want to get into a debate about anything but just wanted to color that aspect a bit. Hopefully your broker kept you informed the entire time.)

 

[Yuhasz01]

Public reviews/evaluation of any product or service is free speech/freedom of expression under first amendment rights in US Constitution..

 

[Robbo99999]

Right to Fair Review Association (RFRA). @amirm , I think that's what the abbreviation would look like, I think you had done a typo in your OP. (RFRA)
Apologies if someone has already brought this up.
As to what I think about setting up an association - as long as it's not more trouble than it's worth, I mean how often do reviewers get into problems - afterall sensible communication on side of reviewer & manufacturer prior to publication should avoid any problems. I don't have enough insight into the problems reviewers face along with not having any specific legal insight of my own, so I can't answer that question.

 

[SIY]

Public reviews/evaluation of any product or service is free speech/freedom of expression under first amendment rights in US Constitution..

Understand that the First Amendment shields you from government action (in theory, anyway- our wise leaders have had fun over the years redefining "no law"). It does not shield you from civil liability.

 

[Multicore]

But here are my thoughts. What say you?

I say, Go for it!

As for the specifics, I gave one reply #18 here. Otherwise I think you should prioritize the concerns of the reviewers who are interested to actually "buy in" to the association over ours. The collective practical skills and knowledge of ASR peeps is huge but no matter how good our ideas may be, it's the group's agenda to set so their concerns come first.

 

[JDS]

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.

Yes -- I think the deterrent effect would be significant. Bullies hit people who they think are not able or willing to defend themselves.

OTOH, insurance can create its own problems. Insurers tend to prefer to settle even garbage claims rather than go through the cost of a trial. That can incentivize unscrupulous people to file nuisance claims. So Amir's idea could deter some claims while incentivizing others. I'm guessing it would be a net improvement, but that's just a guess.

 

[dtaylo1066]

Many excellent points.

I will make a few points:

1) I would first suggest that a threat of a lawsuit is one thing, actual legal action quite different. So, while you are not advocating this, Amir, let's be careful to not over-react.

2) Good idea for ASR, as a significant platform, is to formally state its review philosophy and, if manufacturer's disagree with points in the review, how best they reply or provide counterpoint, and how ASR will allow that process to occur. That would make for a good video on your part.

3) I would benchmark how other review entities, from auto mags to Consumer Reports, prepare and fortify themselves against manufacturer pushback.

4) I am not a lawyer, but I am sure that a number Forum members are, and I would hope that some would offer pro-bono guidance or assistance. I have been on many non-profit boards, and obtained and relied on many pro-bono efforts.

5) I would imagine you have much of this covered, Amir, given your intelligence and work for a large corporation, and owning a smaller company of your own, but probably a good time to ensure ASR is incorporated in the best 5021(c)(3), LLC or other way to ensure you the greatest degree of protection. Hopefully someone on the Forum could provide any advice in that area, if you have not already done that long ago.

6) The last thing a company such as Tekton can afford is a squabble and bad press or PR in and around forums and audio media. As a one-time Fortune 500 corporate communications and corporate reputation expert, I would have never advised them to take such action. it is foolish and ego driven. The aggressive low road is not a road often well taken. Therefore, in response, a good policy for ASR may to ensure that any response to such bullying, while potentially necessary in regard to its degree of aggressiveness, be as fact-based, logical and sensible as possible, and reviewed by PR and legal experts.

7) One of the most effective means of support to a particular POV or process is a third-party statement or endorsement. In this case, I doubt Klippel would want to jump into a polemic, as not wise for them, but a highly-qualified third party who is expert in Klippel could provide extensive expert support, just as expert third parties are used as witnesses in trials.

8) It might be a good thing to clarify the reason and purpose of the Forum member vote aspect of the reviews, its intention to be a fun, informative and personal way for members to provide their rating of a product, and what that implies and does not imply.

 

[Hart]

I think post this incident, even they will look behind their shoulder more, worrying about saying anything remotely negative. If we don't take action, we may be in worse situation than we are now with people being truly afraid of going through my experience and that of Erin.

I emailed and also called the company expressing my concern, I think if everyone did the same it would have an impact. I know after police/towns fail "first amendment auditors" their phones are jammed with calls and changes are made. I think it's powerful.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Is this an extension of the Cancel Culture?
Praise us, don't criticize, don't spread the truth or Else!
I wonder . . .