Proposal: Right to Fair Review (RFR) Association

[Fleuch]

When a review is evidence-based, carried out in good faith, and the evidence can be repeatedly reproduced or replicated, is it the responsibity of the complainant or the defendant to demonstrate the accuracy of the data?

Should the litigant be required to produce evidence of tests carried out to the same level of accuracy using similar equipment and methodology?

This suggests that a reviewer needs to be confident of the calibration of the test equipment used - which leads to a whole new ball game and added cost. However Tekton, as one example, has not produced data to challenge Amir's results and has only offered subjective opinion.

Many reviews found on YouTube are not evidence-based and are therefore completely open to challenge as "inaccurate opinion", compared with any review on ASR where the measured evidence is published as the core of the review.

Perhaps it is the fear of litigation that leads to bland magazine reviews.

 

[BDWoody]

Please bear in mind that French ( Canada) is my main language so please forgive me.

Welcome!

Never a need for that. We have people from all over the world, so please don't let that keep you from posting.

 

[kemmler3D]

When a review is evidence-based, carried out in good faith, and the evidence can be repeatedly reproduced or replicated, is it the responsibity of the complainant or the defendant to demonstrate the accuracy of the data?

The plaintiff would have to show that the data was inaccurate.

Also, a review doesn't need to be evidence-based to avoid legal liability. In the US, your requirement as a reviewer is simply not to actively lie about a product or company. Honest mistakes in reviews are allowed.

If I say "In my opinion, this speaker is the worst I've ever heard", it's an opinion not amenable to fact and you can't win a lawsuit against me for saying that, in theory.

If I say "In my opinion, this speaker has 1.2 ohm impedance instead of the 6 ohms the manufacturer claims" - and this turns out to be completely false, and you can prove I knew it was false, then I would be on the hook.

I think bringing it back to the recent cases... (keeping in mind I'm not a lawyer) I think even if Erin / Amir made actual mistakes in making measurements, that wouldn't give anyone the right to damages, so long as they could demonstrate they did the measurements in good faith and to the best of their abilities.

 

[Scott Lanterman]

The internet reviewing game is so huge today. But do you really need to lawyer up? I doubt it. ASR is not on the scale of Yelp and Trip advisor, but much larger than the many YouTube audio channels like Steve G for example. It seems like ASR is like a small but growing Consumer Reports for Audio, therefore do what they do but divide by 100.

However every reviewer on this site must commit to a solid ethics codes in my view. Not sure if ASR has a reviewer code of conduct that spells a commitment to integrity, no kickbacks, no conflict of interest, respect of IP, compliance with the law, and most important of all... calibrated microphones with those recalibration date stamps on them. Good I love an UP TO DATE calibration stamp on a fine quality measuring instrument! Nothing better.

Continue to build a culture that values ideals like; accuracy, honesty, admitting when you are in the wrong, an attitude of respect, and that no review is ever for sale because then it would be an advert not a review. Maybe add courage and faith in knowing that well executed measurements get you where want to go in the end.

 

[rdenney]

The internet reviewing game is so huge today. But do you really need to lawyer up? I doubt it. ASR is not on the scale of Yelp and Trip advisor, but much larger than the many YouTube audio channels like Steve G for example. It seems like ASR is like a small but growing Consumer Reports for Audio, therefore do what they do but divide by 100.

However every reviewer on this site must commit to a solid ethics codes in my view. Not sure if ASR has a reviewer code of conduct that spells a commitment to integrity, no kickbacks, no conflict of interest, respect of IP, compliance with the law, and most important of all... calibrated microphones with those recalibration date stamps on them. Good I love an UP TO DATE calibration stamp on a fine quality measuring instrument! Nothing better.

Continue to build a culture that values ideals like; accuracy, honesty, admitting when you are in the wrong, an attitude of respect, and that no review is ever for sale because then it would be an advert not a review. Maybe add courage and faith in knowing that well executed measurements get you where want to go in the end.

I don’t care if test equipment is up to any particular standard, as long as it works as intended and is fully disclosed. Amateur review equipment is fine on a hobbyist site. Ethics don’t require fancy equipment—ethics requires honest disclosure and commitment to good faith evaluation. A Umik and REW in an open field is fine as long as the conclusions are appropriately drawn and the test protocol properly described. Frankly, even that greatly exceeds the measurements provided in most online reviews.

Rick “who proposed a reviewer’s canon of ethics upthread” Denney

 

[Scott Lanterman]

I don’t care if test equipment is up to any particular standard, as long as it works as intended and is fully disclosed. Amateur review equipment is fine on a hobbyist site. Ethics don’t require fancy equipment—ethics requires honest disclosure and commitment to good faith evaluation. A Umik and REW in an open field is fine as long as the conclusions are appropriately drawn and the test protocol properly described. Frankly, even that greatly exceeds the measurements provided in most online reviews.

Rick “who proposed a reviewer’s canon of ethics upthread” Denney

Well... i was joking about the calibration stamps to be honest, and clear, and to make a full disclosure. I think ethics can be done with a smile.

 

[amirm]

However every reviewer on this site must commit to a solid ethics codes in my view. Not sure if ASR has a reviewer code of conduct that spells a commitment to integrity, no kickbacks, no conflict of interest, respect of IP, compliance with the law, and most important of all... calibrated microphones with those recalibration date stamps on them. Good I love an UP TO DATE calibration stamp on a fine quality measuring instrument! Nothing better.

Test equipment we use has great stability with respect to what we test. It is not like the audio gear has that kind of calibration.

Calibration is for traceability. And for contracts that mandate it.

 

[Doodski]

Calibration is for traceability. And for contracts that mandate it.

^^^ This. It's part of owning such an amazing metering system to maintain it's lineage per say... LoL. That and you get to work on more cool gear if it's traceable.

 

[Inertiaman]

You should speak with a local corporate lawyer who has experience setting up small not-for-profit corporations. The association will need by-laws, a board, its own bank accounts, etc. The by-laws will need to be drafted with special care because of the legal defense fund aspect.

We're 10 pages in, and I'm referencing an overlooked post from page 1.

For context, I spent 5 years of my life creating and running a non-profit trade association. 20+ years later, it is still operating and 100's of semiconductor and consumer device companies are members. So although the concept here is a much smaller scale/objective than my former organization, I do have some legitimate insight on this topic.

My primary message is that such an association, as currently described, is a much, much larger burden to create and sustain than most readers here realize. As @UCB noted above, a legally structured organization would require bylaws, a board, and bank accounts. And authorized spokespersons, protocols for how people/sites can join, how they may/may-not be rejected, retained legal counsel for the organization itself (not the ones defending threats), and on and on. Even things like anti-trust may need to be considered. Despite the presumed members not making "products" or determining pricing, it is conceivable that members could "collude" in an illegal manner which affects markets and companies. I mention this scenario not because its likely, but because it is representative of overlooked but necessary details that come into play and add to the bureaucratic burden.

So while I support the "cause" I'm admittedly a bit negative on the "method." I would advocate for much lighter weight approaches. I'll make some suggestions in a subsequent post but first I need to eat dinner!

 

[MRC01]

This is so disappointing.

The lawyers here and many others know that here in the USA, "substantial truth" is an absolute defense against defamation. The problem is, anybody can sue anyone, and you may have to spend thousands just to prove that what you wrote or said is substantially true. With clear evidence of substantial truth, a good lawyer will get the case dismissed. But even that takes time, effort and money.

 

[TLEDDY]

To our real lawyers: if one is sued and is found not liable, can they recover their costs of legal defense?

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Test equipment we use has great stability with respect to what we test. It is not like the audio gear has that kind of calibration.

Calibration is for traceability. And for contracts that mandate it.

If I read the post correctly, I believe he is talking in general about Anyone who posts a review on ASR, Not necessarily yourself.
I believe the whole shebang, stems from the fact that ASR, Erin . . have become famous & influential, therefore a target!
Manufacturers don't give a toss about Me posting a review here, do they?

 

[JBL4345]

As many of you I am sure have followed, both Erin and I were hit with legal threats from a company post our reviews. Given the unfairness of the situation, many of you came to our defenses and provided incredible level of support both financially and in many other ways such as legal and business advice. While I have always had this risk in mind and had prepared for it in some ways, it was still major source of pain for me and especially for Erin. While this crisis is not fully over, I think we need to look to the future to see how we could be better prepared for it.

I propose that a new lightweight organization be created that I call Right to Fair Review (RFA) Association (RFAA). The things we need to cover in there are:

1. Education. What are the legal issues involved in writing independent reviews of products? What is the law exactly? What are the best practices for writing/creating video reviews as to lower chances of litigation? What to do when threat of litigation or actual litigation is occurring? Advice regarding incorporation, LLC, etc. You get the idea.

2. Access to a lawyer for initial consultation. I am thinking half hour talking to an attorney with knowledge of the field (audio in our case) would do a world of good. While I have great attorneys, they don't know audio so it would take me a lot to explain things to them while paying $500/hour. And even then, they may not fully understand the situation. We have member attorneys here that could do a far more efficient job in a 30 minute conversation than many hours with a general attorney.

To keep such expenses low, such consultation could be limited to say, 1 per year for ordinary members, with option to go higher levels and get more of this.

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.

4. Referral to legal firms situated to handle the proper defense should the case go to trial, etc.

5. I am thinking reviewers could sign up by paying reasonable yearly fees. I am thinking $100 to $300 per year. Organization would then rely on donations for rest of its operational budget.

6. Staff attorneys could have day jobs and take these calls after hours. They could be compensated per hour or through advertising for their firm.

7. Guidelines for company conduct could be created as far as how they approach reviewers with objections, issues. Then, they could be allowed to become members and have a seal of "fair review supporters" which they could display as being good citizens. So while the number of reviewers is small, this class could be quite large. We have already seen a number of companies speaking out in support of value of fair reviews of audio products.

8. This is a much larger goal but campaigning politically for specific laws to protect fair reviews as opposed to having old laws regarding defamation, etc. be repurposed to go after reviews.

9. Guidelines for reviews. Just as there will be some for manufacturers, there needs to be things that reviewers do to be in good standing with the organization. For example, posting manufacturer responses in reviews. Available contact information.

10. Ability to create arbitration to settle issues early and without much expense.

All of this said, there are down sides to such things as some orgs get the life of their own and wind up servicing themselves than their members, etc.

11. A private forum where like minded reviewers and members can exchange experiences and knowledge about this topic.

But here are my thoughts. What say you?

Hi Amir,

I have no claim in your battle. But with the benefit of considerable experience in bringing products to market, testing, marketing, approvals and legislation you need to appreciate the following below.

Then there are legitimate product warranty’s and consumer satisfaction. Consumer disputes are managed by the manufacturer and are taken to a tribunal if the matter is unable to be resolved between both parties.

1. The products you are evaluating you are doing so in- on your own terms. By this l refer to you not obtaining a product fact statement from the manufacturer before commencing your evaluation. You then publish your evaluation as a consumer review.

2. As a result there is clear evidence of an mis understanding of that the product purpose - features- benefit is to the consumer and fitness for purpose. The determination of the fitness for purpose is critical in ascertaining if a product is suitable and meets the end user needs. Approvals for UL and other requirements determine the product is safe and meets statutory requirements.

You test the product with your own test criteria without addressing the above and draw conclusions about what the product is not doing. Is this a valid evaluation? No.

3. You then publish this evaluation. The consequences of this are a reaction from the manufacturer.

4. The question is who is making the false claims. That depends on what has been actually claimed and by whom?

An example is l manufacture an electric car and sell it. It has all the relevant approvals. The car is in fact is a hybrid and this is made clear to the consumer at the point of sale. The customer accepts this and purchases the vehicle.

The consumer sends you the car for a review.

You look at the car and determine in your mind it’s not an electric car because it’s a hybrid. You then test the car proving it’s not a rechargeable electric car and publish a review calling out the manufacturer for making false claims.

A case study to assess this more closely is your evaluation of the PS Audio P12 Power Conditioner. PS Audio had been manufacturing these products for quite some time with world wide distribution. Distributors receive product training to ensure they have a conversation to ensure the suitability of the product to meet their needs.

If someone external to the purchase comes along later and makes statements to the contrary about the validity of the product then the manufacturer has every right to challenge those statements. My understanding is PS Audio have done so but you refused to reach an understanding.

5. Are you a government agency or industry watch dog who has been granted powers to investigate false, misleading or deceptive conduct by a manufacturer? The answer to that is no. Are you a licensed media broadcaster who is following up a story of a number of consumer complaints? Eg. lithium batteries catching fire. The answer to that is no.

6. Yes you do have in your possession test equipment.

But unless your address items 2, 3 and 4 above your testing isn’t relevant. Nor are your claims. The agreement to buy the product is between the purchaser and the seller. At the time of the purchase if the buyer is fully satisfied the product meets their needs they then purchase the product. The seller has the responsibility to have a conversation with the buyer to ensure the product is suitable to meet the needs of the buyer. The customer then accepts to proceed with the purchase. If at any stage under warranty the product falls to meet is specifications the consumer contacts the manufacturer. In the case of a service or a contract a PDS is provided to the buyer.

5. In most western civilised countries there exist consumer protection laws, dispute resolution legislation and other laws to deal with any such situations.

If you are going to make public statements about a product or an organisation be prepared for the consequences.

 

[MRC01]

...5. In most western civilised countries there exist consumer protection laws, dispute resolution legislation and other laws to deal with any such situations.
If you are going to make public statements about a product or an organisation be prepared for the consequences.

Here in the USA, claims of opinion are protected speech and cannot be the basis of a defamation claim. And substantial truth is an absolute defense to defamation claims. If somebody sues Amir for defamation, they must demonstrate that Amir made claims of fact that are not true. Even in the PS Audio Powerplant 3 review Amir clearly explains what he is measuring, and why, and the results. His opinion that it is worthless is clearly stated as just that, an opinion.

This seems an appropriate place to quote Justice Brandeis: "If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

 

[MRC01]

How about publishing from a non US jurisdiction?

I am not educated on the risks there. I have just heard that such legal threats is much more rare outside of US.

From what I've read over the years, the USA is considered to have the strongest speech protections and most defendant-friendly defamation laws in the English speaking world. In light of that, publishing in a non-US jurisdiction would seem counterproductive.

 

[Everett T]

Hi Amir,

I have no claim in your battle. But with the benefit of considerable experience in bringing products to market, testing, marketing, approvals and legislation you need to appreciate the following below.

Then there are legitimate product warranty’s and consumer satisfaction. Consumer disputes are managed by the manufacturer and are taken to a tribunal if the matter is unable to be resolved between both parties.

1. The products you are evaluating you are doing so in- on your own terms. By this l refer to you not obtaining a product fact statement from the manufacturer before commencing your evaluation. You then publish your evaluation as a consumer review.

2. As a result there is clear evidence of an mis understanding of that the product purpose - features- benefit is to the consumer and fitness for purpose. The determination of the fitness for purpose is critical in ascertaining if a product is suitable and meets the end user needs. Approvals for UL and other requirements determine the product is safe and meets statutory requirements.

You test the product with your own test criteria without addressing the above and draw conclusions about what the product is not doing. Is this a valid evaluation? No.

3. You then publish this evaluation. The consequences of this are a reaction from the manufacturer.

4. The question is who is making the false claims. That depends on what has been actually claimed and by whom?

An example is l manufacture an electric car and sell it. It has all the relevant approvals. The car is in fact is a hybrid and this is made clear to the consumer at the point of sale. The customer accepts this and purchases the vehicle.

The consumer sends you the car for a review.

You look at the car and determine in your mind it’s not an electric car because it’s a hybrid. You then test the car proving it’s not a rechargeable electric car and publish a review calling out the manufacturer for making false claims.

A case study to assess this more closely is your evaluation of the PS Audio P12 Power Conditioner. PS Audio had been manufacturing these products for quite some time with world wide distribution. Distributors receive product training to ensure they have a conversation to ensure the suitability of the product to meet their needs.

If someone external to the purchase comes along later and makes statements to the contrary about the validity of the product then the manufacturer has every right to challenge those statements. My understanding is PS Audio have done so but you refused to reach an understanding.

5. Are you a government agency or industry watch dog who has been granted powers to investigate false, misleading or deceptive conduct by a manufacturer? The answer to that is no. Are you a licensed media broadcaster who is following up a story of a number of consumer complaints? Eg. lithium batteries catching fire. The answer to that is no.

6. Yes you do have in your possession test equipment.

But unless your address items 2, 3 and 4 above your testing isn’t relevant. Nor are your claims. The agreement to buy the product is between the purchaser and the seller. At the time of the purchase if the buyer is fully satisfied the product meets their needs they then purchase the product. The seller has the responsibility to have a conversation with the buyer to ensure the product is suitable to meet the needs of the buyer. The customer then accepts to proceed with the purchase. If at any stage under warranty the product falls to meet is specifications the consumer contacts the manufacturer. In the case of a service or a contract a PDS is provided to the buyer.

5. In most western civilised countries there exist consumer protection laws, dispute resolution legislation and other laws to deal with any such situations.

If you are going to make public statements about a product or an organisation be prepared for the consequences.

The law in this country allows anyone to form an opinion and speak it, and in this case there was never any intent to defame. This has all become a bunch of nonsense and only one party is to blame for any of this, the manufacturer. Sadly they/he chose to make baseless claims about the measurements of 3 different reviewers that couldn't be backed by their own data. The story is over unless Eric wants more egg on his face.

 

[Universal Cereal Bus]

Are you a licensed media broadcaster who is following up a story of a number of consumer complaints? Eg. lithium batteries catching fire. The answer to that is no.

This is such a bafflingly irrelevant opinion, which totally misses the forest for the trees. You clearly have no idea what role the media, and reviewers in particular, serve to the general public. That you think media need to be licensed totally calls into question your claim to having "considerable experience in bringing products to market."

 

[amirm]

You test the product with your own test criteria without addressing the above and draw conclusions about what the product is not doing. Is this a valid evaluation? No.

There is no obligation whatsoever that as a reviewer I test for any and all things. I don't know any reviewer that tests for safety of products. By your logic, no one should review any audio gear or for that matter, anything else! Should a wine reviewer send said wine for toxicology analysis? How about a car reviewer? He is responsible for safety aspects of the car?

It is plainly obvious that my focus is to analyze fidelity of audio gear through objective testing using state of the art test equipment. While I sometimes perform teardowns and comment on potential safety issues, that is just a bonus, not the core of what I do.

1. The products you are evaluating you are doing so in- on your own terms. By this l refer to you not obtaining a product fact statement from the manufacturer before commencing your evaluation. You then publish your evaluation as a consumer review.

In US, the largest independent testing organization is Consumer Reports. They buy products and test them with zero buy-in from manufacturer. Indeed, they are proud of that. I believe RTing also buys all of their gear to test. Both of them and I have developed protocols for testing as the industry lacks such standards. Manufacturers make this far worse by not either measuring and/or publishing said measurements.

2. As a result there is clear evidence of an mis understanding of that the product purpose - features- benefit is to the consumer and fitness for purpose. The determination of the fitness for purpose is critical in ascertaining if a product is suitable and meets the end user needs. Approvals for UL and other requirements determine the product is safe and meets statutory requirements.

It is rare for me to misunderstand what a DAC, speaker, or an amplifier is supposed to do. Witness the thin manuals that come with them. You make it sound like these are mysterious products that take a lot of work and analysis to figure out their function. But let's say I did. My analysis is what it states to clearly be. And again, things like UL, etc. is outside of the scope of my testing, but I do often point out lack of such certification in power products.

3. You then publish this evaluation. The consequences of this are a reaction from the manufacturer.

4. The question is who is making the false claims. That depends on what has been actually claimed and by whom?

Per above, it is the norm for companies to not provide any measurements. Or even the specifics of what you are talking about (e.g. UL certification). My job is to fill that vacuum and provide that objective, independent analysis. I make every attempt to keep level playing field by testing products the same way. And with high level of accuracy. Mistakes of course can happen. In those cases, manufacturer can bring the issue to my attention, show with their own data the difference, and then we work to resolve them. Again, if they had provided the measurements to start with, such a conflict would not arise as I would check my work against theirs.

A case study to assess this more closely is your evaluation of the PS Audio P12 Power Conditioner. PS Audio had been manufacturing these products for quite some time with world wide distribution. Distributors receive product training to ensure they have a conversation to ensure the suitability of the product to meet their needs.

The what? That is a case of a company making unfounded claims about fidelity improvements of audio gear when using P12. My testing showed not only does it not make an improvement, but in some cases due to current limiting, it actually lowers performance! PS Audio's response showed that they didn't even know how their own product worked. And at any rate, could not show a single instance of it improving audio performance. They produced a hand waiving video which showed nothing. Here are my videos on the topic:

I don't care how long they have been building the product or distributing it. None of that is material to whether performance of an audio product is improved as they clearly assert but cannot back. See them quoted in my review: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...io-powerplant-12-review-ac-regenerator.31298/

Now, if the "need" is to have a box sit there and chew up extra power and reduce your back account by a good bit, then sure, you can assert that. But pretty sure that is not what people buy them for.

f someone external to the purchase comes along later and makes statements to the contrary about the validity of the product then the manufacturer has every right to challenge those statements. My understanding is PS Audio have done so but you refused to reach an understanding.

You have no understanding of the situation. Watch my videos above. At no time has PS Audio contacted me. They have only been posting in their own forum and per above, refuse to post any measurements of audio equipment fidelity improving. Seems like you do have a dog in this hunt despite saying otherwise.

If you are going to make public statements about a product or an organisation be prepared for the consequences.

I am *very* ready for that. The manufacturer also needs to be ready for negative PR if they make outlandish claims about accuracy of my testing which they cannot back. And add to that threats of litigation.

 

[Universal Cereal Bus]

5. Are you a government agency or industry watch dog who has been granted powers to investigate false, misleading or deceptive conduct by a manufacturer? The answer to that is no. Are you a licensed media broadcaster who is following up a story of a number of consumer complaints? Eg. lithium batteries catching fire. The answer to that is no.

5. In most western civilised countries there exist consumer protection laws, dispute resolution legislation and other laws to deal with any such situations.

If you are going to make public statements about a product or an organisation be prepared for the consequences.

I can't stop laughing at this guy. It's clear as day this person is NOT familiar with any "western civilised countries" because they seem to believe someone has to be "a government agency or industry watch dog who has been granted powers to investigate false, misleading or deceptive conduct by a manufacturer"!

WTF!

ANYONE can investigate false, misleading or deceptive conduct by a manufacturer. EVERYONE who has the ability and interest SHOULD investigate false, misleading or deceptive conduct by a manufacturer. There are countless examples of ordinary citizens and independent journalists doing so throughout history.

I still can't let go of your "licensed media" bull-sh...

Who gave Woodward and Bernstein "license" to investigate Watergate?! Who gave Robert Capa "license" to photograph the Spanish Civil War?!

Are you a natural person or are you ChatGPT?!

 

[xray]

Dude joined yesterday and that's his first post. Really???