The website MyMoving Reviews has posted a negative review about Popeyes Moving Company which has been unfounded and simply not true.
MyMoving Reviews in an email to us admitted that:
“We took a look at your account …and we saw that you have a bad review listed under your account by an user called "Sabrina". After deeper research we believe that the reviewer have used an alias.”
* * *
....”Please note that no reviews are completely removed from our system (even if filtered or deactivated we still keep everything in our systems).”
* * *
AFTER REFUSING TO DELETE THIS NEGATIVE REVIEW WHICH THAY ADMIT IS FROM AN UNTRACEABLE ALIAS POSTER THEY:
“ recommend that you contact the reviewer (!!!!) and try to settle. “
* * *
THEY THEN CONCLUDE BY TELLING US:
“We currently remove reviews on reviewer's requests[only]. You can use the contact form once you log in to contact the reviewer( WHO THEY ADMIT IS USING AN ALIAS!!!!) and try to resolve the complaint with him.…”
* * *
Please take the time out to read what the United States District Court of Massachusetts and attorneys for five well known national moving companies say concerning this website and its alleged tactics
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-12262-GAO
MOVING AND STORAGE, INC., d/b/a Neighbors Moving and Storage,
MBM MOVING SYSTEMS, LLC, COLONIAL VAN LINES, INC.,
FATHER & SON MOVING AND STORAGE, AMERICAN VAN LINES, INC.,
and NATIONWIDE RELOCATION SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MARTIN PANAYOTOV, STOIL ANDREEV, XPRESS MOVERS, LLC,
ADVANCED INTERACTIVE, LLC, and WORLD MEDIA GROUP, LLC,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
March 12, 2014
O’TOOLE, D.J.
This case arises out of the defendants’ operation of the moving company review website MyMovingReviews.com. The individual defendants, Martin Panayotov and Stoil Andreev, are
officers or owners of the corporate defendants, Xpress Movers, LLC, Advanced Interactive,
LLC, and World Media Group, LLC. The plaintiffs, all corporations providing moving services,
allege that the defendants deleted positive customer reviews of the plaintiffs and deleted negative
customer reviews of Xpress Movers in order to gain market share, all the while maintaining that
the website was neutral in its operation….”
The Court continues in its Order to allow the case to go forward on some of the Plaintiff’s claims for damages based upon these allegations.
This is the acual email they sent us they say in it "As a review site that defends the freedom of speech" however when we went on their site to write a review about their company and pending cases they have in court they immediately erase it from their site please see screen shot (see photos)of the review they removed to protect their own intrest by misleading the public of the facts .....A total scam!
|
Jun 25 (12 days ago)
|
|||
|
Leo
Plantation,#2Author of original report
Sun, August 10, 2014
Dirty South TV
Hollywood,#3Consumer Comment
Tue, July 08, 2014
Today’s consumers depend on “crowd-sourced” review websites like Angie’s List and Yelp, which permit users to post and read reviews of goods and services. Businesses feel a corresponding pressure to encourage favorable reviews on such websites. But what happens when the website intervenes to regulate the reviews it hosts, perhaps (for example) by deleting reviews that appear phony or suspicious? Can a business sue the website for deleting reviews that would otherwise reflect positively on its goods or services?
Judge George A. O’Toole, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently analyzed this question and ruled that a website could be liable for such deletions, at least in circumstances supporting an inference that the deletion was done in bad faith. In Moving Storage, Inc., et al. v. Panayotov et al., the plaintiffs were various corporations providing moving services. The defendants operated a purportedly neutral review website for moving companies, MyMovingReviews.com. However, the defendants also allegedly operated their own moving business, Xpress Movers. According to the complaint, the defendants deleted negative reviews of Xpress Movers from MyMovingReviews.com, while simultaneously deleting positive reviews of the other moving companies, including those of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were trying to skew the reviews to increase their own market share. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for false advertising and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and Massachusetts law.
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that their actions were immunized under the Communications Decency Act (the “CDA”). That law immunizes a party from certain claims regarding online activity if: (1) the defendant is a provider or user of an interactive computer service; (2) the claim is based on information provided by another information content provider, i.e., a third party; and (3) the claim would treat the defendant as the publisher or speaker of that information.
The Court denied the motion. Judge O’Toole held that the claim was not based on the information provided by the third party reviewers, but rather on the defendants’ own alleged manipulation of MyMovingReviews.com by selectively deleting reviews based on viewpoint, while simultaneously representing that the site was a neutral source of accurate information. The defendants asserted that they merely filtered out inaccurate or phony reviews, thus deleting objectionable content (an action specifically immunized by the CDA if done in good faith). However, the Court ruled that a determination on that issue was premature, as the complaint adequately pled bad faith.
The Moving Storage decision clearly holds that – at least at the pleading stage – a review website’s decision to delete objectionable reviews is not immunized by the CDA as long as there are plausible allegations that the deletions were made with manipulative intent. Review websites may wish to consider implementing policies and procedures to prevent the appearance of manipulation or favoritism – factors which may preclude dismissal and/or require a trial.
- See more at: http://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com/2014/03/crowd-sourced-review-website-may-incur-lanham-act-liability-for-selectively-deleting-reviews/#sthash.UY1MRqLE.dpuf
The information above was found and submitted by Dirty South TV