Complaint Review: Vision Security v. Xcentric Ventures LLC Lawsuit Against Ripoff Report Dropped After Discovery. Planning to Sue Ripoff Report? Think Again. Vision Security a history of regulatory violations - Orem Utah

By Ed Magedson, May 31, 2017

Companies planning to sue Ripoff Report for negative reviews may want to think twice in light of a recent defamation case that was dismissed after the plaintiff conceded that Ripoff Report was entitled to immunity from suit under the federal Communications Decency Act.  Companies better think more than twice before suing because in 20 years Ripoff Report has been sued dozens of times and never lost, we take things up on appeal if we have to, to defend free speech on the internet.

The impetus for this particular case was a post on Ripoff Report by a former sales representative of Vision Security, LLC claiming that Vision Security treated its employees unfairly and engaged in deceptive business practices.  Instead of suing the sales rep, Vision Security sued Xcentric Ventures, LLC, the company that operates Ripoff Report, for defamation and related claims, based on the sales rep’s post.

Vision Security offices Orem Utah

Xcentric moved to dismiss the suit, citing Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”), 47 U.S.C. § 230, which provides website providers like Xcentric immunity from suit for material posted by third-parties.  The United States District Court for the District of Utah, however, denied Xcentric’s motion.  The court concluded that, under Tenth Circuit law, a website provider may be held liable for third-party content if it “encourages development of what is offensive about the content,” F.T.C. v. Accuse arch Inc., 570 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2009), and Vision Security’s allegations (assumed to be true at the motion to dismiss stage) provided a reasonable inference that Ripoff Report encouraged negative content.

The parties engaged in discovery and Xcentric eventually filed a motion for summary judgment , asserting there were no genuine issues of material fact that prevented the application of Section 230.  The crux of Xcentric’s argument was that under Accusearch, a website provider only loses Section 230 immunity for third-party content if it “encourages development of what is offensive about the content,” 570 F.3d at 1199 (emphasis added); what Vision Security alleged was offensive about the content of the sales rep’s post was that it was false and defamatory; and there was no evidence that Xcentric encouraged the sales rep (or other third-party users) to post false and defamatory statements on Ripoff Report.  Instead, the uncontroverted evidence showed the opposite—that Xcentric makes every effort to ensure that content posted on Ripoff Report is not false and defamatory.  Among other things, Xcentric requires users to agree — two separate times before posting a report — to post only information that is truthful and accurate.

Vision Security LLC and Rob Harris v Xcentric Ventures LLC - Xcentric Motion for Summary Judgment by Ripoff Report on Scribd

Xcentric also argued that the uncontroverted evidence submitted on summary judgment showed that several of Vision Security’s allegations were unsupported or demonstrably false.  For example, contrary to Vision Security’s allegations, discovery revealed that Xcentric’s owner told Vision Security that positive posts about or from a business are not only allowed, but encouraged and free of charge, and he specifically encouraged Vision Security to post a free rebuttal to the sale rep’s post, but Vision Security chose not to do so.

Vision Security advertisement

Likewise, Vision Security’s allegation that its only option for addressing a negative report like the sales rep’s post was to pay a “large fee” to join Xcentric’s Corporate Advocacy Program was also untrue.  Instead, businesses have several options for addressing negative reports, including posting a positive (and free) rebuttal, suing the author, and using Xcentric’s VIP Arbitration program.  If a company sues the author directly, it may attach any court findings or judgment as a rebuttal to a negative report (at no charge).  And where a court makes considered findings based on evidence, Xcentric may redact false statements from the report.

Under Xcentric’s VIP Arbitration program, for a minimal fee used largely to pay for expenses, an arbitrator reviews evidence provided by both parties and, if the arbitrator determines the report contains false statements of fact, Xcentric will redact those portions of the report.  Finally, Xcentric’s Corporate Advocacy Program (“CAP”) is also available for businesses who need and wish to fully rehabilitate their online reputation.  With Xcentric’s help, CAP members commit to resolve all complaints on Ripoff Report to the customer’s satisfaction, undergo an investigative review of their business operations to help them detect the potential source of complaints including an on-site inspection, and provide an explanation to Xcentric of the changes the business has made to its operations to avoid future complaints.

Xcentric’s summary judgment motion also asserted that Xcentric’s policy of refusing to remove negative reports is not evidence it encourages third-party users to post false and defamatory content on Ripoff Report.  Rather, the policy — which also applies to members of Ripoff Reports Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation and Customer Satisfaction Program, this ensures that consumers are not bullied, threatened, coerced, or bribed into recanting and also that consumers are able to review both negative reports and positive rebuttals and make their own determinations as to a business’s conduct and commitment to customer service.

Finally, Xcentric’s summary judgment motion noted that Vision Security — a company with a history of regulatory violations, including multiple sanctions by state regulatory authorities for deceptive business practices, tens of thousands of dollars in fines, and loss of its license in several states — is exactly the type of company Ripoff Report was designed to expose.

Here are LINKS to some of those Attorney Generals who have found Vision Security in Violation of State Laws.

Violations and lawsuits by government agencies

Attorney General State of Idaho

http://www.ag.idaho.gov/media/newsReleases/2014/nr_07182014.html

Ohio State Attorney General’s office Mike DeWine Filed a lawsuit against a Utah-based home security seller that allegedly misled state consumers and failed to honor cancellation requests.

http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510515880-dewine-files-lawsuit-against-utah-based-home-security-seller

Attorney General State of Florida

http://www.myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/newsreleases/9FBAB12D6CCF86F085257DFF005876B3

Pennsylvania Attorney General: Vision Security Misleads Consumers, pays $30,000 in fines

http://www.securitysales.com/news/pennsylvania_attorney_general_vision_security_misleads_consumers/ 

UTAH State Attorney General's office recently investigated claims that Vision Security of Utah was misleading homeowners in an attempt to line up new business.

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/watchdog/mc-vision-security-alarm-system-watchdog-20150905-column.html

Read Google Reviews

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=vision+security+orem+utah&lrd=0x874d8528a445cccd:0x4ba5f4cfa26902ac,1,&spf=1499072256225 

A list of some of the violations and request from various State Attorney Generals.

                      State of IDAHO

• Must wear identification that includes the sales person's name and affiliation with Vision Security.
• Must inform the consumer of his or her three-day right to cancel the agreement.
• Must not tell consumers that their current alarm monitoring company went out of business or is affiliated with Vision Security.
• Must not misrepresent the number of security systems Vision Security has installed in the consumer's neighborhood or misrepresent that a consumer's home is located in a high-crime area
• Must not misrepresent the condition or operability of the consumer's current security system.
• Must not promise to "buy-out" a consumer's current monitoring agreement.

                    State of Florida

Under the terms of the settlement, Security Networks and its representatives are:

• Prohibited from falsely advertising or making false statements to induce consumers to utilize any of their services;
• Agreeing to cancel service contracts and/or monitoring agreements for any Florida commercial or residential customer that has a legitimate basis for canceling such services; and
• Agreeing to enact special procedures to address the needs of active military personnel and family members who are deployed to a different location during the term of their contract.

CBS Channel 2 KUTV Salt Lake City - Utah Security Company Accused of Deceiving Consumers to Make Sales

http://kutv.com/news/get-gephardt/utah-security-company-accused-of-deceiving-consumers-to-make-sales 

YELP! one consumer claims “Vision Security, Security Networks, Monitronics are Vultures. They prey on the elderly. The lowest of the low. My father is 80 years old, hard of hearing, can't read well and is from a time when door to door salesmen had credibility. "

https://www.yelp.com/biz/vision-security-orem 

Vision Security Advertisement

After Xcentric filed its granted summary judgment , Vision Security conceded in a stipulation filed by the parties that it “is not aware of any genuine issues of material fact that would prevent the application of Section 230 Immunity to Vision Security’s claims, thus requiring dismissal of such claims” and that “Xcentric is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  Accordingly, the Utah District Court granted summary judgment for Xcentric on all of Vision Security’s claims and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Vision Security LLC and Rob Harris v Xcentric Ventures LLC - Order Gratning Stipulated Motion for Summary J... by Ripoff Report on Scribd

Ripoff Report and similar websites fulfill an important societal function by allowing individual consumers with few resources to have a voice and cast light on questionable business practices, which is precisely why Congress enacted Section 230.  It is also why virtually every lawsuit brought against Ripoff Report based on content posted by third-parties, including this one, are dismissed early on — if not on a motion to dismiss then on summary judgment. 

For a more detailed account of the case, including an in-depth legal analysis, see the article located at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/05/lawsuit-against-ripoff-report-dropped-after-discovery-vision-security-v-xcentric-guest-blog-post.htm.

            If your company has a Ripoff Report, feel free to file a FREE rebuttal, or look into the Corporate Advocacy Program. http://www.ripoffreport.com/corporate-advocacy-program/change-report-from-negative-to-positive

To find out more about the author of this article by me, ED Magedson.. be sure to see my website to know the real story about me.

http://www.edmagedson.com/who-is-ed/

..by consumers, for consumers



PO BOX 310, Tempe, AZ 85280

602-359-4357 when selection starts, press 5 ...then, three seconds later press 1... Say who you are!

Our mission:

See about Ripoff Report’s special programs and about Ripoff Report in the media

Our mission:

▪  empower consumers

▪  defend the First Amendment

▪  expose wrongdoing

▪  help companies regain control

Do for others as you would want them to do for you

ED Magedson: Founder, Ripoff Report

Follow Ripoff Report on Twitter

Follow me, Ed Magedson, on Twitter

Find us on Facebook



Ripoff Report Verified™ .. part of Ripoff Report Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation & Customer Satisfaction Program.A program that benefits the consumer, assures them of complete satisfaction and confidence when doing business with a member business..