Complaints Board Really Sucks!!!

Imagine the next time you join a discussion about Slander. When you start sharing the fascinating Slander facts below, your friends will be absolutely amazed.

 You may not consider everything you just read to be crucial information about Slander. But don't be surprised if you find yourself recalling and using this very information in the next few days.

Complaintsboard.com violates trademarks and utilizes slander as a means of doing business -- while trying to hide behind First Amendment rights for free speech.

Fortunately recent court rulings in California have taken a very dim view of trademark violations when there is commercial intent. As is clearly the case here.

Complaintsboard.com hides behind private registration and does not make itself known so that companies and individuals can take legal action against it.

Complaintsboard.com racketeering and is in violation of the RICO act. Just like ripoff reports.com it uses 'mobster tactics' to extort money from the companies that are wrongly accused just wish to clear their names.

Complaint Boards Is A Scam

These Guys are Pissing a Lot of People Off

Complaints Board does not publish truthful info - Armed Forces MCSS
PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE:

I agree that this website (complaintboards.com) is in violation of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Batzel v. Smith, 2003 US App.LEXIS 12736 (9th Cir. 2003).
They are NOT immune from liability for defamatory statements posted on their websites.
Blogs or social networks in which defamatory statements are written or recorded present several potential sources of liability and recovery for the person whose character was defamed. In cases where the defamation is proved, damages are presumed and often enforced with liberality.
As social networking sites and internet blogs continue to increase in both popularity and use, the opportunities for defamatory and libelous actions increase proportionally. Defamation, sometimes called "defamation of character", is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation. Slander is generally spoken defamation, while ‘libel’ is written. Blogs or social networks in which defamatory statements are written or recorded present several potential sources of liability and recovery for the person whose character was defamed. In cases where the defamation is proved, damages are presumed and often enforced with liberality.
Operators of blogs are generally immune from liability for defamatory statements posted on their websites, as long as they did not contribute to the posting. In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a listserv moderator and operator of a website which allegedly published defamatory statements provided by a third party was eligible for immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Batzel v. Smith, 2003 US App.LEXIS 12736 (9th Cir. 2003). However, if the online service provider plays an active role in soliciting information from users that leads to the defamatory act, the operator may not be protected by the safe harbor provisions of the CDA. In Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., a federal court ruled on the application of the safe harbor of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The defendant in that case operated a matchmaking website known matchmaker.com. As part of its service, the defendant collected profiles of singles based on an extensive questionnaire. The plaintiff sued Metrosplash because of a false profile of her which an unknown user had posted to the website. The court ruled that by creating the extensive questionnaire, Metrosplash played an active role in developing the information that had been posted. Furthermore, the court ruled that Metrosplash was an information content provider and thus not eligible for the CDA's safe harbor provided to "interactive computer services." Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., Case No. CV 01-0018 DT (CWx) C.D. Cal. 2002) (subsequently reversed by appeals court). While operators of blogs and services are generally immune from such liability, the more active the service is with its member’s, the greater the likelihood of potential liability as a publisher of defamatory materials.
Another potential source of liability is the person who actually posted the defamatory materials. As with more general defamatory statements or materials, a poster can be held personally liable for anything posted which reflects falsely and negatively on a living person’s reputation. Posting false and explicit claims regarding a person will generally be held as defamatory for purposes of liability. However, other issues arise concerning the anonymity of the person posting the information, and if known, the jurisdiction in which they are subject.
Jurisdictional issues may arise in situations where the poster had no reason to expect that the effect of the posting would be felt in a certain jurisdiction. However, in defamation cases jurisdictional disputes are liberally ruled upon in favor of the victim. In Griffis v. Luban, the Minnesota court of appeals ruled that Alabama had jurisdiction over a Minnesota defendant who posted defamatory messages on the Internet. The defendant repeatedly posted messages on an Internet newsgroup attacking the plaintiff’s professional credentials. The plaintiff initially obtained a $25, 000.00 default judgment in Alabama, which she was seeking to enforce in Minnesota. The Minnesota court ruled that the Alabama court had properly exercised jurisdiction because the effects of the messages were felt in Alabama and that the defendant should have expected that she would be sued there. An important factor in the ruling was that she had actual knowledge of the effect of the defamatory statements on the Defendant. Therefore, the Minnesota court enforced the $25, 000.00 default judgment. Griffis v. Luban, 633 N.W. 2d 548 (Minn Ct. App. 2001).
However, there are cases where courts have refused to allow the exercise of personal jurisdiction based on defamatory statements. In a Pennsylvania case, the court refused to exercise jurisdiction over a New York defendant who had posted defamatory comments about a defendant on an offshore betting website. The court held that since the comments were not specifically directed at Pennsylvania, the court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. English Sports Betting, Inc. v. Tostigan, C.A. No. 01-2202 (E.D. Pa. 2002).
The problems with bringing defamatory actions based on internet postings largely lie in proving that the defendant actually made the posting. If that connection can be made, a much stronger case can be presented and jurisdictional issues can be tackled.
And of course, you do understand that one person can post multiple complaints cloaking themselves as different individuals and then use this as a reference to show extreme prejudice.
It is unfortunate that people will mistake opinions for the truth.
Here are some complaints :
Complaints Board
Posted: 2007-11-15 by Cindy Hunter [send email]
Complaint Rating:
Company information:
New York
United States
I'm complaining about the Complaints Board.
The messages are cut short and some make no sense.
Comments United States Other
Share with others:
Was the above complaint useful to you?
More Complaints Board complaints

Complaints Board - fake
Complaints Board - Complaints Board is One-Sided!
Complaints Board - Complaints Board is IRRESPONSIBLE!
Complaints Board - Complaintsboard.com is hurting businesses
Complaints Board - Complaints board is looking to get sued! a
Complaints Board - complaints board is looking to get sued!
Complaints Board - RIDICULOUS
Complaints Board - Liars! Scammers!
Complaints Board - Unfair! Does not list complaints against itself
Complaints Board - wrongful posts

Why Don't People Get a Life!!!!

This complaints board site is nothing but a lazy persons way to make a buck. The site entices every moron consumer to voice there unwanted opinions about services or company's that screwed them. The only problem is that anyone with a valid email can post on this site and be completely unrestricted as to what they can say. Many business owners have been affected by these post tremendously. Here is a quote fr0m a website I found on google.com.

"The complaint board is trying to ruin my company's reputation by posting lies from people who I have never heard of. They certainly are not my clients. I will offer a total refund to anyone of them if they can prove they are a client. Some sites are asking me for money and this is extortion!
I have built a wonderful company that has taken 23 years of sacrifice and hard work ethics based on honesty and plain old good American values. You treat one another as you would treat yourself or your family. In 23 years I have had very few complaints and those few were happily resolved out of thousands of clients. Check the BBB, as we have a A+ rating. The complaint board never checks anything.
They may even be the ones posting the lies to direct more advertising to their site. Or a competitor is paying them to put me out of business.
If they don't take the lies down, call me for any kind of law suit to get rid of such an dishonest & unethical organization. 415- 332-4111."

Comment by Jill Kelleher on 07:09 PM May 21, 2009 found on here.


Here are a few more just for fun. I can't believe how much a stupid website can affect someones business and lively hood..... these people who post on there are whack jobs.

I agree and would pay if a real lawyer would take this up. Could also contact melbourneit.com who they registered the site with. By telling the domain register that they allow Slander to be posted about your company and if they do not stop it, they can be sued as well.

Posted by Donna Lewis on 06:53 PM September 24, 2008

I have defamatory comments written about my company that are not true. I want this company hut down. Someone needs to be monitoring the usage from individuals. Their sole intent is to ruin company names or extort money from businesses, which is illegal.

Comment by Tina Norris on 06:27 AM December 16, 2008

Please review NAAS Media Reports for an investigation of this company.
http://www.naas.org/facts.php

Comment by naas on 02:33 AM January 29, 2009

Thank you so much for all your legal information. I am actually also thinking about a way to take complaintsboard to court for enabling defamatory statements about businesses and private persons without checking the justification of such comments. My husband has been called a THIEF, a loser, a bad parent and many more things on this website by different people who got their feelings hurt by him. I know that those women who accused him of all of that could not win on court against him and this is the reason why they now turn around and continue their fight on the complaints board website. These things have to stop.

Posted by Karin Bennett on 04:02 PM March 14, 2009