Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Reputation management law
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Reputation management law

1,866

Published on

Presentation at LegalIT 5.0 in Montreal, Quebec on April 4, 2011

Presentation at LegalIT 5.0 in Montreal, Quebec on April 4, 2011

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,866
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=1020
  • http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/business/13search.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1301914518-JnhUbZsFn46vw7t7lZlbzw&pagewanted=all
  • http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/business/28borker.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
  • http://www.ontechnologylaw.com/2010/06/cease-and-desist-letters-four-ways-to-keep-your-client-and-yourself-from-looking-foolish/
  • http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/yelp-sued-for-alleged-extortion/
  • Transcript

    • 1. Reputation Management Law: The Next Big Thing<br />Omar Ha-Redeye<br />AAS, BHA(Hons.), PGCert, J.D.<br />CNMT, RT(N)(ARRT)<br />
    • 2.
    • 3. “... Either way, it’s clear that online reputation management is the next big thing that everyone will have to deal with.” – Tony Wilson, author of Manage Your Online Reputation (2010).<br />
    • 4.
    • 5. <ul><li>Carrie Bradshaw in </li></ul>Sex and the City<br />
    • 6.
    • 7.
    • 8.
    • 9. Online Reputation Management Plan<br />
    • 10.
    • 11.
    • 12.
    • 13. Pre-Litigation Options<br />Warning letter<br />Notice (and takedown)<br />notice and notice in Canada<br />Just ask nicely <br />
    • 14. Cease and Desist Letters<br />Think carefully about whether to send it<br />2.  Consider the response<br />Stick to the facts<br />Don’t threaten to sue <br />5.  Don’t set a compliance deadline or written response<br />Adapted from D.C. Toedt III, Cease-and-desist letters: Five ways to keep your client and yourself from looking foolish, June 29, 2010 http://www.ontechnologylaw.com/2010/06/cease-and-desist-letters-four-ways-to-keep-your-client-and-yourself-from-looking-foolish/<br />
    • 15.
    • 16.
    • 17. Vigna v. Levant, 2010 ONSC 6308<br />Judgment released November 18, 2010<br />Plaintiff was a lawyer with Canadian Human Rights Commission <br />Sued Ezra Levant, lawyer and political activist, for blog posts on his site<br />Judge awarded $25,000 in damages, and ordered defamatory posts removed<br />costs decision on January 26, 2011 awarded over $32,500 plus taxes<br />Rule 76.13(2) – costs denied for monetary only under $100k<br />
    • 18. Day v. Ross, [unreported] November 23, 2010<br />
    • 19. Anonymity is a Myth<br />R. v. Cuttell, 2009 ONCJ 471<br />3rd Party custody of confidential information does not automatically extinguish any reasonable expectation of privacy<br />rights reserved by the third-party vis-a-vis<br />Cohen v. Google, Inc., Index No. 100012/09 (N.Y. Cty. Aug. 17, 2009)<br />Skanks in NYC (Blogspot)<br />pre-action disclosure <br />Revealed an acquaintance behind postings <br />Swartz v. Does, 6th circuit, Tennessee <br />P subpoena Google<br />P entitled to discover identity of anonymous blogger<br />
    • 20. Different Approaches to Anonymity<br />York University v. Bell Canada Enterprises, 2009 CanLII 46447 (ON S.C.)<br />Use of pre-action discovery mechanism called a Norwich order<br />Privacy interest v. interests of justice<br />Limited for specific purposes, not absolute<br />Privacy interests overridden by s. 7(3)(c) of PIPEDA<br />Warmanv. Wilkins-Fournier, 2009 CanLII 14054 (ON S.C.)<br />disclosure provisions of R 76.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure<br />Disclosure balanced with freedom of expression interests <br />Matthew Nied, Unmasking Anonymous Defendants in Internet Defamation Cases: Recent Developments and Unresolved Issues, Canadian Privacy Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, February 2011<br />
    • 21. Ratings and Ranking Sites<br />RateMyProfessors.com<br />RateMyTeachers.com<br />RateMDs.com<br />Foda et al v. RateMDs, Inc., California Northern District Court <br />
    • 22. The Ratingz Network<br />CampRatingz.com<br />ChildCareRatingz.com<br />ClubRatingz.com<br />DrugRatingz.com<br />LawyerRatingz.com<br />RadioRatingz.com<br />VetRatingz.com<br />AccountantRatingz.com<br />CollegeDormRatingz.com<br />MechanicRatingz.com<br />RestaurantRatingz.com<br />SalonRatingz.com<br />SkiRatingz.com <br />TVratingz.com<br />
    • 23.
    • 24.
    • 25.
    • 26.
    • 27. Is Reputation Management Law the “Next Big Thing?”<br />
    • 28.
    • 29. Credibility Gives Higher Damages<br />Courts look to impact on readers, credibility of the source<br />Greater likelihood of suffering reputational harm<br />Should they look at SEO, Google Rankings, web traffic?<br />Dinyer-Fraser v. Laurentian Bank of Canada, 2005 BCSC 225, 40 B.C.L.R. (4th) 39 <br />Advocate Co. Ltd. Husbands (1969), 5 Barb. L.R. 113 at 124 (C.A.)<br />
    • 30. Reconsidering Damages in Online Defamation<br />Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia (2004),71 O.R. (3d) 416<br />At Trial: D came across as a rant, not taken seriously<br />CA: Internet is "instantaneous," "borderless," and "far-reaching“, has "tremendous power to harm reputation“<br />Increased compensatory damages from $15,000 to $75,000<br />Anonymity increased risk of it being believed<br />Matthew Nied,Damage Awards in Internet Defamation Cases: Reassessing Assumptions About the Credibility of Online Speech. Alberta Law Review, October, 2010. http://www.albertalawreview.com/index.php/alr/supplement/view/Damage%20Awards%20in%20Internet%20Defamation%20Cases<br />
    • 31. Reputation Damage is Real<br />Social science evidence is compelling<br />Social media and online reputation has an impact in the offline world<br />Use of marketing studies, consumer surveys<br />Robert J. Currie. The Bounds of the Permissible: Using "Cultural Evidence" in Civil Jury Cases. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 20.1 (2005) 75-86 <br />Monahan, John and Walker, Laurens “Social Authority: Obtaining, Evaluating and Establishing Social Science in Law” (1986) 134(3) University of Pennsylvania Law Review 477 - 518.<br />R. v. Butler, 1992 CanLII 124 (S.C.C.)<br />Irwin Toy Ltd. v. A.G. Que., 1989 CanLII 87 (S.C.C.)<br />
    • 32. @omarharedeye<br />ca.linkedin.com/in/torontolawyer<br />http://www.facebook.com/TO.Lawyer<br />omar.haredeye@gmail.com<br />http://omarha-redeye.com<br />

    ×