Reputation management law


Published on

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

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Reputation management law

    1. 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. 2.
    3. 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. 4.
    5. 5. <ul><li>Carrie Bradshaw in </li></ul>Sex and the City<br />
    6. 6.
    7. 7.
    8. 8.
    9. 9. Online Reputation Management Plan<br />
    10. 10.
    11. 11.
    12. 12.
    13. 13. Pre-Litigation Options<br />Warning letter<br />Notice (and takedown)<br />notice and notice in Canada<br />Just ask nicely <br />
    14. 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<br />
    15. 15.
    16. 16.
    17. 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. 18. Day v. Ross, [unreported] November 23, 2010<br />
    19. 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. 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. 21. Ratings and Ranking Sites<br /><br /><br /><br />Foda et al v. RateMDs, Inc., California Northern District Court <br />
    22. 22. The Ratingz Network<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />
    23. 23.
    24. 24.
    25. 25.
    26. 26.
    27. 27. Is Reputation Management Law the “Next Big Thing?”<br />
    28. 28.
    29. 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. 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.<br />
    31. 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. 32. @omarharedeye<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />