Reviews from satisfied and dissatisfied customers and clients are posted on a wide range of sites on the Web; typing “consumer reviews” as a search term (including the quotation marks) in Google produces over 73 million hits. Some sites specifically address angry posters; for example, Pissed Consumer specifically solicits complaints.
In contrast to these compilations of comments from users, professional organizations such as Consumer Reports carry out research using scientific methods for evaluating and comparing products and ConsumerSearch collates professional reports. The United States government Web site even includes an alphabetical index of federal information sites with frequently asked questions and advice to consumers on a wide range of commercial products and services.
Sites that simply post unverified comments on the Web can cause problems if the reports are false. My wife is a neuropsychiatrist – a neurologist who focuses on behavioral problems of emotionally and mentally disturbed patients, many of whom are in prisons. Sometimes, the mental status of her patients makes it difficult for them to accept her diagnostic questions or therapeutic recommendations. On one occasion, a disturbed patient flew into a rage during her initial session with my wife and posted an abusive rant about her on an unfiltered Web site; when my wife asked the site managers to remove the rant, they refused.
Readers will also recall that earlier this year, I myself contributed a bad analysis about a computer vendor’s product – and have seen my own online reputation fall online; for example, try searching on “Kabay idiot” in a search engine (without the quotation marks) to see some rough reviews of my incorrect report. However, I’ve made no effort to remove these comments; I just groveled thoroughly in print.
How do victims of smear campaigns overcome the negative publicity from unvetted commentary? Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown requests apply to copyright violations, not to libel. When site managers refuse to take down libelous material, is expensive court action the only option? On the other side of the question, given the nature of search engine optimization, how do consumers avoid manipulation by experts who load misleading information (positive or negative) into the Web and generate links from Websites they control for payment? And how do consumers avoid being fooled by companies who swamp the ‘Net with positive or negative comments fabricated for a fee? What happens if a company’s competitor arranges to post fraudulent negative information on the Web?
If an organization that takes responsibility for the content of its Web site posts libelous material, the victim can demand removal of the libel and, if that request is refused, sue the owners or other responsible parties for damages; however, if the managers explicitly refuse responsibility for any of the content on their Web site – that is, if they are merely the equivalent of distributors (like news-stand owners) or common carriers (like telephone companies and ISPs) of the information – then suing them for libel doesn’t work. The classic precedents illustrating these principles are Cubby v Compuserve and Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy. In Cubby, the plaintiff lost their case because CompuServe (a value-added network popular in the 1980s and 1990s) explicitly placed responsibility for content in its sections (forums) in the hands of the forum owners. In Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy, the plaintiff won because Prodigy made it clear in its advertising and self-description as a family-oriented service that it did take responsibility for content.
Organizations that exert no control over content exemplify disintermediation on the ‘Net: the traditional controls over content such as editors, publication guidelines and corporate counsels don’t apply to Web sites that post anything submitted to them. Readers may thus be misled by irresponsible postings such as anonymous libel or puffery, with little recourse for redress.
In the next three articles, written by Norwich University student Todd Renner, readers will learn about some of the methods used for online reputation management and some of the less savory methods being used for online reputation obfuscation.
