Tuesday, 27 November 2012

Should Mark Clattenburg Sue for Defamation?


Mark Clattenburg has now been cleared of using racist comments by the FA. As such, he is now free to return to the top echelons of officialdom after 3 weeks in the mire. Mr Clattenburg expressed relief at being cleared of the charges, however, he has maintained all along that he was innocent of these charges, and as such he readily admits that he was scared for his career. The question now, which is on every defamation lawyers lips, is, should he now take action against Chelsea Football Club for defamation of character?

Referees have a difficult enough job, but to be accused of being a racist is beyond the pale, not just for referees but for anyone. Look at the most recent example of Frankie Boyle, who rightly took umbrage against being referred to as a racist and was vindicated in doing so via the Courts, thanks to swift and decisive action taken by his defamation lawyers.  The protection of ones reputation on the internet is vitally important, especially for individuals in the public eye.

A distinction must be drawn in Mr Clattenburg’s case as to when the defamation actually took place. It cannot be said that the defamation took place when Ramires made his witness statement, stating he heard Mr Clattenburg make a racist remark to his colleague John Obi Mikel.  Neither can it  be said that the defamation occurred when the FA conducted its investigation. However, when the issue was made public, the defamation trigger was set.

The fact that Mr Clattenburg has now been acquitted of all charges means that the defamation trigger has now gone off. There is no truth to justify the allegations made against him. There can be no doubt that during the last 3 weeks his commercial and personal reputation has been detrimentally affected in the eyes of his peers and members of the public. His online reputation has been shot to pieces.

Had this complaint remained private and confidential we would not need to be having this discussion, but its leakage into the public domain has in turn unlawfully damaged Mr Clattenburg’s physical and online reputation, contrary to defamation law, thereby giving him a cause of action. Anything that happened before the matter leaked into the public domain i.e. during the investigation stages is protected by a privilege defence, anything that was said after that is fair game for all the defamation lawyers out there. There is no doubt that leaking this matter into the public domain has caused defamatory comments to made on various online forums, which has in turn led to the ‘Is Mark Clattenburg a racist?’ auto suggestion on Google. This can all be linked back to the leaking of this complaint into the public domain, and will therefore aggravate any damages in defamation that Mr Clattenburg will no doubt claim should he bring a claim in defamation.

John Spyrou

Head of Media and Internet Law

Pinder Reaux

Friday, 17 August 2012

Make no Bones about it; Online Defamation against Businesses is on the Increase.


Has your business recently stopped growing? Are you being shunned by previously valuable commercial contacts? This is what was happening to a client that we recently acted for. A successful entrepreneur who saw the business that he had worked hard to create for the past 10 years, brought to its knees within six weeks due to an anonymous online blog, ranking first on Google  whenever his name was searched.  

Celebrities are always in the media and lately, we hear a lot about them being defamed online and in the newspapers.  The potential effect of this defamation to their line of work is huge – but with the assistance of their media and PR teams, more often than not, they survive this attack on their public reputation.  Being in the public eye, receiving both good and bad publicity goes with the territory.

However, current trends show that it is not celebrities and those in the public eye that are the main victims of online defamation.  Businesses and entrepreneurs have taken the top spot and the effect on them has been devastating. This particular client was a successful entrepreneur, having worked hard to build the success of various businesses for 10 years, on an international scale. However, when he lost out on a particularly lucrative contract in Africa, things simply started to tumble and he could not understand why. He began losing more and more contracts: his usually reliable contacts where shunning him, which put the viability of his business in serious jeopardy.

The reason for this? An online blog posted by an anonymous user on a Google platform, claiming that my client was a con-artist and a fraudster, running complex scams: allegations that were posted without any evidence as to their truth. Having always done business in the old fashioned way, my client never thought such things were possible, and never thought to even ‘Google’ his name. He found out about this blog, because he pushed and pushed for his African contact to explain to him why his lucrative deal had not gone through. The blog was eventually revealed to him and he was dumbfounded. He ‘Googled’ his name and found this offending blog as the top THREE results on Google.  He was completely confused, upset and angry that someone would want to attack him in this way. Feelings of frustration soon followed, when he could not discover who was behind the blog. He even went as far as personally attending Google’s UK offices in an attempt to beg them to help, which they could not do as they have nothing to do with the search engines and Google websites.

He found us, and we resolved what can only really be described as a desperate issue for him.  His business was literally at crisis point. We immediately used our network of contacts within Google to action the removal of the offending blog. We then attacked the veil of anonymity which the anonymous blogger was hiding behind. We did this by obtaining a Norwich Pharmacal Order from the High Court in London, which we then served on Google in the United States. Google provided us with information concerning the user account of the anonymous blog. Google, to its credit, has a robust signing up processes, which generally prevents accounts being set up via fake email accounts. In this particular case the ‘smoking gun’ came from the secondary email address registered by the anonymous user on Google. The secondary email address is used by Google in cases where a user forgets their password i.e. a new password is emailed to you at the secondary email address. The anonymous blogger was not as clever as he thought, as the secondary email address had his full name and work contact details attached. From there, all we had to do was track him down.

Our client already felt empowered, as he had successfully identified the person who had tried to destroy his business and crush his entrepreneurial spirit. This person was in fact an ex-employee of his.
However, our client did not stop at this. He wanted his reputation recovered and he wanted justice. We formally instigated libel proceeding in the High Court against the ex-employee. These proceedings resulted in the ex-employee being ordered to pay substantial sums in compensation for libel to our client for the damage he had caused to the reputation of our client and his businesses. He was also ordered to make a public apology stating unequivocally that the allegations he had made in the blog were untrue, and undertaking that he would not make such allegations again in the future. Our client had succeeded in obtaining justice and reviving his reputation. His business is now firmly back on the way up, his colleagues and contacts flooding back in their droves.

This type of behaviour is happening more and more and is generally perpetrated by people close to home (or business). In our specialist Internet Law Department here at Bains Cohen, we are seeing that more and more businesses are being targeted by ex-employees, disgruntled customers or ruthless competitors seeking an ‘edge ‘in the market, utilising mainly anonymous blogs and anonymous posts online.

Our advice - DO NOT BURY YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND HOPING IT WILL GO AWAY… IT WON’T.

Those who run businesses are used to making tough and uncompromising decisions. Do not let issues of online defamation obstruct your decision making. For each day that you delay taking action, the more damage is done to your company’s reputation.  We can help, but you need to first contact us and make yourself known. This is the first and hardest step to fighting back against the online defamation against your business.

John Spyrou
Head of Media and Internet Law
Bains Cohen Solicitors LLP

p.s. watch this space where I will be writing further articles, specifically on the above client, using real life names, legal procedures and tactics under the title ‘The Power of the NPO’

Friday, 10 August 2012

Combatting Online Harassment Against Individuals and Companies – Internet Law Specialist Bains Cohen can Help


The recent case of Nicola Brookes has brought to the forefront of people’s mind an endemic issue that is occurring on the internet, and in particular on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter – that of online harassment. However, what constitutes online harassment? How bad does it have to get before it is considered harassment? Is it just individuals that suffer this?

Many people now consider Facebook and Twitter to be a normal way of communication, so much so, that it is probably on par with a mobile phone. There are friends of mine who I know will not answer text messages or phone calls, but will happily respond to a tweet, or wall post on Facebook within seconds of me putting something up – in fact, with some people, I know this is the only way to get hold of them. With the norms of social communication shifting in this way, the way that criticism and abuse is levied by people on one another, and on businesses is also changing. Gone are the days when we would have a row in the street, or a furious phone call with a customer services rep; now displeasure is published in cyberspace via online messaging, tweeting and blogging. A prime example of this changing nature is clearly illustrated by what happened in Ms. Brookes’ case.

We must bear in mind that just because something appears online – it does not detract from just how hurtful, abusive and damaging it can be – just because it is online it does not mean that it is just banter and should be ignored . This attitude is wrong and must change now. Numerous people abusing a person online, consistently, for prolonged periods is not banter, it is likely to be abuse and harassment of the highest order. Such behaviour is a clear warning sign of online harassment.  It could also be the start of you being targeted by online trolls, who make it their business to follow your every online move and abuse and harass you in the most harrowing of ways (in the Nicola Brookes case this involved the creation of fake Facebook accounts in her name that attempted to lure and groom young girls for sex, accused Ms. Brookes or being a paedophile, drug addict and many other things).

This is not something that just happens to individuals, it can also happen to businesses. If you find that there is offensive material about you online, which pops up at all hours of the day and night, no matter what good information you or your search engine optimisation company put out, this is unlikely to be a coincidence, but instead could be the sign that your business, its clients and its goodwill is being targeted by online trolls, who in most cases will have nothing to do with you or your business. Trolls will have one aim in mind, to completely destroy your business until there is nothing left.  But, this could also be the actions of someone more sinister, a disgruntled employee or supplier who is hell bent on destroying your business, and with the obvious anonymity the internet gives this, destruction can very quickly become a reality.

The worst possible thing that can be done here is that you bury your head in the sand and think it will blow over. IT WON’T!!! However, we at Bain Cohen, as internet law specialists can help:

  •  We have direct links with the corporations upon which most online harassment takes place, namely Facebook and Twitter. This in turn means that we can quickly report and action the immediate removal/blocking of the offenders, thereby by preventing them from getting at you, or your business.
  • We have direct links and contacts within Google and therefore we can help prevent the publishing of online offensive links via the Google search engine to global users in individual jurisdictions.
  • We have a streamlined and expeditious process for the applying and obtaining of interim injunctions, anti-harassment injunctions and disclosure orders from the High Court of Justice.
  • We are one of the few firms that are specialists in this area of law, and as a client you can rest assured that you will be getting the most immediate and undivided  attention from us. To combat online harassment you need to move quick, procrastinating with a lawyer that is unsure of the law, and what strategy to adopt, can cost you substantial amounts, not just in tangible losses but intangible losses in respect of stress, for example.
The social conscious and social compass of all us internet users must change. We should look for the warning signs in order so sidestep being abused and harassed online, but sometimes this is simply not possible, if a troll wants to target you they will.

We, at Bains Cohen have spent years harnessing our trade, and honing our skills and relationships with these big corporations who effectively control what we can and cannot do on the internet, something that I do not think any other law firm in our  niche area of law can claim to have.

If you just take one thing from my article (and at the risk of sounding like a broken record) please do not bury your head in the sand, and rely on SEO companies alone to prevent the harassment and protect you.

Trust your instinct, if it feels wrong and if it feels too close for comfort then it probably is, so please just give us a call on 0208-252-7373 and one of us will be happy to help.

John Spyrou
Associate Solicitor
Internet Law
Bains Cohen Solicitors LLP

Expansion of the Domain Names– Defamation via the back door?


The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (known in less of a mouthful as ICANN) has announced the expansion of domain names that will be available for websites to purchase. On the face of it this sounds great, it means the expansion of the internet, the growth of e-commerce and frankly some of the domain names are quite humorous (.and being an example).

However, there is an underlying issue here that could seriously affect online defamation, this being the use of domain names such as .sucks.

The current trend for online defamation is that an individual sets up a blog using various free blogging tools available to them on the internet, give themselves a username, and then proceeds to fill their blog with defamatory content about another person/company. This is nothing new and we have proven legal tools to remove the offending content and identify the offenders. Now that  domain names such as .sucks are available this could bring online defamation to a whole new level for example a website such as www.LordAlanSugar.sucks is arguably defamatory just from its title (I am pretty sure that Lord Sugar would also have one or two choice words to say about such a website).

Maybe I am getting a bit too serious by claiming .sucks is defamatory but if ICANN plan to expand domains even further such as .rubbish, .ihateyou, .scam, and .con then this issue will become very serious, very quickly – can you imagine the reaction to a website such as www.Mercedes.scam. Such issues will then post a whole new conundrum for defamation lawyers, who do you sue – the author of the defamatory content – definitely, the website host/registrar– potentially, ICANN – who provide the domain name in the first place - ???.

I politely ask ICANN, at this very early juncture, to keep an eye on this issue. If the new domain names are not properly managed and monitored then online defamation, purely on the basis of domain names, could quickly spiral out of control.

John Spyrou
Associate Solicitor
Internet Law
Bains Cohen LLP

Tuesday, 31 January 2012

Google to disclose personal information of an anonymous blogger

Google is told by a UK Judge to disclose personal information of an anonymous blogger 
On Monday 23 January 2012, a High Court Judge in London ordered INTERNET giant Google Inc. to disclose to a UK claimant, data and personal details which it holds in relation to a user who utilised Google’s Blogger to spread defamation against a UK based businessman.
Google was told to have information, which includes the blog owner’s user name, email address and IP address disclosed to Bains Cohen, lawyers acting for the claimant, who is fighting for defamatory content about him to be removed from the American based Blog.

Tuesday, 24 January 2012

How to Remove Web Page Or a Search Result from Google

Almost everyone who has ever tried to remove web content from Google products has found the task challenging to the least.

It is possible to remove defamatory content from Google results and Google Blogger and here is how to do it.

I have given in my blogs, many case studies covering a variety of businesses and situations and am updating this information all the time. This gives business owners and managers across the country an opportunity to learn from the experiences of similar businesses on the internet, so that they can now prevent and deal effectively with internet defamation.

Perhaps one single piece of information that you read in one of these short case studies could one day make the difference for your own business.

Sunday, 2 October 2011

Money Saving Expert Injunction

Anonymous Web ‘Trolls’ Are Targeted by Company Lawyers in U.K. Lawsuits- Bloomberg:
By Kit Chellel
September 29, 2011 7:00 PM EDT


People who use fake names to post critical comments about companies on websites may not be as anonymous as they think, as firms use the courts to unmask online accusers.
MoneySavingExpert, a British personal finance site with 5 million readers, was forced to hand over personal details about three users calling themselves Againstjpc, GomerPyle and Ladybirds, following a London court ruling in August. The three wrote comments on the website accusing JPC Group Sales Ltd., an affiliate of a U.K. publishing company, of being a “criminal enterprise” and “a scam,” the company said in court filings.
Similar orders have been granted in the U.K. over comments posted on Google Inc. (GOOG) blogs and comment boards at its YouTube unit’s website,  a lawyer for JPC Louise Rutter, spokeswoman for Mountain View, California-based Google, declined to comment.