The Truth
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Rip-Off Report - THE TRUTH
Rip-off Report allows consumers to post complaints anonymously. The accused companies are
allowed to post rebuttals. Rip-off Report's high rankings in the Internet search engines lead to
frustration by some companies who feel they are being victimized by complaints that may or may not
have any merit.
Rip-off Report does not allow complaints about its own services. However, there are a number of
allegations against Ed Magedson and the Rip-off Report which are easily found online. Several sites
have been erected which attack Rip-off Report and Magedson. Also many allegations have been posted
on Internet message boards.
Corporate Advocacy and Remediation Program
Most of the charges stem from Magedson's alleged manipulation of information found on the Rip-off
Report, and Magedson's alleged attempts to extort money from companies in exchange for removing
(or editing) complaints posted on his website. It is also alleged by these companies that Magedson
posts libelous statements about them if they do not comply.
Magedson states that these claims are all false and are the result of reported people and businesses
trying to show that he wrote some of the questioned content so that the Communications Decency
Act's "safe harbor" provision does not apply.
The Phoenix New Times explains that at least 30 companies now pay Magedson to mitigate bad
reports on Ripoff Report. Ripoff Report offers the "Corporate Advocacy and Remediation Program".[2]
Businesses pay Magedson a fee, plus a monthly retainer. And in exchange, Magedson makes "EDitor's
comments" next to complaints — pointing out that the company, as part of the program, has agreed to
give a full refund to agreived consumers, that the number of compalints may not be out-of-line with the
size of the company and pointing out any false claims against the company. Magedson's litigation
attorney, Maria Crimi Speth, states there is a sliding fee scale for interested businesses, depending on
the number of complaints the businesses have on Ripoff Report and many other factors, and that the
price can be as low as a few hundred dollars per month. Court files documents and several business
owners who spoke to the Phoenix New Times, state that joining the "Corporate Advocacy and
Remediation Program" was offered for some businesses at more than $50,000 and there's a monthly
retainer fee in addition. Critics argue how can Magedson accept payment from the same companies
that he claims to be fighting, especially when he was once so critical of the Better Business Bureau for
doing the same thing. Magedson claims the big difference is that he gets all the complaining consumer
their money back.[3]
The Phoenix New Times further explains that in a deposition Magedson "seemed to admit under oath
that he'd removed the complaint" of a company which was part of the corporate advocacy program.
Lawsuits
Some companies have sued (or expressed the intention to file suit against) Magedson.
At any given moment there are always a few suits pending against Rip-off Report due to its national
presence and large readership. However, it is interesting to note that two of the most acrimonious
lawsuits, both of which had gone on for over two years have been settled. Those two suits are: HyCite
Corp. v. badbusinessbureau.com, 418 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (D. Arizona 2005)(The Plaintiff properly alleged
RICO (racketeering activity) as it relates to removal or editing of Rip-off Reports) and George S. May
International Co. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 409 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (N.D. Ill. 2006)(Plaintiff whose
reputation was tarnished by allegations of fraud and child pornography could properly bring the action
in Illinois). As with most others who sued, both made claims of extortion. Both of the settlements were
in Rip-off Report's favor: they made payments for Rip-off Report's legal bills and joined the Corporate
Advocacy Program (CAP) -- which their lawsuits had aledged was the means of extortion.[citation
needed] Both of these companies made similar statements to the effect that they had just listened to
others who were suing and their attorneys. When they looked into CAP themselves, they saw it was
just a business program -- good for consumers, the business and, obviously, Rip-off Report -- which is
an alternative to filing rebuttals to Reports (which as stated above is free). In the case of George S.
May, the CEO of the company stated that he wished he had looked into the litigation sooner because
when he did, he immediately wanted to join CAP because it was a great program and no different from
the consulting services that his company offers. He has admitted that he and his company has just
gotten caught up in an anti-Rip-off Report frenzy that was stirred up by others who were mainly just
saying bad things about Ed Magedson and Rip-off Report hoping that some of them would "stick."
Several people and businesses listed on Ripoff Report have allegedly hired the Defamation Action
League, an organization run by William L. "Bill" Stanley (possibly a pseudonym), who is listed as one of
the world's top 200 spammers,to attempt to make Magedson and his business partners remove
specific reports. In return, Magedson filed a lawsuit under RICO. On June 21, 2007 a preliminary
injunction was granted against DefamationAction.com and ComplaintRemover.com. Stanley and his
associates were found liable for defamation and making death threats. Robert Russo, who claims not
to be part of the Stanley group -- but who does own ComplaintRemover.com, has filed an answer,
defenses and a countersuit in the case, which is in progress.
Rip-off Report allows consumers to post complaints anonymously. The accused companies are
allowed to post rebuttals. Rip-off Report's high rankings in the Internet search engines lead to
frustration by some companies who feel they are being victimized by complaints that may or may not
have any merit.
Rip-off Report does not allow complaints about its own services. However, there are a number of
allegations against Ed Magedson and the Rip-off Report which are easily found online. Several sites
have been erected which attack Rip-off Report and Magedson. Also many allegations have been posted
on Internet message boards.
Corporate Advocacy and Remediation Program
Most of the charges stem from Magedson's alleged manipulation of information found on the Rip-off
Report, and Magedson's alleged attempts to extort money from companies in exchange for removing
(or editing) complaints posted on his website. It is also alleged by these companies that Magedson
posts libelous statements about them if they do not comply.
Magedson states that these claims are all false and are the result of reported people and businesses
trying to show that he wrote some of the questioned content so that the Communications Decency
Act's "safe harbor" provision does not apply.
The Phoenix New Times explains that at least 30 companies now pay Magedson to mitigate bad
reports on Ripoff Report. Ripoff Report offers the "Corporate Advocacy and Remediation Program".[2]
Businesses pay Magedson a fee, plus a monthly retainer. And in exchange, Magedson makes "EDitor's
comments" next to complaints — pointing out that the company, as part of the program, has agreed to
give a full refund to agreived consumers, that the number of compalints may not be out-of-line with the
size of the company and pointing out any false claims against the company. Magedson's litigation
attorney, Maria Crimi Speth, states there is a sliding fee scale for interested businesses, depending on
the number of complaints the businesses have on Ripoff Report and many other factors, and that the
price can be as low as a few hundred dollars per month. Court files documents and several business
owners who spoke to the Phoenix New Times, state that joining the "Corporate Advocacy and
Remediation Program" was offered for some businesses at more than $50,000 and there's a monthly
retainer fee in addition. Critics argue how can Magedson accept payment from the same companies
that he claims to be fighting, especially when he was once so critical of the Better Business Bureau for
doing the same thing. Magedson claims the big difference is that he gets all the complaining consumer
their money back.[3]
The Phoenix New Times further explains that in a deposition Magedson "seemed to admit under oath
that he'd removed the complaint" of a company which was part of the corporate advocacy program.
Lawsuits
Some companies have sued (or expressed the intention to file suit against) Magedson.
At any given moment there are always a few suits pending against Rip-off Report due to its national
presence and large readership. However, it is interesting to note that two of the most acrimonious
lawsuits, both of which had gone on for over two years have been settled. Those two suits are: HyCite
Corp. v. badbusinessbureau.com, 418 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (D. Arizona 2005)(The Plaintiff properly alleged
RICO (racketeering activity) as it relates to removal or editing of Rip-off Reports) and George S. May
International Co. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 409 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (N.D. Ill. 2006)(Plaintiff whose
reputation was tarnished by allegations of fraud and child pornography could properly bring the action
in Illinois). As with most others who sued, both made claims of extortion. Both of the settlements were
in Rip-off Report's favor: they made payments for Rip-off Report's legal bills and joined the Corporate
Advocacy Program (CAP) -- which their lawsuits had aledged was the means of extortion.[citation
needed] Both of these companies made similar statements to the effect that they had just listened to
others who were suing and their attorneys. When they looked into CAP themselves, they saw it was
just a business program -- good for consumers, the business and, obviously, Rip-off Report -- which is
an alternative to filing rebuttals to Reports (which as stated above is free). In the case of George S.
May, the CEO of the company stated that he wished he had looked into the litigation sooner because
when he did, he immediately wanted to join CAP because it was a great program and no different from
the consulting services that his company offers. He has admitted that he and his company has just
gotten caught up in an anti-Rip-off Report frenzy that was stirred up by others who were mainly just
saying bad things about Ed Magedson and Rip-off Report hoping that some of them would "stick."
Several people and businesses listed on Ripoff Report have allegedly hired the Defamation Action
League, an organization run by William L. "Bill" Stanley (possibly a pseudonym), who is listed as one of
the world's top 200 spammers,to attempt to make Magedson and his business partners remove
specific reports. In return, Magedson filed a lawsuit under RICO. On June 21, 2007 a preliminary
injunction was granted against DefamationAction.com and ComplaintRemover.com. Stanley and his
associates were found liable for defamation and making death threats. Robert Russo, who claims not
to be part of the Stanley group -- but who does own ComplaintRemover.com, has filed an answer,
defenses and a countersuit in the case, which is in progress.
| Copyright © 2008 - 2008 • RipOffReportFraud.com • All Rights Reserved |
| The Truth About RipOffReport.com _____________________ Unverified | Unaccountable |