makarovnik
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,678
I've warned people about this type of thing before.
Lawsuit results from opinions posted on gun boards
- Thread starter searcher451
- Start date
- Status
I find the whole AAC thing very interesting since I'm constantly telling less internet savvy people to take anything on the internet with a grain of salt. People tend to get on the internet and complain about things and products.
I'm an amateur astronomer and have a 10" SCT made by a large company. Most of the post you'll see on my telescope are complaints. Going off the internet you'd think they are complete crap. The company sells hundreds of them every year. They've increased production twice over the last ten years to keep up with demand. Yet on the internet they are nothing but a problem. I have to wonder how many happy users there are for every one complainer.
AAC takes fail to a whole new level with their actions though. Guess this is their attempt to make, "I heard it on the internet" actually have some credence. :banghead:
I'm an amateur astronomer and have a 10" SCT made by a large company. Most of the post you'll see on my telescope are complaints. Going off the internet you'd think they are complete crap. The company sells hundreds of them every year. They've increased production twice over the last ten years to keep up with demand. Yet on the internet they are nothing but a problem. I have to wonder how many happy users there are for every one complainer.
AAC takes fail to a whole new level with their actions though. Guess this is their attempt to make, "I heard it on the internet" actually have some credence. :banghead:
JohnBT
Member
Man there are a ton of 
house lawyers on this thread.
look folks the produce does not matter either way. Fact is you can randomly pick a person out of the crowd and run them in court for just about anything. It will all boil down to credibility of evidence and testimony. One faulter on either side could be a disaster. Any number of things can happen though. A setelment, an all together drop of charges, or an overly sympathetic judge could toss the case in any direction. Bottom line is why are we arguing for or against this.
The way I see it if you argue for the company then you are arguing against free speach
if you are arguing for the charged individual then you are saying any one can say anything with out consequence even if it is an all out lie.
This whole thing is a total loss for everyone!
house lawyers on this thread.look folks the produce does not matter either way. Fact is you can randomly pick a person out of the crowd and run them in court for just about anything. It will all boil down to credibility of evidence and testimony. One faulter on either side could be a disaster. Any number of things can happen though. A setelment, an all together drop of charges, or an overly sympathetic judge could toss the case in any direction. Bottom line is why are we arguing for or against this.
The way I see it if you argue for the company then you are arguing against free speach
if you are arguing for the charged individual then you are saying any one can say anything with out consequence even if it is an all out lie.
This whole thing is a total loss for everyone!
Last edited:
Hands of blue
Member
"One facet of my defense would be to go online and pull 20 or so disparaging things from other people about the company (you can find at least that many negative things about any company) and ask if those people are also being sued or whether my client is being singled out. That's just the way the internet works, forums full of folks opining as facts and knocking companies that they don't like. I think Lorcin may have grounds for some good lawsuits."
There is a difference between posting opinion that a product is no good and posting a "fact" that the product is so bad that they lost a contract.
There is a difference between posting opinion that a product is no good and posting a "fact" that the product is so bad that they lost a contract.
Cosmoline
Member
Defamation suits are incredibly difficult to actually win in the US. The intended result is the chilling effect it will have on anyone with an opinion about this company's product. It's not a very good way to do business, and I hope the court dismisses the suit with fee sanctions.
waterhouse
Member
It shouldn't hurt him. Ian claimed AAC lost a contract. AAC is suing him, because they feel that him saying they lost the contract cost them business. I don't know if what Ian said was true or not, and I don't know if AAC lost any actual business from the comment or not.
The 100 or so folks are not saying "I won't buy an AAC suppressor because Ian told me they lost a contract." They are saying they won't buy an AAC suppressor because AAC sued Ian.
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
Member
The suit is not going anywhere. It was a scare tactic and the defendant didn't back down. Now they just look stupid. To win the case they need to prove 3 things. Something happening and proving it are two different things
1) They need to prove the statement is false. Per the lawyer this isn't done. It is entirely possible the contract is protected (due to national security reasons) by secrecy clauses. It may not be possible for the company to prove the had and still have the contract. The military may put pressure on this since they don't want the information in the open. Even if they can't force them it can be a "if you ever want another contract make this go away". If the plantiff can't PROVE the statement if false there is no case.
2) They need to prove the statement was intentionally false (malice). Making a mistake is not grounds for a suit. If there is a press release and the defendant misread it or misinterperted it then that is not sufficent. If the defendant was repeating something he read/heard elsewhere (even if wrong) and could reasonably assume it was accurate it was not a crime. They need to prove the plaintiff made a false statement he knew was false. Once again proving something like that is not as easy as it seems. If the defense can find a similar claim on internet or in print they can claim they were simply repeating another persons claim. If that claim that was not denied by the company it would be reasonable to assume it was accurate. If a reasonable person could assume it is accurate there is no crime.
3) The company needs to prove the lost sales or were otherwise damaged by the statement. Even if they prove it was wrong and the defendant had malice it STILL isn't a crime unless they can prove a loss. Just sales being down isn't enough. The defense can show other times there sales were down or other negative reviews or other better products by competitors to explain the lower sales. Proving your sales are down is one thing, proving they are down specifically because of the defendant is another.
If the plaintiff fails to prove even 1 of the 3 points there is no crime. There case is not impossible but I think most people can see winning a suit like this is not easy. There are many potential pitfalls.
1) They need to prove the statement is false. Per the lawyer this isn't done. It is entirely possible the contract is protected (due to national security reasons) by secrecy clauses. It may not be possible for the company to prove the had and still have the contract. The military may put pressure on this since they don't want the information in the open. Even if they can't force them it can be a "if you ever want another contract make this go away". If the plantiff can't PROVE the statement if false there is no case.
2) They need to prove the statement was intentionally false (malice). Making a mistake is not grounds for a suit. If there is a press release and the defendant misread it or misinterperted it then that is not sufficent. If the defendant was repeating something he read/heard elsewhere (even if wrong) and could reasonably assume it was accurate it was not a crime. They need to prove the plaintiff made a false statement he knew was false. Once again proving something like that is not as easy as it seems. If the defense can find a similar claim on internet or in print they can claim they were simply repeating another persons claim. If that claim that was not denied by the company it would be reasonable to assume it was accurate. If a reasonable person could assume it is accurate there is no crime.
3) The company needs to prove the lost sales or were otherwise damaged by the statement. Even if they prove it was wrong and the defendant had malice it STILL isn't a crime unless they can prove a loss. Just sales being down isn't enough. The defense can show other times there sales were down or other negative reviews or other better products by competitors to explain the lower sales. Proving your sales are down is one thing, proving they are down specifically because of the defendant is another.
If the plaintiff fails to prove even 1 of the 3 points there is no crime. There case is not impossible but I think most people can see winning a suit like this is not easy. There are many potential pitfalls.
Haemon
Member
I really don't think anyone posting reviews / evaluations / critiques of firearms or other equipment has anything to worry about. Statements of opinion, or evaluations of quality based on personal experience are fairly easy to defend. This is why magazines, websites, or newspapers can give horrible reviews to products, services, and performances, possibly costing them money, without being sued. However, a post enters dangerous territory when it makes statements of fact . If my reading of the situation is accurate, the post may have been questionable because of its discussion of how or whether the manufacturer lost its contract. This is a claim about factual events. If this is a false claim, and if it can be shown to have cost the manufacturer sales, it might might qualify as libel.
Just remember the magic words -- In my personal experience -- and don't try to pretend that experience applies to everyone.
I think paying attention to this distinction makes good sense whenever I post to a forum, whether or not I'm worried that someone might sue. Discussions seem to be more constructive, less confrontational, and less prone to sweeping (and often inaccurate) generalizations when we discuss personal experience rather than making claims of "fact" based on rumors or hearsay.
That, by the way, is what I like about this forum, and why I finally joined!
Just remember the magic words -- In my personal experience -- and don't try to pretend that experience applies to everyone.
I think paying attention to this distinction makes good sense whenever I post to a forum, whether or not I'm worried that someone might sue. Discussions seem to be more constructive, less confrontational, and less prone to sweeping (and often inaccurate) generalizations when we discuss personal experience rather than making claims of "fact" based on rumors or hearsay.
That, by the way, is what I like about this forum, and why I finally joined!
Crash_Test_Dhimmi
Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2008
- Messages
- 256
well, im in the market for one.... and I will choose a product from a company that has a little thicker skin, and products that speak for themselves.
/lawsuit against me in 3... 2...
/lawsuit against me in 3... 2...
- Status
