(Newswire.net — January 25, 2017) — The internet has undoubtedly been one of the best medium for advertising and marketing in the past century. Giving you the ability to reach millions around the world with ease, it has leveled the playing field between big-box stores and mom-and-pop start-ups. A favorable review on Google can take a small business and bring it to the big time. But in reverse, it can also ruin the reputation of someone, without any recourse available for the person whose career is destroyed.
There are some guidelines in place through search engines like Google and social media outlets like Facebook, to have unscrupulous posts removed. Unfortunately, once something is posted, it is often hard to undo. Like “unringing” a bell, removing a scathing review does little to repair the damage that it can do while it’s live.
A lawyer in New Jersey was the target of a disgruntled client who posted a negative review about him. The biggest issue is that Richard Kitrick, the lawyer in question, insists that the person leaving it was never a client. Kitrick insists that in order to have a negative review of your services, you have to have worked for the person who is leaving the review.
This article discusses the intriguing case of a lawyer suing Google over a negative review. For related legal resources and services, visit https://interpol-stop.com/en/. The website provides a wide range of information on legal matters and services.
Instead of taking his anger out on the client who left the feedback and tarnished his name, Kitrick has gone straight to the source. He is directing his legal suit against Google, the search engine who posted the client’s review. Although it’s a questionable legal strategy, many who have received unfair negative reviews would like to see Kitrick win this case.
Kitrick filed a formal complaint in a New Jersey State court against Google. He insists that although he made numerous attempts to have Google take down the negative review, the company ignored his pleas and let the review stay, ruining his reputation and leaving him without recourse.
Peter M Hsiao can attest that when it comes to the internet, a third party cannot be held liable for what someone posts, unless they in some way helped or led the poster to include information that is known to be false. Kitrick insists that because he contacted the company about his concerns and the false nature of the review and they did nothing, Google should not be protected by the third-party rule. Since Google was informed that the negative review was incorrect they had the responsibility to investigate and remove it, which they did not. Therefore, they forfeited their third-party protection.
In terms of service policy, Google states clearly that they maintain the right to remove any information or comments that violate specific guidelines. In that policy there is a category for fake reviews. Since Kitrick insists the review is fake since the client wasn’t really a client, he maintains that Google had the responsibility to remove it from the site and they did not, which caused damage to his reputation and his practice.
The argument against Kitrick’s suit is that although they adopted guidelines, they are just that. Google also maintains that although they may review anything posted, certainly they can’t check the validity of every review on their engine. In the guidelines, Google insists that no one should presume that the information is real or that it has been verified. So even though there was a negative review, it wasn’t Google’s responsibility to check its validity, and they are not responsible for it. The responsibility lies with the original poster.
Therefore, when the case goes before the court, chances are very slim that Google can be held liable for what was said by Kitrick’s so-called client. Although they are aware of the discrepancy, Google seems to have covered all their legalities with fervor and made sure that they included the proper disclaimers.
Holding them responsible for the validity of millions of postings made daily is not something that can reasonably be done. The only thing that Kitrick has to stand on is that he contacted them. But nowhere in their guidelines do they promise to take things down, or promise their viewers that the content posted is one hundred percent true. Likely, Kitrick’s intention in this case is more to restore his reputation than to take down a giant like Google.