Attorney wants Google to unmask reviewer who only wrote “It was horrible”

Attorney decries review as an opinion "to disparage a person in his profession."

Read the whole story

 

[zarmanto]

theycallmetatersalad[/url]":2w1hekxx]What a douchebag. Hope he gets buried under bad reviews.

Apparently, that is already underway; as of this post, there are seven reviews of the lawyer in question, and the five new ones are all one-star reviews directly responding to this situation. The Streisand Effect has indeed been invoked.

(When will these people learn?)

 

[Bill M NY]

issor[/url]":37b63y27]This issue aside, I wonder how someone DOES go about remedying reviews that are placed against the wrong thing. If the review really was intended for the other "Donald J Tobias", or if the review is for Thai restaurant A but posted on Thai restaurant B, which is across the street, does Google care? That sort of thing must happen all the time.

It does happen, but most of the time you will see the company respond to the review and will also reach out to fix a problem the person may have had. Then the reviewer goes back and changes it or the response is also there for people to see.

Best case for him would have been to respond via google to address the issue politely. If that person was trolling there would have been no reply and that would be that.

 

[bobthe]

The relevant information missing from this article is whether or not there is any kind of positive/negative review rating system that the reviews feed into. If the review said "It was horrible" but there is no rating system, then there's probably not much harm. If there is a rating system however, and if that review had a low/negative rating, then that would certainly impact his business.

 

[MisterAlex]

Dear Google,
There's a prank review for [this/my] business that isn't really insightful or helpful to folks looking for feedback from previous customers/clients. Could y'all please clean this up real quick?


I mean... that's probably what my first course of action would've been. {shrug}

 

[gweedoz]

... oh... wait... nvm.

 

[Justin Credible]

IntergalacticWalrus[/url]":wudgdjmt]Kudos to this lawyer for being helpful at letting us know he's garbage and should be avoided.

Now IANAL, but this may well be they very reason he could sue. If this anon person hadn't made this comment, there would be no subpoena, no case, no story. Now if there is no story you may someday have a need for a lawyer and may just choose him for one reason or another, but since you have heard of him through this story and think he's garbage that comment has in a roundabout way hurt his business.

Am i making sense? I ran out of my herbal remedy, my mind is racing a million miles an hour, but getting nowhere fast. :/

 

[vlam]

issor[/url]":1zmbm01t]

vlam[/url]":1zmbm01t]

issor[/url]":1zmbm01t]This issue aside, I wonder how someone DOES go about remedying reviews that are placed against the wrong thing. If the review really was intended for the other "Donald J Tobias", or if the review is for Thai restaurant A but posted on Thai restaurant B, which is across the street, does Google care? That sort of thing must happen all the time.

How many Thai restaurants do you have!?

Google says 7 thai restaurants within 10 minutes of my current location. I just picked on that because they tend to have similar names, Thai House, Thai Village, Thai Cafe, Sala Thai, Spicy Thai, Tasty Thai, etc, I could see people leaving reviews on the wrong one.

Or similar, leaving a review of poor management for the wrong franchise of a chain.

Holy shitsnacks. That's a lot of Thai restaurants. Do you live in the middle of a large city?

 

[blingting]

adamrussell[/url]":16bw5ho1]Honestly, google shouldnt allow vague reviews like this. He should be allowed to request it be removed. If you want to criticize someone, tell them what they did wrong.

It's kind of surprising that Google wouldn't take down such an obvious troll review. Unless of course the guy doing the asking was a massive, massive douche.

 

[Faustius23]

zarmanto[/url]":175m57lh]

theycallmetatersalad[/url]":175m57lh]What a douchebag. Hope he gets buried under bad reviews.

Apparently, that is already underway; as of this post, there are seven reviews of the lawyer in question, and the five new ones are all one-star reviews directly responding to this situation. The Streisand Effect has indeed been invoked.

(When will these people learn?)

... And I just marked them as helpful reviews. Didn't leave my own because you know, lawyers.

 

[Abhi Beckert]

Zak[/url]":2zt5j71z]While "it was horrible" sounds like trolling but how is that defamation? Maybe their experience was in fact horrible? So what if that person expands their review now and elaborates more then

One legal definition of "libel" is "undeserved criticism".

This is clearly criticism, and we're not really in any position to judge wether or not it's undeserved.

 

[ProfessorGuy]

...said person's name, address, telephone number...

Wait, you people are giving Google your actual true information? Why would anyone ever do that?

 

[Z1ggy]

ProfessorGuy[/url]":1syirwwj]

...said person's name, address, telephone number...

Wait, you people are giving Google your actual true information? Why would anyone ever do that?

google has my actual true information.

Why should i lie? I use their product quiet frequently.

 

[HeadintheClouds]

Saikaici[/url]":2f38tfn6]Reviewer Witch Hunts: The Lawyer's equivalent to a Newscaster's slow news day.

He'll have a good future in a Trump presidency

 

[JWoody907]

IntergalacticWalrus[/url]":33dswi1t]Kudos to this lawyer for being helpful at letting us know he's garbage and should be avoided.

I wonder if we'd all get sued if we went and gave him 1-star reviews with comments like:
"I find his petty, self-serving narcissism to be completely off-putting. His aggressive pursuit of internet commenters that don't agree with him is devoid of any sense of decency and justice. Overall I judge him to be the lowest form of life, and I say that realizing that he already started near the bottom just by being a lawyer."

 

[CatsRidingRoombas]

I just love how the bad ones try to take their critics to court, only to humiliate themselves by doing so. This isn't how to solve problems, but it's pretty effective at creating even more problems.

 

[taswyn]

Hmm.







Doesn't seem like a very good attorney? [0/5]



I mean, in filing this case, his grasp of defamation law at the least seems… worth questioning.

One does wonder if he would find such comments, such opining questions, to be defamatory.

One equally wonders if this attorney, who is worried over finding a way to somehow remove such a comment, has any familiarity with SLAPP laws.

It would be interesting if, in digging this hole, he found himself in a form of remedial course on them. A different sort of Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, if you will.

 

[Death_wish01]

isn't there a law that reviewers can't be sued now? so this entire case is a waste of time and effort.

 

[fryhole]

A New York lawyer has gone to court to unmask an anonymous person who on Google gave him a one-star review that solely said "it was horrible."

What the lawyer needs to do is sue to force Google to eliminate the 1 - 2 and 3 star ratings and ONLY allow for 4 and 5 star ratings -- period. Then nobody will be giving 1 - 2 and 3 start ratings anymore.

 

[SplatMan_DK]

ProfessorGuy[/url]":5xdz2z4v]

...said person's name, address, telephone number...

Wait, you people are giving Google your actual true information? Why would anyone ever do that?

Assigning a credit card to your account pretty much guarantees that.

An Android phone without Play Store is sort of like ... a hamburger without the beef ... something important is missing!

 

[fryhole]

The posting itself is, moreover, highly defamatory since the assertion that 'it was horrible" (with absolutely no revelation of what the "it" was or might be) is not a mere statement of opinion but is instead one that on its face implies that it is based upon facts that justify the stated opinion, but which facts are left wholly unknown to those reading or hearing such an opinion. As such it is, under the axiomatic case law doctrine that is to be set forth in this Petition and in the accompanying papers, a plainly actionable "mixed opinion" that, additionally, serves to disparage a person in his profession, rendering it libelous per se.

What this sounds like is that Tobias' business is so fucking bad that he has so much free time on his hands that he's so fucking bored and has nothing better to do than to waste court time and tax payer money on stupid shit. Is this assnut high and drunk ?

The judge needs to slap him w/ a cease and desist order and threaten to bar this clown on gorunds of stupidity. Then charge him ALL court costs in the matter.

The lawyer suspects that whoever wrote the review might have been commenting about a Cornell University professor who has the same name and who reportedly jumped in front of a subway train and died. In a letter to Google's legal department asking for the review to be removed, Tobias said (PDF), "I am an innocent victim of a purported but highly damaging ‘review’ that was posted, in all probability by mistake, by someone that I do not know and with whom I have had no relationship of any kind."

This just makes him even more of a douche to sit there and admit that the poster might have mixed up him for a dead University Prof then cries defamation lawsuit. Just makes my above point more valid.

 

[Sancticide]

Chmilz[/url]":13skp8vp]Dear lawyer: I am a marketer. From one professional to another, please listen to us when we say stop doing dumb shit like this if you want to have future clients. Also, if you don't like negative reviews, stop being a shitty lawyer/person.

"Well, I was going to hire this one lawyer, but then I saw that 'It was horrible' review, without any reasons or explanations, and I immediately changed my mind and hired some other guy." -- No One Ever

Who in their right mind takes 1-star ratings seriously, when they are this barebones? I mean, it couldn't have been THAT horrible, if the troll can't even describe the friggin' problem.

 

[SplatMan_DK]

Faustius23[/url]":1btgfhu2]

zarmanto[/url]":1btgfhu2]

theycallmetatersalad[/url]":1btgfhu2]What a douchebag. Hope he gets buried under bad reviews.

Apparently, that is already underway; as of this post, there are seven reviews of the lawyer in question, and the five new ones are all one-star reviews directly responding to this situation. The Streisand Effect has indeed been invoked.

(When will these people learn?)

... And I just marked them as helpful reviews. Didn't leave my own because you know, lawyers.

Ditto ... though I am still considering leaving a review, since as an EU citizen there is hardly anything he can do to "sue" me

 

[Derecho Imminent]

RickFromTexas[/url]":idbdxymc]I just love how the bad ones try to take their critics to court, only to humiliate themselves by doing so. This isn't how to solve problems, but it's pretty effective at creating even more problems.

Well, technically he hasnt taken the reviewer to court. Just asked for their name.

 

[drouu]

well, this is working out REALLY WELL for him. that one star review has a lot more stars for company, now.

 

[Davebo]

lawyers suck. A review....

 

[fknuckles]

Can't help but feel Ars commenters are overreacting here.

The guy simply wqnts the review removed. We can all agree It's a useless review and since Google refused, this is his next attempt to unmask the person.

 

[issor]

vlam[/url]":1o55ea2j]

issor[/url]":1o55ea2j]

vlam[/url]":1o55ea2j]

issor[/url]":1o55ea2j]This issue aside, I wonder how someone DOES go about remedying reviews that are placed against the wrong thing. If the review really was intended for the other "Donald J Tobias", or if the review is for Thai restaurant A but posted on Thai restaurant B, which is across the street, does Google care? That sort of thing must happen all the time.

How many Thai restaurants do you have!?

Google says 7 thai restaurants within 10 minutes of my current location. I just picked on that because they tend to have similar names, Thai House, Thai Village, Thai Cafe, Sala Thai, Spicy Thai, Tasty Thai, etc, I could see people leaving reviews on the wrong one.

Or similar, leaving a review of poor management for the wrong franchise of a chain.

Holy shitsnacks. That's a lot of Thai restaurants. Do you live in the middle of a large city?

Nope, suburban Utah. It's kind of weird how much they cater to eating out here. I'm not sure if it's the low cost of living or what, but we've got all sorts of things like In-n-Out, who have historically been against expanding out of California, and also things like Zaxbys, an entirely southern/eastern chain. Lots of options. I half expect a Skyline to pop up one of these days.

 

[DameonK]

fknuckles[/url]":2k94kpgg]Can't help but feel Ars commenters are overreacting here.

The guy simply wqnts the review removed. We can all agree It's a useless review and since Google refused, this is his next attempt to unmask the person.

Yea, I'm actually with you here. If that 1 star review brings down his overall total, it could have an impact on future business.
Also, if it actually was a mistake, then all the more reason it should be removed.
I don't see what's so bad about this guy trying to clear his name the right and legal way. /shrugs

 

[Saikaici]

fknuckles[/url]":2cf09iwi]Can't help but feel Ars commenters are overreacting here.

The guy simply wqnts the review removed. We can all agree It's a useless review and since Google refused, this is his next attempt to unmask the person.

Yeah, but instead of instigating legal action he could just grow up and realize that some people do stupid things. Instead of trying to do better, he's wasting time and energy chasing someone over a bad review. Plus, things will average out over time.

 

[loquacio]

fknuckles[/url]":2cgn4koe]Can't help but feel Ars commenters are overreacting here.

The guy simply wqnts the review removed. We can all agree It's a useless review and since Google refused, this is his next attempt to unmask the person.

So the next bag of dicks that comes along can use this as precedent when they want to harass a reviewer?

"It was horrible" is clearly a subjective opinion. If Ms Arce posted something like "Donald J Tobias kidnaps and eats orphans" he might have a point, since "Donald J Tobias kidnaps and eats orphans" is a factual statement and he can presumably demonstrate that "Donald J Tobias kidnaps and eats orphans" is false.

 

[fknuckles]

loquacio[/url]":2btukfb1]

fknuckles[/url]":2btukfb1]Can't help but feel Ars commenters are overreacting here.

The guy simply wqnts the review removed. We can all agree It's a useless review and since Google refused, this is his next attempt to unmask the person.

So the next bag of dicks that comes along can use this as precedent when they want to harass a reviewer?

"It was horrible" is clearly a subjective opinion. If Ms Arce posted something like "Donald J Tobias kidnaps and eats orphans" he might have a point, since "Donald J Tobias kidnaps and eats orphans" is a factual statement and he can presumably demonstrate that "Donald J Tobias kidnaps and eats orphans" is false.

One would imagine that the judges are reasonably competent and won't rule in his favour without merit.

This is what courts are for, right?

 

[Faustius23]

What's telling is that for a guy who puts so much value in Google reviews, he only has one good one (excepting the recent ones related to his action against Google).

If he's so concerned, why not ask former clients to give him a review? As long as he's not knocking money off their legal fees, and generating paid endorsements, I don't see a problem with that.

That there is only one leads me to suspect he doesn't have any satisfied clients.

 

[TheSeventhDay]

iknowthenumber[/url]":3p4015ut]"Mia Arce" is an anagram for America. It was the US government. They're out to get you, Tobias!

Or pronounce it like "My Arse".

 

[Akemi]

puppies[/url]":10ovvutb]

the lawyer, who said he doesn't know anybody named "Mia Arce"

whooosh!

Can't wait to see this lawyer with Dixon Hand.

Whoosh, indeed.

 

[malor]

J.King[/url]":243f0de9]Which came first, the egg or the chicken?

The egg, laid by something that wasn't quite a chicken.

 

[Velma Velvet]

Nothing is more disparaging to your reputation than bullying a reviewer. What a moron this lawyer is and now everybody knows. He'll probably sue me too now.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

Playing devils advocate, I hope we can all agree that if it was a review put up by his competition that shouldn't be allowed. I think he should be allowed to at least find out that much information.

 

[CZakalwe]

blingting[/url]":269duufy]

adamrussell[/url]":269duufy]Honestly, google shouldnt allow vague reviews like this. He should be allowed to request it be removed. If you want to criticize someone, tell them what they did wrong.

It's kind of surprising that Google wouldn't take down such an obvious troll review. Unless of course the guy doing the asking was a massive, massive douche.

Yes that's my pick too - he probably came on all big shot tough guy with threats and someone at Google didn't like that and decided to tell him to go fsck himself.

If he'd been pleasant and asked nicely they probably would have complied.

 

[CZakalwe]

malor[/url]":i65mnskd]

J.King[/url]":i65mnskd]Which came first, the egg or the chicken?

The egg, laid by something that wasn't quite a chicken.

The egg laid all over a lawyers face!

 

[truthyboy15]

no wonder the twert is suing because he makes all his money screwing the little guy.