Pets Warehouse Lawsuit

[MattM]

As was mentioned here a while back, Pets Warehouse has filed a $15 million lawsuit against several individuals who posted in an online forum that PetsWarehouse.com had poor service.

A web site has now been set up with all the details in a easier to read format: http://216.168.47.67/psw/Default.html

Check it out.

 

[Mike02]

Can you be successfully sued for giving an honest opinion for poor service? Maybe these defendants were defaming petswarehouse for no reason? just wondering because i have a beef with UPS ...who refuse to leave packages at apartments (unlocked apt buildings they say). At least this is company policy in the DC area according to several employees i talked to. the only apt buildings with locks and gaurds around here are the $2000+/mo apts. but i wont mention it here because i dont wanna be sued.

 

[Jrsydevi1]

How DARE this prick attempt to curtail our right and/or willingness to freely express our opinions!

Mr. Novack, if you don't like what some people have to say about your business practices, then you should be counting on the (assumed) majority of your satisfied customers to come to your defense..
Thats the way it works in a public opinion forum, you moron.
Instead you would waste MY tax dollars AND the court's time with a ridiculous, frivolous lawsuit attempting to indimidate the public from making any negative comments about your company...
You say "Don't like the way I do business? Keep it to yourself or else get a lawyer and defend a 15 million dollar lawsuit."

I say **** YOU.

You are about to learn a lesson about what it means to live and do business in a FREE COUNTRY!

You would attempt to undermine our right of free speech which was fought for and won through the blood of our forefathers..

George Washington spits at you.

Benjamin Franklin hefts his formidable ass in your direction and passes wind.

Thomas Jefferson wishes he was still alive so he could kick your ass.

And Patrick Henry flips you the bird from beyond the grave..

And so do we...

 

[Nathan1]

Can these unfortunate defendents counter-sue?

-Nathan

[ August 31, 2001: Message edited by: Nathan ]

 

[naesco]

jrsydevil1
Thank you for having the courage to set out what everyone is thinking who takes the time to read the web site.
It should be required reading for everyone to spend one minute reading the affidavit under "Court Docket"

 

[Anonymous]

We all do relize that freedom of speech only protects us from being persued by our government and even then there are exceptions such as making threats to the Presidents life or inciting a riot.

Any private citizen has the right to sue anyone for defamation of character. Of course the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff.

I do not agree with this man but he is very much within his rights, I also read on this board he unsuccessfully sued Petwarehouse over trademark infringement. Some people have more money than they know what to do with and a very short fuse.

 

[monkeyboy]

Thats so ridiculous, he won't win and hes going to lose ALOT of business. I hope no one shops there again regardless if his plants are crappy or not. He's definitely losing more business by sueing than he did from those posts.

Maybe Sprung will look up the old marine snow debate, he could make billions.

 

[Odd Ball]

It depends on what state the lawsuit was filed. If in New York, he very well could win. No disrespect to anyone who lives there, but I sometimes wonder who has a more screwed up state. California or New York...

Regarding Sprung and that whole mess. I'd wager not. Both parties there are very well respected in our community. Neither has lost credit or business, AND a lab did break down the food product and content vs. listed contents on said product bottle vs others.

However, regarding this thread. It should not win and it should never be let it court.

 

[tetra]

arrrgggggg!!!!!!!!!!!!!what an idiot. Is that how one do business? I wish the defendants lucks and will pray for them. At least now I know where i am not going to shop. Jrsydevil1, well said.

 

[esmithiii]

I read the complaint and the court docket. If the defendants have decent attornies and any reasonable amount of facts supporting their views then they should be fine. I can't believe that someone would waste so much time and money instead of simply FIXING the root problem!

E

 

[bandari]

What a counry,, I'm not American and I always thought that people could speak freely here. It is very sad that is going to the court because somebody said something about his company. I don't know what they said but still there should not be a reason for his act. I buy alot of things from that company but now they lost me and my wife.

 

[AnotherGoldenTeapot]

Well this isn't all that out of the ordinary in the US is it?

That's why so many people choose to live in other countries.

 

[dkreef]

maybe the defendant was a competitor who complained for no reason??

maybe a possibility?

 

[Colin Smith]

Not like Pets Warehouse didn't have a bad rep BEFORE this.

I just want to reiterate that we are talking about petS Warehouse and not PET (no 'S') Warehouse. I've not had any problems in my experiences with PET Warehouse.

--Colin

 

[XXX]

YES, make note that this is not Pet Warehouse. They are an outstanding company which I have done business with for years.

 

[MattM]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dkreef:
<strong>maybe the defendant was a competitor who complained for no reason??</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, not likely. There are a number of defendants. This is what they posted on a mailing list: (cut and paste from the complaint document)

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>
"Thinking of buying plants from Pet Warehouse? Don't. What is crappy is their service! And they're maybe even A bit dishonest." (Defendant Dan Resler-May 15, 2001)

"as a source for purchasing plants, they do not have a good reputation" (Defendant Jared Weinberger-May 21, 2001)

"But you don't have to take my word as the last word on their horrible service. Feeling lucky? Go ahead - try them out yourselves. After all, it's only your time and money, right?" (Defendant Dan Resler-May 18, 2001)

"They claim to fill 90% of the orders. Well I can tell everyone it's more like 20%. Or less. If at all." (Defendant Thomas BarrMay 17, 2001)

"G[E]iven the continual flow of negative comments about PetSwarehouse that I've read for nearly two years on this list, I've decided to add a warning (and figure this is better than simply removing them." (Defendant WeinbergerMay 18, 2001)

"Remember petSWEARhouse, buy their plants and you'll be swearing!" (May 22, 2001)

"I believe they call that deceptive advertising. Or bait-and-switch. Take your pick." (Defendant Sean Carney-May 16, 2001)
<hr></blockquote>

Pets Warehouse sued all of them, the moderator of the mailing list, the owner of the web site that post the mailing list digest, and anyone else that might have said anything bad about them (listed as "John Doe" and "Mary Roe" on the complaint).

 

[albee1947]

Its not what you say, but how you say it. What gives us the right to say negative things about a company is the same right they have to defend themselves, by what ever means. Saying things like

"They claim to fill 90% of the orders. Well I can tell everyone it's more like 20%. Or less. If at all." (Defendant Thomas BarrMay 17, 2001)"

Where did he get this info from? can he defend this statement or did he pull it from his ass. Know what you say or pay the penalty. If things are said about a person or comapny and you can prove it, " if it goes to court" then you can win damages in a counter suit. I for one do not like nor will buy from lousy e-tailers, but if you check out all the replies, most e-tailers have their critics.

AGTEAPOT, if these people want to live in other countries, than don't let the door hit them in the ass as they leave.

Devil, Using the word Prick is ok, if you prick your finger, your way might get you sued. I know what your going to say, let him try!!. lawyers cost a fortune to defend you, try " How dare this weenie! I'd like to see that go to court.


[

[ November 12, 2001: Message edited by: albee1947 ]</p>

 

[chris_h]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by albee1947:
<strong>Its not what you say, but how you say it. What gives us the right to say negative things about a company is the same right they have to defend themselves, by what ever means. Saying things like

"They claim to fill 90% of the orders. Well I can tell everyone it's more like 20%. Or less. If at all." (Defendant Thomas BarrMay 17, 2001)"

Where did he get this info from? can he defend this statement or did he pull it from his ass. Know what you say or pay the penalty. If things are said about a person or comapny and you can prove it, " if it goes to court" then you can win damages in a counter suit. I for one do not like nor will buy from lousy e-tailers, but if you check out all the replies, most e-tailers have their critics.

: albee1947 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, but can we prove that GARF's pictures are not real. We might be in trouble.

 

[davelin315]

I would say that it looks like a pretty frivolous law suit to me. Compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000.00? Selling plants?!?!?! I'm in the wrong business!

 

[Anonymous]

What a load of crap!