|
|
| Reputation management companies often attempt to make a bad problem much worse for carriers and fleet owners via the Internet, Nationwide! |
Just because there is a post (good or bad), about carriers or fleet owners aligned with expedite carriers does not make it true!
Victim of a carrier mishandling? Want justice?
Expedite Forums is a Expedite industry wide Expedited owner operator reporting Web site and publication, by expedited owner operators, to file and document complaints about carriers or other owner operators and fleet owners. While we encourage and even require authors to only file truthful reports, Expedite Forums does not guarantee that all reports are authentic or accurate. Be an educated owner operator. Read what you can and make your decision based upon an examination of all available information.
Unlike the Better Business Bureau, Expedite Forums does not hide reports of "satisfied" complaints. ALL complaints remain public and unedited in order to create a working history on the company or individual in question.
Expedite Forums cover every category imaginable! You can Browse the latest reports, search the reports, or submit your report now for FREE, by clicking on File Report.
Don't believe everything you read about ANY carrier or fleet owner and here's why! Even something wonderful. That's right even something positive.
A good posting regarding a relationship between an OOP and a carrier may not yield the same results with you because you may not run your business like they did, resulting in their positive experience. Therefore, you may not have the same positive experience.
If you read a negative post, it also should not be taken as the gospel because whatever caused that problem or complaint, will most likely NOT be repeated identically by you, therefore, you are unlikely not to have the same circumstances happen making you unhappy.
Most posts, usually the negative ones about carriers do not contain EVERY detail and are always ONE SIDED and are normally meant to bash the carriers at any & every level. Often exaggerations take place in an effort to get even with the carrier and cause damage to their reputation.
We have often found many complaints to be fabricated (to some extent or another) and often purely vindictive in nature, in an effort to get even with a carrier regardless of truthfulness.
The best thing is to not get into situations that cause rifts with carriers in the first place. The same applies in every business relationship.
Criticism and controversy
Some aspects of the Expediting Forum have been the subject of significant criticism. Some of this criticism has resulted in litigation against the site. The Expediting Forum maintains a section on the site devoted to discussing many of these issues and explaining the site's position as to each issue.
Corporate Advocacy Program and Extortion Claims
Some of the harshest criticism is focused on Expediting Forums "Corporate Advocacy, Business Remediation & Owner Operator Satisfaction Program" which has been described by some as a form of extortion. The operation of the program is described in detail on the Expediting Forums Corporate Advocacy Program manual. The program requires carriers to pay a fee to Expediting Forum in exchange for which the site will act as an intermediary between the company and any unhappy Owner Operator who have posted complaints on the Expediting Forum site. Carriers and unhappy OOPs who join the program (and not every carrier or OOP joins) must agree to meet certain conditions including a promise to make a real effort to make the other side happy when requested. In return, while existing NEGATIVE reports are never removed from any forums, the Expediting Forums moderator , James Hildebrand, will update the titles of reports to reflect that the company has joined the program and has made a commitment to increasing Owner Operator satisfaction.
Our moderator is willing to Arbitrate any complaints between owner operators & carriers in an effort to help achieve a compromise between owner operators & carriers.
On July 19, 2010, a federal court in Los Angeles, California entered an order granting partial summary judgment in favor of another similar FORUM in a case which alleged that their Corporate Advocacy Program was "extortion" and that the program violated federal racketeering laws. The court's order in Asia Economic Institute, LLC v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, Case No. 10-CV-01360 stated that their Corporate Advocacy Program was not extortion under California law because, "The offer to help Plaintiffs restore their reputation and facilitate resolution with the complainants in exchange for a fee does not constitute a threat under California Penal Code § 519." Based on the determination that the services offered by another similar FORUM does not constitute extortion, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the other similar FORUM as to the plaintiffs' extortion claim.
Litigation involving Communications Decency Act immunity According to a United States law called the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c), web sites like the Expediting Forums are protected from most forms of civil liability arising from user-generated content. This protection applies even if the web site hosts material which is false and even if the site does not take any steps to investigate content prior to publication or remove content after receiving notice that the material is false. Protection also extends to editorial changes made by the web site operator itself, as long as such editing does not alter the meaning of the original third-party content.
Many lawsuits have been filed against a similar FORUM claiming the sites do not qualify for protection under the CDA or that such protection has been lost due to its alleged solicitation of sometimes defamatory content, its refusal to remove content which is false, and its alleged alteration and/or modification of reports or their titles. For a variety of reasons, none of these cases have ever reached trial.
In one frequently cited case, a federal court in Texas in MCW, Inc. v. Badbusinessbureau.com LLC, 2004 WL 833595 (N.D.Tex. 2004) held that similar FORUM may not be entitled to CDA immunity. This part of the ruling was based on the fact that the plaintiff claimed that similar FORUM itself created defamatory material as opposed to simply hosting material created by a third party. Based on these allegations, the court determined that CDA immunity would not apply because, "Contrary to the defendants' arguments, MCW is not seeking to hold the defendants liable for merely publishing information provided by a third party. Rather, MCW is seeking relief because the defendants themselves create, develop, and post original, defamatory information concerning [the plaintiff]." MCW, 2004 WL 833595, *9.
Critics of the similar FORUM sometimes claim that the similar FORUM "lost" the MCW case. However, after finding that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to overcome CDA immunity, the court in MCW found that it lacked jurisdiction and the case was dismissed on that basis. According to a summary of the case from the Citizen Media Law Project, the plaintiff "MCW appealed the ruling, but later voluntarily dismissed its appeal."
Other notable cases involving a similar FORUM include the following:
Intellect Art Multimedia, Inc. v. Milewski, 2009 WL 2915273 (N.Y.Sup. Sept. 11, 2009) (claims against a similar FORUM dismissed for failure to state a claim due to CDA immunity); GW Equity, LLC v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 2009 WL 62173 (N.D.Tex. 2009). The Texas district court found that under the Communications Decency Act, Congress granted most Internet services immunity from liability for publishing false or defamatory material so long as the information was provided by another party." The similar FORUM was protected even though it offers pull-down menus and manipulates user-submitted reports. The court dismissed the case. In reviewing the ruling, GW Equity objections were overruled, and the magistrate recommendations were upheld in total affirming summary judgment dismissal in favor of the similar FORUM
Global Royalties, Ltd. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 544 F.Supp.2d 929 (D.Ariz. 2008) (claims against a similar FORUM dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) without leave to amend based on CDA immunity);
Whitney Info. Network, Inc. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 2008 WL 450095; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11632 (M.D.Fla. Feb. 15, 2008) (summary judgment entered in favor of a similar FORUM based on CDA immunity).
Other Lawsuits Against a similar FORUM
Many companies have sued a similar FORUM which answers many frequently asked questions about its operations and explains the details of some of the lawsuits in which it has prevailed.
A lawsuit was filed against a similar FORUM in New York in January 2010 seeking $11 million in damages. The complaint also asserts claims against a similar FORUM and against Google.
On February 2, 2010, another complaint was filed against a similar FORUM . The action seeks damages of $1 million, an injunction, and "other relief".
On February 11, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in Georgia. The entire complaint appears to have been copied verbatim from another case.
So far, none of these cases have ever gone to trial. Some prior suits can be reviewed at Citizen Media Law Project.
Lawsuits have also been filed against a similar FORUM accusing it of RICO violations including:
On January 27, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against a similar FORUM in California, accusing the similar FORUM of "attempted extortion" and RICO Act violations, among other claims.
On March 12, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against a similar FORUM in New Jersey. The complaint includes claims for RICO/extortion and seeks damages of $33,333,333.00.
Domain Name Disputes
Expediting Forums will automatically and occasionally taken action to shut down imposter sites by using ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy or UDRP. |
| |
|
|
