SCAM WATCH - Adding a new section to my blog

[Peanut Butter Man]

Hello,

Prompted by a post in this forum I am ready to add a Scam Watch section to my blog in which I can add companies that use dubious tactics to take money from the public and businesses.

I'm wondering though, while this may seem a good idea, could I run into any problems maybe with companies being wrongly accused of bad practice by competitors?

There is a world of information around both on line and other resources of naughty companies but what do you guys think? any advice would be good.

Thanks

 

[Swisaw]

Hello,

Prompted by a post in this forum I am ready to add a Scam Watch section to my blog in which I can add companies that use dubious tactics to take money from the public and businesses.

I'm wondering though, while this may seem a good idea, could I run into any problems maybe with companies being wrongly accused of bad practice by competitors?

There is a world of information around both on line and other resources of naughty companies but what do you guys think? any advice would be good.

Thanks

You can expose scam schemes without naming names. People will immediately recognise the scammer.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

As the publisher you would be liable for the content and thus if any falsehoods were made you would be the one carrying the can. You are unlikely to have any protection behind the libel legislation act as an internet publisher as you are both originator and publisher i.e. the can would be yours to carry.

 

[businessfunding]

As oldwelshguy has said. You are on dangerous legal territory

As a matter of opinion I would say that in many of the 'scams' that come up many are really a case of careless buying than scamming

In my definition a scam is where the vendor has no intent to deliver the service they say, or misrepresents it to the extent that it is meaningless.

In most cases the basic advice of 'font get your credit card out on the back of a cold call' would suffice

 

[Peanut Butter Man]

As the publisher you would be liable for the content and thus if any falsehoods were made you would be the one carrying the can. You are unlikely to have any protection behind the libel legislation act as an internet publisher as you are both originator and publisher i.e. the can would be yours to carry.

I am not thinking of being the originator and as a lot of blog posts the information would originate from somewhere else.

However, to be fair to those that are not scamming, I could take my information from the more reliable sources for example consumer groups in which many people post. In addition.

I wonder also if there is a difference to outright pointing the finger and just making it clear people are unhappy with the way that the company has gone about its business. People then could make up there own minds.

 

[MOIC]

Hello,

Prompted by a post in this forum I am ready to add a Scam Watch section to my blog in which I can add companies that use dubious tactics to take money from the public and businesses.

I'm wondering though, while this may seem a good idea, could I run into any problems maybe with companies being wrongly accused of bad practice by competitors?

There is a world of information around both on line and other resources of naughty companies but what do you guys think? any advice would be good.

Thanks

Why don't you direct the readers to the information in red above.

There are always discussions as well as informative posts used within these links.

Keeps you out of trouble to any possible litigation.

 

[Peanut Butter Man]

Why don't you direct the readers to the information in red above.

There are always discussions as well as informative posts used within these links.

Keeps you out of trouble to any possible litigation.

Good point

Thanks

 

[davidbcn]

Why don't you direct the readers to the information in red above.

There are always discussions as well as informative posts used within these links.

Keeps you out of trouble to any possible litigation.

Is that true? (IANAL)

"A website owner can be held liable for hyperlinks to another site which hosts defamatory material.The Claimant issued proceedings in defamation as to comments posted on a site richarddawkins.net forum, and on the reviews section of the Amazon website."

Source: Caruthers Law. website (unfortunately I can't post URLs yet)

 

[Bri]

I have to say that the definition of scam is very spurious when spoken about here, more probably rogue traders might be more pertinent. I have seen first hand how many so called enterpeneurs do not take the advice of the owners of the original business model and they tend to always know better and try and reinvent the wheel into 'buy my stuff'. This tactic prompts illicit selling and gives the impression right away that it's a scam to those they approach.