HOW TO REMOVE FROM FINANCESCAM

What does the law say about Our Liability?

At FinanceScam.com, we do not remove user-generated reports, and as a result, we have faced numerous lawsuits stemming from content created and posted by our users. If you are contemplating legal action against FinanceScam.com due to a report you believe to be defamatory, please be informed that, to date, we have never lost such a case (with one exception, which is addressed separately). This unbroken record is due to the protections afforded by a federal statute known as the Communications Decency Act (CDA), codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Given that this law may not be widely understood, we provide the following explanation to clarify its implications, along with a caution that filing frivolous lawsuits can lead to serious consequences for both plaintiffs and their legal counsel.

What is the Communications Decency Act?

The CDA is a cornerstone of U.S. federal law designed to regulate online content liability. For a detailed history, refer to the excellent Wikipedia article available at: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. In essence, the CDA establishes that interactive websites, such as FinanceScam.com, are not legally accountable for material posted by their users. Specifically, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) states:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

This means that when a user authors and posts content on FinanceScam.com, we are not considered the "publisher or speaker" of that content under the law. Consequently, we bear no liability for user-generated reports, even if they contain false or inaccurate information. Note that while we occasionally produce editorial comments or other material, such instances are clearly identified as our own. This legal protection extends to other prominent platforms like Facebook, MySpace, and Craigslist, where users? not site operators? are responsible for the content they post.

Why Does This Law Exist?

The rationale behind the CDA is straightforward. Interactive websites cannot reasonably monitor or verify the accuracy of the vast amount of information users choose to share. If websites were held liable for content they did not create, the threat of lawsuits would discourage them from allowing user posts altogether, severely curtailing free speech and the open exchange of information online. As recognized in Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2003):

Making interactive computer services and their users liable for the speech of third parties would severely restrict the information available on the Internet. Section 230 [of the CDA] therefore sought to prevent lawsuits from shutting down websites and other services on the Internet."

What This Means for You

If someone posts false or defamatory information about you on FinanceScam.com, the CDA prohibits you from holding us liable for those statements. While you may pursue legal action against the individual author of the content, FinanceScam.com cannot be sued merely for providing a platform for expression. We strongly advise considering the legal protections outlined here before initiating any action, as baseless lawsuits can result in significant repercussions for all involved parties.

Are we required to verify all claims made in a report?

Traditional media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcast networks, are typically required to conduct a reasonable degree of fact-checking prior to publishing content. Failure to do so may result in liability for any inaccuracies or defamatory statements. FinanceScam.com does not operate as a traditional media outlet like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, or NBC Nightly News.

Such traditional media entities possess the resources and capabilities to verify the accuracy of their content before publication and, consequently, are legally obligated to do so. Accordingly, the law imposes a duty upon reporters and publishers of traditional media to ensure the veracity of their publications.

However, this legal framework is not applicable to free, user-generated content platforms such as FinanceScam.com, which continuously receives a high volume of user-submitted reports. Imposing a requirement for FinanceScam.com to verify the accuracy of each and every user-submitted claim would render the operation of the site impracticable, if not impossible.

Recognizing the importance of preserving free speech on the internet, Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to shield interactive computer services like FinanceScam.com from liability for user-generated content.

Our response to Trademark and Copyright Claims

The use of a trademark in a metatag linked to a consumer complaint against the trademark owner is generally not unlawful. Under trademark law, including the Lanham Act and common-law principles, liability requires the alleged infringer to be a competitor of the trademark owner. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 242 F.3d 539, 560 (5th Cir. 2001). In Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005), the court ruled that trademark law did not apply where the parties were not competitors and no consumer confusion arose. Likewise, FinanceScam.com?s use of trademarks is permissible unless viewers would confuse it with the trademark owner?s site. The site employs trademarks in metatags for search engine indexing, which does not violate trademark rights absent deceptive use or confusion. See Designer Skin, L.L.C. v. S & L Vitamins, Inc., 560 F.Supp.2d 811, 818-19 (D.Ariz. 2008). Without competitive harm, trademark law does not restrict such use for criticism or discussion.

Regarding Copyright Claims made against our platform, nealy 100% of the user-submitted content is a critical review, and falls under the fair use policy. Fair use is an exception to this rule, allowing limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes like education, criticism, or parody. Whether fair use applies depends on four factors: the purpose of the use (commercial or transformative), the nature of the work (factual or creative), the amount used, and the effect on the market for the original. For example, quoting a small part of a book in a review is likely fair use, while uploading an entire movie is not. Since fair use depends on context, it?s not a blanket rule, and misjudging it can lead to legal issues.

If you're unsure, it's always best to consult a legal expert.