8 ms·

We’re Being Sued For Linking To Shopzilla

136 points by bubba1356 13y ago

lakey 13y ago
Beyond mental.
jacquesm 13y ago
That's a clever ploy to get some eyeballs out of a legal case that isn't worth the paper it is printed on. But if some company is hell bent on suing you for linking to them and you want to get mileage out of it by going to the media with the story you're going to have to weigh your options carefully. Just remove the link, problem goes away no need for legal representation and you get on with your life. Or you milk it for all it is worth, eventually go to court and you're vindicated in your laymans interpretation of the law. Or you find that the court - for whatever reason - sides with your opponent. Now you have a problem, and don't say it can not happen, there is no such thing as a slam-dunk lawsuit. Pick your battles, carefully and make sure that you make the right choice. In this particular case I think the plaintiff is dead wrong, they don't have a leg to stand on but it could still cost you a lot of time, money and effort to prove that and in the end it is their loss not yours if they lose their link. For more information: http://searchengineland.com/in-wake-of-penguin-could-you-be-sued-for-linking-to-others-121449 http://searchengineland.com/in-wake-of-penguin-could-you-be-...
- tmpk123 13y ago
  > Just remove the link, problem goes away no need for legal representation and you get on with your life. He mentions that they have removed the link. Datadial are able to play both sides of the game here I think; they've removed the link to placate the lawyers, but are also pointing the threat out publicly either for the media attention or because they feel they should (both are valid). Of course, I've no idea about the potential legalities involved in such naming-and-shaming...
- vacri 13y ago
  Personally, I'd be contacting the general manager or Shopzilla and asking them if they're aware of what their lawyer or legal department is doing. I've had run-ins with lawyers before who want to 'make their mark' by fucking with people against their own client's interest. If Shopzilla did want this, fine, fuck 'em, remove the link and move on with life. If they didn't want this, they now are aware that they have a maverick lawyer on the loose.
- tveita 13y ago
  They're not actually being sued, are they? That part seemed a bit dishonest to me. It looks like so far they have only been served a particularly obnoxious cease and desist letter.
  - chc 13y ago
    Indeed, that appears to be the case. It would be a hilarious irony if Shopzilla turned around and actually sued them for libel.
cybernoodles 13y ago
We REALLY need some tech folks to get in office and work on some legislation.
- beedogs 13y ago
  Too bad old age or disease is really the only realistic way to get most of these technophobe, computer-illiterate fossils out of legislature.
csmattryder 13y ago
First time I've seen a business not want to be given free advertising. But instead of just giving them a call (it's not difficult, they're both UK based) they're going to Streisand themselves some negative PR. I'll wait for the statement from Shopzilla's top brass, just to see if it's ran by 1000 monkeys on computers.
- moepstar 13y ago
  Obligatory Wikipedia link for people not knowing the "Streisand effect": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
lazyjones 13y ago
This is so absurd that it is probably a scam. You should make sure that "Fox Williams LLP" was actually the sender of this note and that they represent Shopzilla (you should contact them).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
DanBC 13y ago
The hyperbole and tone of the article is difficult to read through. Have you thought about writing a simple letter to the solicitors saying something like "Hello, you sent us a letter. Would you like to review our webpage here to see if we actually are infringing on your client's trademark? We seem to have been caught in some automatic system." Be careful about 'no legal reason to take down an url' - there are a few. DMCA requests, anti-deeplinking causes in ToS / AUP, etc etc. See the Shetland Times vs Shetland News.
- aroberge 13y ago
  DCMA request in the UK???
  - arb99 13y ago
    It only needs the host, registrar etc to be hosted in USA. In this particular case their domain is registered at safenames which have a US location: http://www.safenames.net/AboutUs/Locations.aspx http://www.safenames.net/AboutUs/Locations.aspx
drucken 13y ago
Why did Datadial then remove the link in the original article if believed they are irrefutably right? The jurisdiction is not even the litigant-friendly US, it is the UK...
- DanBC 13y ago
  > The jurisdiction is not even the litigant-friendly US, it is the UK... There was a case about 'deep linking' (and maybe framing?) from the early www. One Scottish news paper was linking to another Scottish newspaper. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deeplinking#Court_rulings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deeplinking#Court_rulings)
meric 13y ago
Amount of damages incurred from linking to ShopZilla in a post that praises the same company: Less than -$0. I guess they should send them an invoice.
moomin 13y ago
I know a couple of the people at Shopzilla, and they're not idiots. However, it should be borne in mind that Shopzilla belongs to EWScripps who aren't idiots either, but do have the money to prosecute a case for a very long time indeed if they are so inclined. Anyway, I'd recommend the same thing: contact them and see if the law firm does, in fact, represent them and isn't just 'Prenda Law'ing.
- Peroni 13y ago
  EWScripps sold Shopzilla to Symphony Technology Group a couple of years ago.
  - moomin 13y ago
    Thanks for the correction.
- danielweber 13y ago
  The Cleveland Browns set the standard here, in 1974. http://www.clevescene.com/64-and-counting/archives/2010/12/22/absolutely-epic-1974-letter-from-cleveland-browns-to-a-fan http://www.clevescene.com/64-and-counting/archives/2010/12/2...
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > I know a couple of the people at Shopzilla, and they're not idiots. And yet they are suing over a hyperlink? I'll judge them by their actions.
  - moomin 13y ago
    Well, they've apologised, explained what they were trying to do and sent wine and chocolates over. I've got sympathy for them here: spam sites linking to you is a serious problem. One day the spam site has (undeserved) link juice. The next, Google's ban hammer comes down and you get unfairly penalised.
smoyer 13y ago
I think the real crime in this story is L0.80 for a Twix!
- jnye131 13y ago
  Maybe it was a twix duo. Can we have a followup post?
- dan1234 13y ago
  And yet people still think twice before spending £0.69 on an app…
btipling 13y ago
Shopzilla probably has bad links that are driving down its SEO and page rank on Google and they are trying to get low quality sites to remove those bad links. It is totally OK for them to want to have links removed to their site, since some of them may be damaging their SEO and hence their earnings. Maybe the method used is a little over the top, but there is probably nothing wrong with their intentions. If someone asks you to remove a link to their site in a post where you criticized them, I would feel uncomfortable with it, but in this case you and them are acting in good faith, just remove the link. That they used a lawyer just means they really want you to remove the link. Edit: Uh oh, looks like this innocuous reply is not compatible with uncritical outraged HN readers looking to punish someone, anything for all the bad things Shopzilla has done to them and the world. Let the downvotes commence I guess.
- regularfry 13y ago
  It's OK for them to want links removed. It's entirely beyond the pail to be able to enforce removal at lawyer-point just because it's damaging their SEO. Why should their SEO efforts be protected by law from random passers-by? The law isn't there to protect their profits.
  - grey-area 13y ago
    It's entirely beyond the pail [sic] to be able to enforce removal It's beyond the pale (as in the paling fence surrounding a town, the pale of settlement, etc...).
    - regularfry 13y ago
      Ah! I was wondering which way round it was supposed to be.
  - btipling 13y ago
    Shopzilla just wants the links removed. This method has probably worked for them. They don't care if HN's never ending stream of daily outrage focuses on them for a short time (before moving on to a new thing to be outraged about tomorrow). They just want the links removed. I'm not defending them. I'm just trying to make sense out of it.
grey-area 13y ago
I suspect datadial know exactly what they're doing here - as revenge for this alleged petty act by the lawyers they're now google-bombing the term shopzilla (by deliberately including so many refs to shopzilla in this new blog post), and hoping to teach them a lesson about who is in control of links. They're already on the second page for a simple search for shopzilla, and I'd expect them to move up closer to the top if this gets more publicity and links in from other sites. Does it deserve it? A very strange attempt by Shopzilla in the first place to control links to them, so it would be interesting to hear their side of this story. I looked up datadial - they're a London SEO shop, and their original blog post is typical of SEO blogs - lots of links to random sites strung together into a blog post to boost their blog's ranking for that topic - ecommerce in this case. I have to wonder if this little storm in a teacup isn't more beneficial to them the more absurd it sounds and the stormier it gets - even if it dies down later the benefit will still be there for them. It's strange to see the court of public opinion function on sites like reddit and HN - the more controversial and snappier the original post, the more traction it gets, and nuances and truth are lost in the rush to condemn based on a very limited set of facts.
- scrabble 13y ago
  I caught on to that about halfway through the article -- as I'd imagine most readers did. It seems a bit much to me. Someone from Shopzilla responded in the comments with an apology and explanation of what had happened. Seemed good enough for me, mistakes do happen and I'd be surprised if this was started by Shopzilla with malicious intent.
  - darkarmani 13y ago
    > We flag up thousands of backlinks that are potentially spam I don't know if this is good enough. Isn't he basically admitting that they send out thousands of C&D orders for linking? He's just apologizing for picking on someone with the means to fight back against this bullying.
    - notatoad 13y ago
      Yeah, that sounds like a pretty bullshit apology. He's admitting that this is standard practice for them, and apologizing for getting caught.
chmike 13y ago
It is unfortunate, but the integration of a link inside a page may affect it's page rank in google search results. This is enough, in my opinion, to justify the concern of the link target owner and legitimate the request to get the link removed. However, the harm, if any, needs to be established and proven for a trial to be successful I guess.
- hluska 13y ago
  So, company A writes something accurate about company B. Company A's site is relatively new and the anchor text is something like 'click here'. Under your 'theory' company B would be entitled to go to court to force company A to remove the link. Two questions: - does that keep with the spirit of the web? - what happened to the concept of electronic freedom?? Needless to say, I think you're dead wrong.
AlexHamilton 13y ago
It looks like they have already retracted, apologised and offered wine and chocolate via the comments.
ValentineC 13y ago
This reminds me of a case where a (very large) law firm sued a news site for linking to them: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/02/linked_out.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...
paulhauggis 13y ago
Some years back, I had a guy try to tell me that an ordered list of common website links on his site was copyrighted (and that he would be suing me in court because I had those same links on my site). He even wanted a public apology. I, of course, ignored all of this and he went away. It's ridiculous what people will try to sue you about these days...
nkoren 13y ago
Dear DataDial: Paragraphs. They're a thing. Please learn how to use them. Your content is all but unreadable right now.

136 points by bubba1356 13y ago

lakey 13y ago

Beyond mental.

That's a clever ploy to get some eyeballs out of a legal case that isn't worth the paper it is printed on. But if some company is hell bent on suing you for linking to them and you want to get mileage out of it by going to the media with the story you're going to have to weigh your options carefully. Just remove the link, problem goes away no need for legal representation and you get on with your life. Or you milk it for all it is worth, eventually go to court and you're vindicated in your laymans interpretation of the law. Or you find that the court - for whatever reason - sides with your opponent. Now you have a problem, and don't say it can not happen, there is no such thing as a slam-dunk lawsuit. Pick your battles, carefully and make sure that you make the right choice. In this particular case I think the plaintiff is dead wrong, they don't have a leg to stand on but it could still cost you a lot of time, money and effort to prove that and in the end it is their loss not yours if they lose their link. For more information: http://searchengineland.com/in-wake-of-penguin-could-you-be-sued-for-linking-to-others-121449 http://searchengineland.com/in-wake-of-penguin-could-you-be-...

tmpk123 13y ago
> Just remove the link, problem goes away no need for legal representation and you get on with your life. He mentions that they have removed the link. Datadial are able to play both sides of the game here I think; they've removed the link to placate the lawyers, but are also pointing the threat out publicly either for the media attention or because they feel they should (both are valid). Of course, I've no idea about the potential legalities involved in such naming-and-shaming...
vacri 13y ago
Personally, I'd be contacting the general manager or Shopzilla and asking them if they're aware of what their lawyer or legal department is doing. I've had run-ins with lawyers before who want to 'make their mark' by fucking with people against their own client's interest. If Shopzilla did want this, fine, fuck 'em, remove the link and move on with life. If they didn't want this, they now are aware that they have a maverick lawyer on the loose.
tveita 13y ago
They're not actually being sued, are they? That part seemed a bit dishonest to me. It looks like so far they have only been served a particularly obnoxious cease and desist letter.
- chc 13y ago
  Indeed, that appears to be the case. It would be a hilarious irony if Shopzilla turned around and actually sued them for libel.

cybernoodles 13y ago

We REALLY need some tech folks to get in office and work on some legislation.

beedogs 13y ago
Too bad old age or disease is really the only realistic way to get most of these technophobe, computer-illiterate fossils out of legislature.

csmattryder 13y ago

First time I've seen a business not want to be given free advertising. But instead of just giving them a call (it's not difficult, they're both UK based) they're going to Streisand themselves some negative PR. I'll wait for the statement from Shopzilla's top brass, just to see if it's ran by 1000 monkeys on computers.

moepstar 13y ago
Obligatory Wikipedia link for people not knowing the "Streisand effect": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

lazyjones 13y ago

This is so absurd that it is probably a scam. You should make sure that "Fox Williams LLP" was actually the sender of this note and that they represent Shopzilla (you should contact them).

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

DanBC 13y ago

The hyperbole and tone of the article is difficult to read through. Have you thought about writing a simple letter to the solicitors saying something like "Hello, you sent us a letter. Would you like to review our webpage here to see if we actually are infringing on your client's trademark? We seem to have been caught in some automatic system." Be careful about 'no legal reason to take down an url' - there are a few. DMCA requests, anti-deeplinking causes in ToS / AUP, etc etc. See the Shetland Times vs Shetland News.

aroberge 13y ago
DCMA request in the UK???
- arb99 13y ago
  It only needs the host, registrar etc to be hosted in USA. In this particular case their domain is registered at safenames which have a US location: http://www.safenames.net/AboutUs/Locations.aspx http://www.safenames.net/AboutUs/Locations.aspx

drucken 13y ago

Why did Datadial then remove the link in the original article if believed they are irrefutably right? The jurisdiction is not even the litigant-friendly US, it is the UK...

DanBC 13y ago
> The jurisdiction is not even the litigant-friendly US, it is the UK... There was a case about 'deep linking' (and maybe framing?) from the early www. One Scottish news paper was linking to another Scottish newspaper. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deeplinking#Court_rulings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deeplinking#Court_rulings)

meric 13y ago

Amount of damages incurred from linking to ShopZilla in a post that praises the same company: Less than -$0. I guess they should send them an invoice.

moomin 13y ago

I know a couple of the people at Shopzilla, and they're not idiots. However, it should be borne in mind that Shopzilla belongs to EWScripps who aren't idiots either, but do have the money to prosecute a case for a very long time indeed if they are so inclined. Anyway, I'd recommend the same thing: contact them and see if the law firm does, in fact, represent them and isn't just 'Prenda Law'ing.

Peroni 13y ago
EWScripps sold Shopzilla to Symphony Technology Group a couple of years ago.
- moomin 13y ago
  Thanks for the correction.
danielweber 13y ago
The Cleveland Browns set the standard here, in 1974. http://www.clevescene.com/64-and-counting/archives/2010/12/22/absolutely-epic-1974-letter-from-cleveland-browns-to-a-fan http://www.clevescene.com/64-and-counting/archives/2010/12/2...
darkarmani 13y ago
> I know a couple of the people at Shopzilla, and they're not idiots. And yet they are suing over a hyperlink? I'll judge them by their actions.
- moomin 13y ago
  Well, they've apologised, explained what they were trying to do and sent wine and chocolates over. I've got sympathy for them here: spam sites linking to you is a serious problem. One day the spam site has (undeserved) link juice. The next, Google's ban hammer comes down and you get unfairly penalised.

smoyer 13y ago

I think the real crime in this story is L0.80 for a Twix!

jnye131 13y ago
Maybe it was a twix duo. Can we have a followup post?
dan1234 13y ago
And yet people still think twice before spending £0.69 on an app…

btipling 13y ago

Shopzilla probably has bad links that are driving down its SEO and page rank on Google and they are trying to get low quality sites to remove those bad links. It is totally OK for them to want to have links removed to their site, since some of them may be damaging their SEO and hence their earnings. Maybe the method used is a little over the top, but there is probably nothing wrong with their intentions. If someone asks you to remove a link to their site in a post where you criticized them, I would feel uncomfortable with it, but in this case you and them are acting in good faith, just remove the link. That they used a lawyer just means they really want you to remove the link. Edit: Uh oh, looks like this innocuous reply is not compatible with uncritical outraged HN readers looking to punish someone, anything for all the bad things Shopzilla has done to them and the world. Let the downvotes commence I guess.

regularfry 13y ago
It's OK for them to want links removed. It's entirely beyond the pail to be able to enforce removal at lawyer-point just because it's damaging their SEO. Why should their SEO efforts be protected by law from random passers-by? The law isn't there to protect their profits.
- grey-area 13y ago
  It's entirely beyond the pail [sic] to be able to enforce removal It's beyond the pale (as in the paling fence surrounding a town, the pale of settlement, etc...).
  - regularfry 13y ago
    Ah! I was wondering which way round it was supposed to be.
- btipling 13y ago
  Shopzilla just wants the links removed. This method has probably worked for them. They don't care if HN's never ending stream of daily outrage focuses on them for a short time (before moving on to a new thing to be outraged about tomorrow). They just want the links removed. I'm not defending them. I'm just trying to make sense out of it.

grey-area 13y ago

I suspect datadial know exactly what they're doing here - as revenge for this alleged petty act by the lawyers they're now google-bombing the term shopzilla (by deliberately including so many refs to shopzilla in this new blog post), and hoping to teach them a lesson about who is in control of links. They're already on the second page for a simple search for shopzilla, and I'd expect them to move up closer to the top if this gets more publicity and links in from other sites. Does it deserve it? A very strange attempt by Shopzilla in the first place to control links to them, so it would be interesting to hear their side of this story. I looked up datadial - they're a London SEO shop, and their original blog post is typical of SEO blogs - lots of links to random sites strung together into a blog post to boost their blog's ranking for that topic - ecommerce in this case. I have to wonder if this little storm in a teacup isn't more beneficial to them the more absurd it sounds and the stormier it gets - even if it dies down later the benefit will still be there for them. It's strange to see the court of public opinion function on sites like reddit and HN - the more controversial and snappier the original post, the more traction it gets, and nuances and truth are lost in the rush to condemn based on a very limited set of facts.

scrabble 13y ago
I caught on to that about halfway through the article -- as I'd imagine most readers did. It seems a bit much to me. Someone from Shopzilla responded in the comments with an apology and explanation of what had happened. Seemed good enough for me, mistakes do happen and I'd be surprised if this was started by Shopzilla with malicious intent.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > We flag up thousands of backlinks that are potentially spam I don't know if this is good enough. Isn't he basically admitting that they send out thousands of C&D orders for linking? He's just apologizing for picking on someone with the means to fight back against this bullying.
  - notatoad 13y ago
    Yeah, that sounds like a pretty bullshit apology. He's admitting that this is standard practice for them, and apologizing for getting caught.

chmike 13y ago

It is unfortunate, but the integration of a link inside a page may affect it's page rank in google search results. This is enough, in my opinion, to justify the concern of the link target owner and legitimate the request to get the link removed. However, the harm, if any, needs to be established and proven for a trial to be successful I guess.

hluska 13y ago
So, company A writes something accurate about company B. Company A's site is relatively new and the anchor text is something like 'click here'. Under your 'theory' company B would be entitled to go to court to force company A to remove the link. Two questions: - does that keep with the spirit of the web? - what happened to the concept of electronic freedom?? Needless to say, I think you're dead wrong.

AlexHamilton 13y ago

It looks like they have already retracted, apologised and offered wine and chocolate via the comments.

ValentineC 13y ago

This reminds me of a case where a (very large) law firm sued a news site for linking to them: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/02/linked_out.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...

paulhauggis 13y ago

Some years back, I had a guy try to tell me that an ordered list of common website links on his site was copyrighted (and that he would be suing me in court because I had those same links on my site). He even wanted a public apology. I, of course, ignored all of this and he went away. It's ridiculous what people will try to sue you about these days...

nkoren 13y ago

Dear DataDial: Paragraphs. They're a thing. Please learn how to use them. Your content is all but unreadable right now.