Injured while riding in a cab? Know your rights.

Question: If I am riding in a cab in California and there is an accident, do I have any rights? Can I get my medical bills paid?

Answer: Yes, you have the right to be compensated for your injuries and also have your medical bills paid when you are a passenger in a cab. Call Attorney Angelo F. Campano at 661-945-5300 or email us at acampano@campanolaw.com for more information.

Accidents and insurance companies wanting a recorded statement from you.

Question: What is a recorded statement and why am I being asked to give one?

Answer: A recorded statement happens when typically, the insurance company for the person who caused the accident calls you immediately after an accident to ask you questions and record everything you say. The answers you give in that recorded statement can harm your case. Call Campano Law Group, at 661-945-5300, a law firm experienced with insurance companies, for FREE consultations to help with your accident. Or email us at acampano@campanolaw.com.

Interview with Attorney Campano about California Prop #8

Interview with Attorney Campano about California traffic amnesty program

Bloggers may not always be allowed to post negative reviews about businesses.

            The courts may not protect people who post negative postings of businesses on the internet. Deciding whether the business owner can stop negative postings will depend on the corporate structure of the business, according to one recent Appellate Court.

            In Summit Bank v. Robert Rogers, the Appellate Court sided with the blogger, who posted negative comments about a publicly traded bank. The blogger worked for the bank until he resigned. The bank sued for defamation and the blogger filed what is referred to as an Anti-SLAPP Motion to strike the lawsuit. The blogger filed the motion claiming his posts were protected speech because issues surrounding the bank were of “public interest”. (See CCP Section 425.16)

            In analyzing the phrase “public interest”, the Appellate Court initially held that the phrase “public interest” is not defined by the statute (CCP Section 425.16). In the absence of a statutory definition, the Appeals Court applied existing case law and held that comments, positive or negative, about a business were of “public interest” if the blogger who posted the negative comments can prove that (1) the company is publicly traded (2) the number of investors and (3) whether the company promotes itself with numerous press releases. See Ampex Corp. v. Cargle (2005) 128 Cal.app.4^th 1569, 1576.

            Here, according to the Appellate Court, the postings were of public interest because the blogger could prove all three factors with conclusive evidence. The bank was publicly traded; the bank had investors; and the officers/executives issued many press releases promoting their publicly traded bank to attract more investors. The Appellate Court also noted that a public concern was the recent bank meltdowns going on throughout the country. Therefore, the public had even a stronger interest in the solvency of banks.

            In the end, the Appellate Court sided with the blogger. Although the Appellate Court, in Summit Bank, sided with the blogger and held the postings were protected speech, it appears the Appellate Court took that position because the blogger could prove the 3 factors listed above. The blogger had the burden of proof, which is not something to quickly overlook. One view to take from this opinion is that if your business is not publicly traded, does not have many investors, and you do not issue numerous press releases, a court may decide that the negative postings on the internet about that business are not of public interest and not protected speech. Whether or not the bank could prove a probability of success on the merits and whether the postings are defamatory are separate questions.

Help maybe on the way for business owners from negative online reviews.

 (written by Angelo F. Campano, owner/Campano Law Group, http://www.campanolaw.com/)

Is your name or business reputation important to you? Have you or your business been negatively criticized on line by someone? Been told there is nothing you can do to stop it from happening? Well, there may be some alternatives available to help you... protect your name, your business and reputation from those anonymous online reviews that seem to pop up out of nowhere.

When a negative review is posted on line, it is almost impossible to find out who posted it. The person posting the review is allowed to hide their true name or even if they were a customer of the person/business they are criticizing. This is blatantly unfair to the business owner who has worked so hard and long to build their reputation, all to have it reviewed negatively by someone who may never have even stepped foot into your business. The other day I recently watched a “reality” television (I won’t disclose which show from the east coast) show where a person who blogged badly about the business turned out to never had been to the business or bought anything from that business. How is that fair to the business? It’s not. Yet, the law seems to give greater protection to the negative posters.

The law generally protects the actual website that hosts these reviews. That protection, however, may be changing since that protection is more and more taken advantage of by the websites. As for the people that post these anonymous reviews, the law is not as protective as one would think or like. The websites themselves, that allow you to post your review, are not in a rush to protect the people posting anonymous reviews. Ever read the “terms and conditions” you agreed to before you posted your review? If not, then read it because you will likely see that you, as the poster of the anonymous review, could end up having to pay back the very same website that allowed you to post your negative review. The very website you post your negative review on can end up being your enemy.

In the case of Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, the plaintiff, a dentist, received a bad review on line by a former patient’s parents. The dentist believed it to be defaming and sued both the patient’s parents who wrote the story and Yelp for posting it on its website. At some point in the case, Yelp was dismissed by the person suing. But, the people who wrote the story were not as lucky in having the entire case dismissed despite trying hard to do so. The defendants filed an anti-slapp motion claiming their stories were based on their right to speak. An anti-slapp motion can be very powerful device if sued for speaking out on certain subjects. The appeals court agreed that part of the lawsuit arose from protected speech but also ruled that the story was potentially defaming to the dentist and allowed that part of the lawsuit to go forward. The law does not protect defamation. That meant that the people who wrote the story could end up having to pay a lot of money for writing a story that falsely harmed the dentist’s reputation and business.

One aspect of the appellate court’s ruling that was very briefly discussed but of interest (well, maybe just of interest to those who like to read appellate court cases) and maybe of help to businesses, is that the appellate court made a distinction between equitable relief and causes of action and the use of anti-slapp motions. The appellate court ruled that that the anti-slapp motion, used often by the defense, does not apply to equitable relief. Rather, the motion only applies to causes of action.”…Specific performance and injunctive relief are equitable remedies and not causes of action for injuries”. See Wong v. Jing citing Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 618 [129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 546]. So, the conclusion one can draw is that a business owner may prevail in its lawsuit against negative reviews by seeking equitable relief (e.g. removal of the negative review) rather than by just asking for monetary compensation.

To many business owners, the business becomes part of your family, which you want to protect. If you, as a business owner working hard to promote and protect your business and reputation, receive a negative anonymous online review, help may be on the way. The Wong v. Jing case helps suggests an alternative way for the business owner to protect itself from the anonymous online reviews that you, the business owner, may have thought that nothing can be done.