What are the legalities of a site such as this:


http://www.unlimband.com

I know the whole "unlimited" thing doesn't go down too well, but this site goes a bit far with it's blanket claim of false advertising on behalf of all those hosts it lists.

Gary

I'm not 'certain' of the legalities of the site.
But, I think they would be better served to state that they are only presenting "Their opinion" on the matter.
I would see no legal problems with something like 'that'.
Last I looked; we could still voice our opinions.

Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some people chose to keep their opinions to themselves. Some people present theirs more vocally or in this type of manner. Some people also end up digging deep for legal representation for doing so.

Announcing a list of people/companies are falsely advertising could very well end up in the latter category IMO.

Cheers

Gary

Things get questionable, from a legal point of view, when disparaging opinions are expressed as facts.

Originally posted by Mike the newbie
Things get questionable, from a legal point of view, when disparaging opinions are expressed as facts. That's what 'I'm' saying. :D
If you clearly state something as being your 'opinion' I would see no legal recourse. IMHO

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
That's what 'I'm' saying. :D
If you clearly state something as being your 'opinion' I would see no legal recourse. IMHO


If you state something as your opinion, then charges of libel (if it was written) or slander (if it was spoken) can still be brought against you; however the burden of proof of damage is more weighty.

Makes you all happy not seeing your company name on that list, doesn't it? :D

Originally posted by Kiwi
Makes you all happy not seeing your company name on that list, doesn't it? :D

Yep - all fuzzy and warm inside :D

the site seems legal to me

it may even help those companies..there are those customers that go looking for unlimited bandwidth...

I'm sure we must have some legally trained hosts out there but, as far as I remember, from the law section of the journalism course many eons ago:

To prove slander or libel, you have to show that a damage or hurt has been done to you personally or professionally by something that has been published. Published means communicated to a third person, so if someone writes to you personally with libellous comments there is no case. No provable damage, no case.

Defences to libel can be:

§ Truth. An absolute defence. What you said was true.
§ Reasonable mistake. Even though it was false, you had grounds for believing it was true.
§ Absence of malice. Even though you knew it was untrue, there was no malice in the act of publication. (Film with this name w/ Sally Field and Paul Newman turns on this point.)

As opposed to other areas of civil law, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove your defence is untrue...