ANATOMY OF A RIPOFF REPORT REMOVAL REQUEST IF I NOTIFY RIPOFF REPORT THAT FALSE INFORMATION HAS BEEN POSTED ABOUT

ME, WHY ISNT IT REMOVED?

May 18, 2012 Why doesnt Ripoff Report remove false reports after being notified about them? It sounds like such common sense imagine someone posts something false about you on www.ripoffreport.com. Common sense suggests that you should be able to simply contact the site, explain that the post is false, and they should have to remove it immediately. If they ignore your request and choose not to remove it after being notified, then Ripoff Report itself should become legally responsible for any damage that the false information causes. That makes perfect sense, doesnt it? How could it possibly be fair to allow a website to keep false statements posted after being informed that a complaint was false? Isnt this an outrageous and appalling policy? If you think so, then you havent spent a day running a website like www.ripoffreport.com or any of the thousands of other sites which allow third party users to post comments. You havent fielded hundreds of emails which arrive 24/7 some friendly, some threatening, some clear, some incoherent each one asking you to conduct an immediate investigation (at your own expense) and to make an instant decision whether to remove false information that was written by someone else. This situation is a lot more complicated than you might think. For a person who is named in a single report, the only thing that matters is that one report. But the opposite is true for a website owner/operatorthey dont just think about a single report they have to deal with millions of posts. How can a website operator determine whats true and whats not? How can a website operator sift through thousands of requests (all from strangers who they have never met) and determine who is telling the truth and whos lying? Critics of the Ripoff Report suggest that this process is really a no brainer. Their position is clearif they notify us that a false statement is false, they expect the site to immediately take action by removing the post. If the post is not removed, then a lawsuit will be filed and Ripoff Report should face unlimited liability. But is it really that simple? No, actually its not. But understanding why its not so simple requires seeing what an actual removal request looks like, and how challenging it can be to determine what is the truth and whats not.

To help demonstrate this, we want to share an actual removal request submitted to www.ripoffreport.com in August 2011. The post at issue contained extremely serious accusations of fraud and even sex crimes. If the post was false it would be devastating to the people named in it. On the other hand, if the post was accurate, then the author had a right to post it and to warn others of the facts described in the report. NOTEBecause the point of this story is not to humiliate the subjects involved or to draw further attention to their report, the names have been redacted to protect both the innocent and the guilty. STEP 1The Report In order to understand the story, its important to begin by looking at the actual text of the false report which was posted on www.ripoffreport.com on August 23, 2011. The name of the business and the surnames of the people involved have been redacted, but the remainder of the report about Sandra and Thomas is shown below. For purposes of context, its also important to note that Sandra and Thomas are (or were) licensed Arizona private investigators, and this post was written about their PI business. Heres the report -Matecheck, Sandra Hope, and her co-worker Thomas Scharrer is a company that sole intent is to scam money out of customers. Sandra Hope has been proven guilty of fraud as has been uphelp in by The Arizona Court Of Appeals and The Arizona Supreme Court. The Arizona Court Of Appeals ruling and the judgment against her and her company are recorded as part of the public record. There has been dozens of complaints against her and Thomas Scharrer on Merchants Circle and here on Ripoff Report. Browse the internet and you will find sordid reports and information about Matecheck PI and Sandra Hope. Also take note of Thomas Scharrer being extradited for indecent exposure. If you are looking for private investigation services, be strongly urged to look elsewhere.

STEP 2The Removal Request They say bad news travels fast. Less than 24 hours after this report was posted, we received a removal request from Sandraone of the two people named in the report. This request began pleasantly enough and the story presented by Sandra seemed fairly compelling. If there was ever a case that would justify removing a report, this would seem like a good candidate. After all, the allegations of fraud and indecent exposure were very serious, and contrary to popular belief Ripoff Report has always had a policy of removing allegations of serious crimes (especially sexual-related crimes) when the accuracy of a statement is challenged and the original author is unable to support the story with a police report or other appropriate documentation such as court records.

Sandras actual removal request is shown below, and it contained two distinct parts. First, she implied that the mention of a lawsuit and being proven guilty of fraud was false. Second, she said that the author of the post was confused about the identity of her employee, Thomas (who is also a licensed Arizona private investigator), confusing him with a different person of the same name. But was Sandra telling the truth?
From: Mate Check [mailto:matecheck@matecheckpi.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:47 PM To: tom@duffylaw.org Cc: editor@ripoffreport.com; legal@ripoffreport.com Subject: Ripoff posting issue

It was a pleasure speaking with you this morning about the matter of an individual posting information about a sealed case along with false libel information. I am attaching as much documentation that I can without violating any orders of the court myself. Please take this notice and documents attached as our formal notice and demand to remove the sealed protected information from your sites. Sandra Hope was sued in Maricopa County Cause No. CV2005-013193 and later prevailed in an OSC sanction hearing to have the entire case sealed. Mate Check was not even a part of that law suit. The posts on your site were made after the courts ruling which is a violation of the court order. We are fully prepared to litigate this matter. Since Mate Check is governed and monitored by the Arizona Department of Public and Safety as their regulatory board who handles all complaints, Mate Check cannot discuss or rebut these claims in accordance to A.R.C.P. 32-2455. Mate Check does not have any outstanding claims with their licensing board claiming that Mate Check took any retainer and performed nothing. In Fact, I can share with you that Mate Check has NEVER had a client named Randy out of Prescott Arizona. If there was such a client named Randy out of Prescott there would be a claim before DPS and Mate Check would be defending those claims and I have no pending claims at DPS. Here we have two issues, one is the Sealed information that was posted after the Court sealed the entire case, and two, Mate Check cannot participate in exchanging any information about the case online or in person in a rebuttal or through the other options you offer because of Arizona Law prohibits Mate Check from doing so. For the above reasons the posting MUST come down immediately. In regards to the remarks regarding Thomas Scharrer an employee of Mate Checks, the poster makes reference to a La Times article about someone named Thomas Scharrer who had 5 prior convictions of indecent exposure, arrested for a stolen motor in a porsche and burglary charges. The poster is confused and has only associated the licensed private investigator of Mate Check because he has the same name as someone else. That is not sufficient data to make such a damaging statement. To be a licensed private investigator in the state of Arizona you must pass a federal background check that is conducted by D.P.S. that includes fingerprints that is submitted through the Criminal Justice Information System. The Mr. Scharrer that works for Mate Check has never been convicted of a five counts of indecent exposure, felony burglary or felony theft of a Porsche motor and has passed the criminal history check in accordance with A.R.S. 32-2441. Clearly with the criminal history represented in the article would indicate a convicted felon and if that were true there would be no way Mr. Scharrer would be issued a private investigator license. Please have the posting removed within five (5) days of this letter to avoid litigation.

STEP 3The Investigation Although Ripoff Report cannot and generally does not conduct an investigation each time a removal request is received, in this case we decided to make an exception due to the serious nature of the allegations and our policy of investigating certain types of criminal allegations. Heres what we found. First, Sandra was, in fact, sued for defrauding a disabled gentleman out of more than $160,000. The matter went to trial and the judge ruled against Sandra and found her guilty of fraud, awarding nearly $170,000 in damages to the plaintiff. Sandra appealed that ruling to the Arizona Court of Appeals, but she lost the appeal and the judgment was affirmed. Apparently, at some point the lower court record was sealed in order to protect some private financial information that was disclosed in the case, but the Court of Appeals did not seal its records and the appellate court decision remains available as a public record. Posting this information on www.ripoffreport.com was not illegal and did not violate any law. NOTE the Thomas listed as the creditor (meaning plaintiff) on the judgment is not the same Thomas identified in the report.

But what about the part of the report which suggested that Sandras employee Thomas had been extradited for indecent exposure? This was a very serious allegation and Sandra expressly stated that the author of the report had mixed up her employee with someone else. She even supported that story by explaining that her employee Thomas had passed a rigorous background check from the Arizona Department of Public Safety in order to obtain his Arizona private investigators license. This seemed like very strong evidence to support Sandras story. Based on this, we decided to look further into the matter. Heres what we found Arizonas sex offender database does list someone with the same name identified in the Ripoff Report post, and the database states this person was convicted of indecent exposure. But was this actually the same Thomas who worked for Sandra? Or was it a completely different person. Perhaps the author really was confused. Maybe there were two different people who shared the same name? How could we determine if the Thomas who was a registered sex offender was actually the same person employed by Sandra? Again, more digging was required .

Some additional research provided the answerwe eventually located a Facebook page showing Tom and Sandra together in a family photo. This photo clearly showed that the person named in the Ripoff Report post and identified as Sandras employee, was actually the same person as the registered sex offender listed in Arizonas database as having been convicted of indecent exposure. Again, to protect the privacy of those involved we have redacted their last names, but the names on these pages matched the names in the report exactly. Perhaps most shocking of allboth of these people are licensed Arizona private investigators, despite having been found guilty of sex crimes and having been sued and found liable for defrauding a disabled person. Wouldnt you want to know this information prior to hiring them?

Based on this information we determined that the report was entirely truthful and accurate. As such, we informed Sandra and Thomas that the report would not be removed. Unfortunately, that wasnt the end of the story ..

STEP 4The Retaliation After informing Sandra and Thomas of the outcome of our investigation, the response was swift and immediatedeath threats, two false bar complaints, and a phony story alleging that Sandra and Thomas were victims of extortionthey actually claimed that they were asked to pay $50,000 to take care of the report. Keep in mindRipoff Reports investigation had already determined that Sandra was completely broke. Sandra is already facing a huge fraud judgment of nearly $170,000, none of which have been paid and none of which can be discharged in bankruptcy. In fact, we also learned that Sandra had other judgments against her which were also apparently never paid. Knowing that Sandra was already in debt for hundreds of thousands of dollars, does it make any sense to believe that Ripoff Report would ask her for a large payment in order to remove the truthful report about her? Final Comments As explained at the start, the point of this story is not to humiliate Sandra or Thomas. The point is to illustrate the simple fact that unfortunately, some people are not honest and they will ask websites to remove false information when really the information is completely true. Of course everyone says they are being honest, but thats not always so. This is why the Communications Decency Act is such an important lawit gives website owners the freedom to allow user-submitted comments without fear of being sued. Under the CDA, people who create false posts remain 100% responsible for their actions, but website owners who dont create or materially change third party posts are protected. Although many people have argued that the CDA should be changed to make its protection contingent on a website agreeing to promptly remove false material when notified that the post is untrue, that is clearly an unworkable solution. If the CDAs immunity provisions required a website operator to remove everything that was allegedly false, the result would be rampant abuse from people like Sandra and Thomas. In turn, this would result in massive amounts of truthful, honest, and legitimate information disappearing from public viewforever. Although this new paradigm might benefit a few genuine victims of false posts, it would also make it dramatically easier for crooks and scammers to operate and to conceal the truth from others. This is why efforts to change the CDA have been so unsuccessful, and rightly so. But does that mean real victims should be left without any recourse? not .though finding the best solution is much easier said than done. Of course

That doesnt mean were not trying to find a better way. Despite its long-time policy against removing reports, after hearing stories of people who wanted to see additional options rather than paying $100,000+ in legal fees to take a case to court (a process which can take years), Ripoff Report created an accelerated arbitration program which allows people to submit their case to a neutral third party arbitrator who can review the matter and make a prompt decision as to the accuracy of factual statements in a report. Although this process is unfortunately not perfect (its not free), at least its a good start. For more information about the program, you can visit our site here.