Ripoff Report - Corporate Advocacy Program and Extortion Claims

Corporate Advocacy Program and Extortion Claims

Some of the harshest criticism is focused on Ripoff Report's "Corporate Advocacy, Business Remediation & Customer Satisfaction Program." The operation of the program is described in detail on the Ripoff Report website's Corporate Advocacy Program page. The program requires companies to pay a fee to Ripoff Report in exchange for which the site will act as an intermediary between the company and any unhappy customers who have posted complaints on the Ripoff Report site. Companies who join the program must agree to meet certain conditions including a promise to make refunds when requested. In return, while existing reports are not removed, the Ripoff Report's editor, Ed Magedson, will update the titles of reports to reflect that the company has joined the program and has made a commitment to increasing customer satisfaction.

In February 2007 The Phoenix New Times reported that at least 30 companies now pay Ripoff Report for participation in the Corporate Advocacy Program.

Several companies have sued Ripoff Report based on claims that the Corporate Advocacy Program is unlawful. None of these claims have ever succeeded at trial. On July 19, 2010, a federal court in Los Angeles, California entered an order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Ripoff Report in a case which alleged that the Corporate Advocacy Program was "extortion" and that the program violated federal racketeering laws. The court's order stated that the Corporate Advocacy Program was not extortion under California law because, "The offer to help Plaintiffs restore their reputation and facilitate resolution with the complainants in exchange for a fee does not constitute a threat under California Penal Code § 519." Based on the determination that the services offered by Ripoff Report do not constitute extortion, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Ripoff Report as to the plaintiffs' extortion claim.

In October 2011, a federal court in California reached a similar conclusion in a lawsuit against another consumer complaint/review site - yelp.com. In that case, the plaintiffs accused Yelp, Inc. of committing extortion by charging money to remove negative reviews. In a 15-page ruling, the federal court held that these allegations were barred by the Communications Decency Act.