Ripoff Report - Non-removal Policy

Non-removal Policy

A controversial aspect of the Ripoff Report website is its policy to refuse to remove reports. Ripoff Report does not allow authors to remove their own reports, even in cases where a mistake has been made. Furthermore the site will not remove reports in response to legal demands from attorneys. This policy is disclosed to users in the site's Terms of Service. All complaints remain public and unedited. A longer discussion of the policy is found on the site's Frequently Asked Questions page.

This non-removal policy was the subject of a 2007 lawsuit against the Ripoff Report which involved an author's request to remove several reports he submitted in which he referred to a Canadian company as a "scam." In a published federal ruling, the court found that Ripoff Report was not required to remove reports in this context.

Plaintiffs have also attempted to force Ripoff Report to remove reports by suing the author and obtaining an injunction requiring the removal of the offending content. In one recent case, Blockowicz v. Williams, 675 F.Supp.2d 912 (N.D.Ill. 2009), a federal district court in Chicago found that Ripoff Report was not required to comply with such an injunction. Some observers have stated this outcome was legally correct but morally troubling. The plaintiffs in the Blockowicz case appealed the district court's refusal to enforce their injunction against Ripoff Report. On December 27, 2010, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion, which affirmed the lower court's decision and agreed that Ripoff Report was not required to comply with the lower court's injunction.

One day after the Seventh Circuit's ruling in Blockowicz, a Florida state court reached the opposite conclusion. In Giordano, the court held that the law allowed it to issue an injunction requiring Ripoff Report to remove a complaint posted by a third party. The plaintiff filed an appeal asking the Third District Court of Appeal in Florida to hold that Ripoff Report could be ordered to remove reports. On December 28, 2011, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion, which called Ripoff Report's non-removal policy "appalling", but the court agreed that the Communications Decency Act did not allow injunctive relief requiring the site to remove reports: "However much as this Court may disapprove of business practices like those embraced by Xcentric, the law on this issue is clear. Xcentric enjoys complete immunity from any action brought against it as a result of the postings of third party users of its website."

Despite its long history of refusing to remove complaints, in July 2010, Ripoff Report announced a new program called "VIP Arbitration" which has the stated purpose of offering victims of false reports a new way to clear their names. According to the site, the arbitration program involves private, third party arbitrators who are paid to review disputed reports and render decisions about their accuracy. Although Ripoff Report is well known for its refusal to remove reports, the site now explains: "Any statements of fact that the arbitrator determines to be false will be redacted from the original report." The site has also posted an updated FAQ page with an additional discussion of the arbitration program. The page includes links to examples of how reports look after being submitted to the program. The current cost of the program is $2,000.