"SLAPP-back" Lawsuits
Ripoff Report's legal FAQ page contains a warning to anyone who might be considering suing the site: "any suit filed against us without probable cause may subject the complaining party and/or their attorneys to liability in the State of Arizona for wrongful use of civil proceedings. We don't mean to sound harsh, but if you knowingly file a frivolous lawsuit against us, regardless of where your case is filed, you and/or your lawyers can be subject to a lawsuit in Arizona in which a jury could, if appropriate, award both substantial compensatory and punitive damages against you."
This threat warns would-be plaintiffs that if they bring a lawsuit against the Ripoff Report and lose, Ripoff Report may respond by filing a new lawsuit against the unsuccessful plaintiff (and possibly their attorneys) for malicious prosecution. This type of action is commonly referred to as a "SLAPP-back lawsuit" which derives its name from the acronym for strategic lawsuit against public participation or "SLAPP."
Ripoff Report does not disclose how many SLAPP-back lawsuits it has brought in the past. However one such action was filed on July 18, 2011 in federal court in Arizona against several parties and their attorneys. Certain claims for monetary relief in the underlying matter, Asia Economic Institute, LLC, et al., v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, et al. were resolved in favor of Ripoff Report in May 2011 with an order granting summary judgment in favor of Ripoff Report on the claims then remaining in the case. A civil claim for RICO predicated on wire fraud had been dismissed before the May 2011 order. Ripoff Report's SLAPP-back lawsuit seeks damages in excess of $75,000 plus an unspecified amount of punitive damages. On November 8, 2012, the federal court in Arizona dismissed Ripoff Report's SLAPP-back lawsuit against one of the attorneys. Ripoff Report subsequently requested permission to file an amended complaint with more details about its claims against the lawyer. Ripoff Report's request was denied. On March 20, 2013, the Court again denied Xcentric motion to amend to add additional claims against the lawyer, calling it "unreasonable and vexatious in light of the Court’s prior orders."
Read more about this topic: Ripoff Report