Cardware Uses Cat Online Defamation And Internet
Elizabeth, a newly trained model tried to get a modeling position with Cardware, however, Candi thought that Elizabeth did not have enough experience on the runway and did not want to take a risk that she might not model Cardware’s clothing in a professional enough manner. Elizabeth was so angry when she was told that she did not get the position that she rushed home and immediately went to her Facebook page. She posted the following on her timeline: “Cardware uses cat gut to sew its sweaters and skirts together and there is mold inside of the clothing that does not sell! Repost if you are in protest of abusing animals to make a profit!” Within hours, sales at Cardware dropped, as Elizabeth’s 540 friends reposted Elizabeth’s post. Discuss what type of cause of action Cardware may be able to bring against Elizabeth. Also, can Cardware add CHEAPO who is Elizabeth’s Internet Service Provider to the lawsuit?
Just do response each posted # 1 to 3 down below only
Posted 1
Elizabeth clearly didn’t pay attention to her training very well or orientation. I’m sure there was a document she had to sign when on-boarding to prevent any damage to either party or minimize it. Candi thinking Elizabeth not being a good candidate based on professional demeanor is definitely spot on. Elizabeth should’ve have taken this as a learning experience over posting a very hurtful post. Now her post is all over the internet by now due to the high volume of friends she had who shared her post. Cardware can definitely pursue legal actions against Elizabeth but depending on the paperwork from on-boarding determines how sever her repercussions will be. Defamation is a tort and in this scenario since it is posted on the internet it is written which is libel. I would have to say that CHEAPO can not be touched in this scenario because the internet is a public service and Elizabeth paid for the internet. It is not CHEAPO’s responsibility to monitor her posts on social media.
Posted 2
Any time someone says or posts anything derogatory that can possibly damage the reputation of an individual or business they can be sued for defamation. There are two different types of defamation, slander and libel. Nolo.com states that libel is a written defamatory statement, and slander is a spoken or oral defamatory statement (Nolo, 2013). In Elizabeth’s case, Cardware has every right to sue her for libel since the statements were made on Facebook and reached a large enough audience that Cardware was able to notice a drop in sales. unfortunately, it will not be as easy to bring a case against CHEAPO. Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act of 1996 provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an interactive computer service who publish information provided by others (Minclaw, n.d.). This means that CHEAPO cannot be held responsible for the thoughts and opinions of its users since they are essentially a middle man in the dissemination of information.
Nolo. (2013, October 15). Libel vs. Slander: Different Types of Defamation. Retrieved March 21, 2019, from https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/libel-vs-slander-different-types-defamation.html
Minclaw. (n.d.). What is Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (CDA)? Retrieved March 21, 2019, from https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-section-230-of-the-communication-decency-act-cda/
Posted 3
Elizabeth should not have went to the extent of writing something so bad about a company just because they would not let her model for them. I would think that Cardware could sue Elizabeth for deformation. This would be a easy way to prove she wrote it since it was posted on Facebook and it could be traced back to her.
I dont believe that CHEAPO would be able to be added into the lawsuit because they did not publish the post this was done on Elizabeth’s facebook account that CHEAPO had nothing to do with