Oooh. Fight! Fight! Fight!

Wondered how long it would take before he came after you.

Note to Shaun: It's not libel if it's true.

Excellent strategy, by the way, to a) provide poor customer service documented in e-mail and b) go after customers for libeling you. I bet that's REALLY gonna grow your customer base. "Uh oh, if I order from Wedding Depot and he makes a simple merchandise error, the owner will first insult me and then threaten to sue me!"

Shaun forgot his full title: President / Owner / Customer Service

Libel must be both malicious (able to cause harm) and be false. Assuming the poster has evidence to support the veracity of the post, a claim of libel is baseless.

e.g. truth that is harmful is not libel
falsehoods that are not harmful (a matter of opinion) is also not libel, but is more legally dicey.

Aaand there goes what support I had for the guy.

Mind you I wonder if people have been harrassing him since the contact info was posted in the other thread.

IANAL, but how does he have a basis for libel claims? His e-mails speak for themselves. Like the saying goes -- never put something in an e-mail unless you want it on a billboard above your head.

He mentioned that an efficient response would be appreciated. You guys should take a page from his playbook and take your sweet time getting back to him.

his letter makes it sound like he thinks the consumerist is a free for all forum, like craiglist, and loren posted this story herself. in doing so, he is asking if this violates the TOS of the consumerist and should be removed. i dont think he realizes there is an editorial staff that picks everything to post.

Ben, did Shaun specify what is supposedly false in all this? As noted above, truth is an absolute defense against libel.

Maybe he should spend more time painting custom ornaments and less time surfing the net. May do wonders for customer service.

I love the very helpful links to your own site. Oh you mean I posted that? really?! Hmmm.

rubberpants, you forgot "/ Lawyer"

What's the bet that his "CC" to legal@xxx bounces back to him as it was probably a blind threat?

Nah. He's a typical small businessman who doesn't fully understand the legal terminology he's using. Strike that--- he's the typical American who doesn't fully udenrstand the terminology he is using.

He's also much like most of the small businesspeople I've run into who may be professional business managers but aren't experts at handling customer service incidents. Strike that--- he's much like most managers I've met who may be professional business managers but aren't experts at handling customer service incidents.

It's not libel if it's true.

Prove that you're not running a shit company, and I'll rally behind you to have The Consumerist remove the article ... but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

While you're at it, you may want to consider suing the BBB for giving the company an "unsatisfactory" rating.

http://data.middletennessee.bbb.org/commonreport.html?bid=...

The closest thing to a satisfactory end to a complaint was "Company addressed the complaint issues. The consumer failed to acknowledge acceptance to the BBB." I don't doubt that the "acceptance" involved you saying "Here's your money back, I don't want to fix your problem, lalala, I can't hear you, stop sending me email." (I'm paraphrasing, of course, but wasn't that the general idea of the last email in the disputed article? Douchebaggery seems to be your MO.)

Nice use of the royal we, Shaun! Especially the CC:ed copies to 'admin' and 'legal.'

Or do I judge too hastily? Could it be that WeddingDepot, a company with no customer service department, actually has an attorney on staff?

Shaun,

Can I interest you in $10 worth of ice cream?

Oddly enough, I think he's just doing what a lot of consumers do - when they don't like what someone else is doing, they threaten legal action. In some cases the threat is enough to get the other party to cease and desist.

"IANAL, but how does he have a basis for libel claims?"

He doesn't. It's a common strategy for bullies. I worked in print media for a while, and then as a media lawyer intern, and many publications get threats like this daily with absolutely no basis in reality. People do something stupid or ugly, then become infuriated when other people talk about it, and instead of apologizing, behaving with dignity, repairing the damage, or ignoring it, they become infuriated and start screaming "Libel! Slander!" and threatening to bring in the lawyers.

You'll note that these threat letters basically never come from lawyers, because they can't get a lawyer who'll take a case with no merit.

They also tend to come from people who respond emotionally to public business or political issues and take any criticism as a personal attack; people who think it is an insult and an affront to be asked to explain themselves (particularly politicians who resent being held responsible to their constituency); and from people who think they can bully others into doing what they want.

My observational experience is that in large companies they don't last long when they have any contact with the media or the legal department, because they do too much damage, but if they're a small-business owner or a junior high school principal or a petty local politician, they'll be there forever, threatening libel every time they're criticized and lashing out at media, customers, students, employees, etc., instead of working to build bridges or explain themselves.

But yeah, this is a pretty classic example. Anyone in print media has probably seen dozens of these.

He demands an efficient response. Sweet, sweet irony.

I am uncertain why Shaun is inflating it to be a situation where he is a victim. That is something he is imagining.

srhbks: Hey now, don't resort to name calling ;) hahaha *wipes tear from eye*

This is all classic. I'd love to see how a Gawker Media privacy policy applies to people aren't users of Gawker Media (ie: commentators)

Okay everybody, wave to the nice man...

Perhaps Shaun is referring to the personal references to him in the article as slander (I'm not sure if it is or not). However, describing the situation with the company itself can hardly be slander.

Can there be slander against a corporation?

On an aside, it's amusing that Shaun doesn't realize the scope of the situation he has on his hands now. Reminds me of that lady that was giving Ben direction on how to be a reporter for his "blog."

Hey, in Ben's defense, he refrained from using the "douchebag" tag on this post.

This is awesome on so many levels. Go Spanky for pointing out the CCs.

Shaun's business philosophy: the customer is always right one logical argument from seeing you are right.

Another great consumerist story :) Thanks again! (not being sarcastic)

Oooh, ooh, ooh! Is Shaun trying to claim libel because Ben called the merchandise "cheesy" ?

IANAL but...crayon, Shaun isn't claiming slander he mentions libel, which is very similar (both being forms of defamation) but distictly different.

That being said, I imagine that if the representative of a company gave a speech with defamatory comments and that company did nothing to correct it (or worse, endorsed the statements) one might be able to claim that the company itself is liable for the slanderous statement.

Actually, I think he might be panicking right now. Remember, he also runs a wedding photography business. While folks may not do a google search on weddingdepot.com before placing an order, most people WILL google search the wedding photographer/studio they are about to book. Keeping in mind the photographer is the one hired individual at your wedding that you are GOING to spend the entire day with, the attitude of that person can make or break your day. If folks run across Consumerist while searching on him, my guess is he will never photograph another wedding...

I hereby revoke my previous comments that this douchebag has anything to recommend him.

What a dumb ass. No I am by no means imune from the dumb ass disease but this guy takes the cake.

See, I even misspelled immune.

And typoed Now.

God, I am a dumb ass.

God I am a dumb ass.

Best part of this is definitely the CC to legal@.

It didn't even cross my mind that while the owner of the company was sending emails back and forth with one customer all day, his business probably came to a screeching halt, as he is no doubt the production manager, ornament personalizer, packer, shipper, and janitor in addition to lawyer and stellar customer service rep!

What a tool.

Just say you were pissed off because your dog chewed up your favorite 4 wood, and you took it out on a customer, when all they deserved was an apology for your mistake and a freaking personalized ornament shipped to them ASAP!

I repeat, what a tool.

I'm getting married next month, does anyone have a wedding photographer they can recommend?

"You're a Douchebag." = not slander
"Hey Mister Third Party, see that guy there? He's a Douchebag" = slander.
"I ordered this thing and I got the wrong item." = not libel
"The box contained the disembodied head of an infant!" = libel (unless that's really what was in the box.)

Is it just me, or does the name "Wedding Depot" sound very....well, not romantic.

@DeeJayQueue

What if I you say something that is clearly not true, like "WeddingDepot stole my car and killed my dog!"..?

DeeJayQueue: slight correction. "Hey Mister Third Party, see that guy there? He's a Douchebag" does not equal slander.

Slander definitionally requires that the thing that you are saying about someone be a false fact. E.g. -- he is a murderer, rapist, etc.

Calling someone a douchebag is not intended to relay to anybody a statement of fact. It is, by its very nature, name calling and therefore known by all to be an expression of an opinion. It would be the same as calling someone a jerk. Opinions cannot form the basis for a claim of libel. Therefore, calling someone a douchebag is not libelous.

AlteredBeast -- the question of whether something is slanderous is an objective one. The question is would a reasonable person consider the statement to be one that conveys a fact intended to be understood as true. If someone says, "WeddingDepot stole my car and killed my dog" then arguably the reasonable person would understand this to be an exercise in hyperbole and farce. If, however, a reasonable person would take that statement and believe it to be a true factual statement, then you're looking at slander. Your hypothetical -- probably not slander.

Woops, yeah, I guess I meant libel, not slander...it's all greek to me anyway.

I can't explain how glad I was, after reading the entire original email exchange, to open up this post and see "Hello there," once again.
Does every single email he sends begin this way? Maybe he's got an auto-introduction in his mail along with his signature.

"You're a Douchebag."
(I'm safe)

A quick NetworkSolutions Whois reveals one 'Larson, Shaun **' to be the administrative contact for WeddingDepot.com. His email is listed as 'admin@weddingdepot.com,' meaning, so far as I can tell, that he cc'd himself.

In a similarly classy fashion, the listed contact phone number is '9999999999' and the listed Fax is '123 123 1234.'

Shaun accuses the Consumerist of aiding Loren in trying to harm WeddingDepot -- that's some serious stuff. Just think of the terrible damage claims like this could do to the Consumerist's reputation. Time for Gawker Media to take some legal action!

I want Shaun to get a commenter invite, I needs me some of that holier-than-thou purple prose.

It seemed he was calling Loren's email libel, not the Consumerist's comments or postings.

Maybe they are, maybe they're not.
He seems nice enough about it, not threatening to sue but requesting that if something violates Gawker's TOS, please remove it. No direct threats, only the mild inference about "those propagating the information."

So far, he's not really the bad guy in all this.

Of course, that said, I don't think I would have thrown this fuel on the fire.

Here's some libel: WeddingDepot.com has poor personal hygeine, and scores lower on standardized aptitude tests than other online wedding retailers.

slander = spoken; libel = written.

Wedding Depot stole my bah-bay!