gfy, First Amendment and Whistleblower Shield laws :(

Hopefully a court tosses this one.

So comcast keeps web logs of all customer activity?

Or are they getting the IPs from CL logs?

@SteelersAreGo: Neither of those defenses are valid if the stories are untrue.

Is it legal to credit comcast for doing something right for a change?

Who uses CL to post reviews? Come on you are in Yelp country.

On a side note, I have to agree with Korbel, if you were sexually harassed go the the police and file a report, if were going to cut down redwoods go to Berkley and find some tree hugging hippies to "move in" to the tree.

If these posts really damaged Korbel, then I'm fine with a court forcing identities to be revealed.

On the other hand... how in the hell could random anonymous craiglists posts do any damage to a company? I cant fathom that part.

Well, if it's a libel issue the situation becomes more complicated. On the one hand, privacy is a right, but on the other hand, you can't just go around ruining reputations by spouting false information anonymously.

What a terrible author. Of course craig's list gave up the ip addresses and the time stamps of the posts. Otherwise there would be no way for Korbel to know what ISP to target and without time there would be no way for comcast to identify who used that ip address at that time.

Hopefully it is a business running free wifi. It would be pretty sad if someone released damaging information about a company without using a public access point or a foreign proxy.(Or both)

@philmin: When the company files a lawsuit and makes a big deal about something no one knew about. Now everyone on the internet is going to know about this and most likely a few tv news anchors are now going to bring the story up.

Even if Korbel wins the lawsuit, no one is going to discount these claims. Everyone is going to see a company using a whistle blower to suppress the truth.

@DexterHalomiosis: My guess is that they are seeking the customers identity from the IP address.

Clearly Korbel has something to hide. I will choose other brands from now on.

@Corporate_guy: Everyone is going to see a company suing a whistle blower to suppress the truth.

Lets take a look at the allegations:

Sexual harassment - okay so someone drank too much delicious Champagne and got a little handsy, it happens.

Bribed law enforcement - who couldn't be bought off with delicious Champagne?

Cutting down redwood trees - to make more room for grapes? Grapes that will be turned into delicious Champagne?

No harm, no foul sez me.

@Corporate_guy:

"Everyone is going to see a company using a whistle blower to suppress the truth. " What do you mean by that? Who is the whistle blower?

@youbastid: They haven't exactly picked up a sword, they've just stated they will take the least-likely-to-be-sued avenue. If they release the names without a court order, it could expose them to legal issues from users.

@Corporate_guy:
Exactly. This is a case where Korbel should have just let it blow over. They didn't. Now, everyone knows about this, whether those allegations were true or not.

Stuff like this gets posted on CL under 'Rants' all the time. Check it. It's crazy the things people rant about. I actually stopped shopping at a local bakery because of it (the establishment was questionable before I read the 'rant's).

These posts damaged Korbel more than them selling a bottle of champagne for $10.99?

@Hank Scorpio:

Isn't that what they call the Streisand Effect?

Anybody got a link to the craigslist posting? Korbel is dumb, because now they are causing the story to spread. Most of us would have never heard about it if not for Korbel itself...

@Corporate_guy:

So if the claims weren't true, they wouldnt sue? They are only suing because they are true? That doesnt make sense.

@Darrone:

...and one lawsuit is easier to contend with than thousands!

@Alexander: Yes but the allegations are negligible at best. Planned on cutting down trees? I think the average Champagne drinker, myself included, gives two shits about that. It gets their name out there, and we all know, there is no such thing as bad press.

@philmin:
All he's saying is that Korbel brought attention to a situation that virtually no one would have been aware of otherwise. It doesn't matter whether or not the claims are true, by suing, they've brought those claims into the public spotlight.

I was under the impression libel didn't apply to online content.

@Corporate_guy:

"@philmin: When the company files a lawsuit and makes a big deal about something no one knew about. Now everyone on the internet is going to know about this and most likely a few tv news anchors are now going to bring the story up."

Is that from the any PR is good PR school of thought? :)

@SteelersAreGo: Uh, yeah, First Amendment would apply how in this situation? A private citizen allegedly defaming a company has what to do with to your right to free speech?

And I'm not really aware of any whistleblower laws that entitle you to protection for anonymously alleging that a company is breaking the law on Craigslist. Might need to actually, you know, report the company to the proper authorities for that.

@FrankenPC: So if I founded a website named FrankenPC-is-a-[horrible accusation].com that would be totally fine? I don't know, I'm not sure why online content would be different.

@philmin: If Korbel has problems with a few insipid Craigslist postings, there's gotta be something wrong. Perhaps their insecure about their alcohol selections?

@Corporate_guy: Not me. I see a company trying to protect its image from anonymous smears being made against it on teh interwebs.

@FrankenPC: Are you thinking of slander vs. libel, maybe? It's a fixed medium, so it's libel, and there have been cases tried over it since the early 1990s.

So I cant say Korbel sucks without getting sued....

@adamczar: I realize this isn't the view of the law, but I don't think that anonymous posts should really be considered libel. How can it be libelous if the source of information has no credibility? No one reasonable should just believe what they read in an anonymous Internet post.

@RodAox: No, you can probably say that. But if you want to make damaging accusations, particularly if they are (in Korbel's opinion) false, they might sue you.

I agree that they're probably being counterproductive in pursuing this so far, but that's their decision.

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: I know, doesn't it seem a little whiny? But, but, they said they were going to cut down *gasp* REDWOODS /snivel

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: I am with you on that. But Korbel just took something no one cared about and made it news. They are demanding that an ISP identify a user over something dumb, which is going to upset a lot of people.

They are going to have to prove they were damaged by these statements. As long as the negative PR from this lawsuit does not count(as it shouldn't) I don't see what they are going to cite as proof of damages. Hate emails from random people claiming they will never buy your product isn't going to cut it. And you can't blame the effects of the bad economy on this "defamation".

Remember when free speech meant "Free Speech"? F**K Korbel, I'm only buying Kristal and Don P now. :)

@dragonpup: What I don't understand is, what if a friend uses your computer while you are doing something else?

Should I be held responsible if, while my friend uses my computer to check his Gmail account, he posts on Craigslist?

Or what if someone is stealing WiFi from me because Comcast didn't properly set up my security when they hooked up my modem/router? Someone jacks my signal, posts on Craigslist, and I'm to blame?

@sideshowmel: Don't forget the Andre!

There's been a few comments on this article alone where people say they won't shop Korbel anymore, so I don't know.

@youbastid: They're only doing "right" because those whose names are sought have rights.

If the people were in China, cumcast would be handing out names, addresses and ID numbers with a coupon to any government official who asked.

@lars2112: I only use Craigslist to pick up hookers.

Korbel touched me in my no no place and impregnated my girlfriend.

@AlteredBeast:

That's certainly a defense that you could make, and a judge or jury would decide if it's plausible. Similarly, you could claim that someone else was using your car when it was involved in a drive-by, but the police are certainly going to haul you in to discuss the matter.

@lars2112: I think the big issue is that cutting down redwoods is illegal in CA, as it is the state tree.

@AlteredBeast: IIRC, yes, you are responsible. I think it's even in the users agreement you agree to when you sign up for service. You're only hope is to have an alibi during the time in question.

@P_Smith: That's not true. The PATRIOT Act made it legal for them to hand out names without notifying the named.

@adamczar: "On the one hand, privacy is a right, but on the other hand, you can't just go around ruining reputations by spouting false information anonymously."

Sure anyone can post information anonymously since ripoffreport, pissedconsumer and a few other so called "complaints" websites want companies to PAY to remove or negate "bad reviews" no matter who has posted them. I am guessing Korbel has done that pay stuff already.

Now the other item is that most of the craigslist postings expire after a certain time so the poster must be reposting the information...

@sideshowmel:

"Free Speech" has never meant "say absolutely anything you want without any possible consequences."