📜 ⬆️ ⬇️

Online Business Reputation

Business reputation is a highly vulnerable intangible asset, and it is especially easy to damage it on the Internet - a virtual space, the regulatory mechanisms of which in Russia are only in its infancy. You can increase production for years and increase sales, spend millions on your own image, but one material on a visited site or a negative review by a more or less famous blogger, and sometimes an inglorious anonymous author at any forum can lead to a catastrophe.

The main feature of the Internet - copy-paste - allows you to endlessly replicate any information message there. It is worth selling to the “thousandth” product, the quality of which does not satisfy him, as a couple of hours later this event could become central in online media with a million people. And what if the claims to the product or service are far-fetched, and information about their poor quality does not correspond to reality or, at least, the manufacturer thinks so?

In this case, this manufacturer will go to court. Reputation claims are increasing. According to the reference and legal system of Pravo.ru , in 2009, the court of arbitration received 98 such applications, and in 2010 107 - only eight months (counted cases related to the Internet). Pravo.ru represents the rating of the largest claims for the protection of business reputation related to the Russian segment of the Internet, and examines in detail the top ten.
10 place

Plaintiff: Vyatka-SUEK Ltd.

Defendant: Arina Radova, “Our version” newspaper editorial office, “Reporter” newspaper editorial office

Amount of claim: 2,000,000 rubles.

Closes the top ten of the most "expensive" litigation about the defaulted on the Internet business reputation of the claim of LLC "Vyatka-SUEK" to the editorial office of the newspaper "Our option" for 2 million rubles.

In March 2010, Vyatka-SUEK, a subsidiary of the largest coal holding in Russia, appealed to the Arbitration Court of the Kirov Region demanding that the information published on the website of the Nash Variant newspaper be inconsistent with reality. The plaintiff did not like the following excerpts of the published material: “It is a coincidence or not, but the contract with Vyatka-SUEK”, according to sources familiar with the situation, was allegedly signed in February for deliveries in March. And the price, according to informed interlocutors, was 1,970 rubles per ton (that is, 470 rubles more than if public tenders were held). At the same time, it is supposed that Vyatka-SUEK is obliged under the contract to deliver 3,000 tons of "black gold". According to uncomplicated calculations, we get a contract for almost 6 million rubles. Interestingly, many who knew about this situation, after the appearance of information about the criminal case against the adviser to the governor, are now amicably nodding in the direction of Andrei Votinov. Say, the initiative “to help” the coal company in terms of concluding a state contract came from him ”and“ By the way. If a tender is being played in favor of a particular company, their “corruption” component is equal to 2 or 3 dollars per ton of raw materials. ”

The court considered that the first of these fragments is an expression of the subjective opinion and views of the respondent, the information contained in it cannot be checked to see if they are true, since they are referential and presumptive. As for the second passage, the court did not discern that the information contained in it was spread about the claimant, rather about the unlimited circle of unscrupulous companies alleged by the author of the article. Based on this, the court rejected Vyatka-SUEK. In July 2010, the company filed an appeal, which is currently being considered by the second appeals court of arbitration.

Interestingly, in the course of the hearing, it turned out that Arina Radova, to whom the lawsuit was directed along with the editorial board of the newspaper Nash Variant, does not exist, that this is just a pseudonym. The plaintiff had to make appropriate changes to the claim.

9th place

Plaintiff: Drembach Nikolay Vladimirovich

Defendant: Citadel Lock Company

Amount of claim: 3,000,000 rubles.

In February 2010, Nikolai Drembach filed a lawsuit with the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region against OOO Castle and Bracket Company Citadel, accusing him of spreading false information defaming business reputation and demanding compensation in the amount of 3 million rubles.

The plaintiff stated that the respondent had posted on the neplatim.su website that Drimbach is the director of two companies - Murmansk Trust Company LLC and Atoll-Nord LLC Trading House, which are unscrupulous partners and have debt obligations.

As evidence, the plaintiff submitted to the court a listing of the page on the site neplatim.su, where such information was indeed contained. In April 2010, Nikolai Drembach was denied a claim, on the grounds that the court did not find evidence of the dissemination of defamatory information by the defendant. Drembach did not use his right to appeal to higher courts.

8th place

Plaintiff: Firma Informbyuro CJSC - publisher of the Persona newspaper

Defendant: ANO “Novaya Gazeta” Editorial Publishing House (Editorial Office and Novaya Gazeta), Nikitinsky L.V.

Amount of claim: 3 398 400 rub.

Informbyuro CJSC filed a lawsuit against the ANO Novaya Gazeta Editorial Publishing House in the Moscow Arbitration Court in November 2009. According to the statement of claim, the plaintiff demanded to refute the information contained in the “Court to the extent of committing” material published on the website of Novaya Gazeta , as inconsistent with reality and discrediting business reputation, and also to recover from Novaya Gazeta 3.05 million rubles. and 339,840 rubles. from the author of the article Leonid Nikitinsky.

The claimant’s dissatisfaction was caused by several phrases related to the activities of the Persona newspaper, which had the same founders as the plaintiff - Krivtsov TA and Isakovu E.A. In particular, the material stated: “Judging by the site, for 10 years of the existence of the newspaper“ Persona ”, 20 issues have not been released, and in 2008 - not one. According to the data available to us, the economic activities of citizens Isakov and Krivtsov, who also established the Informbureau Firm, practically do not pay, at least in a cashless form, nobody pays for them, "The project is not original, but in the spirit of the times: are made by PR-agencies for the financing of the “persons” and their sponsors ”,“ From the standpoint of professional journalism, its [Persona newspaper] never existed. ”

The court ruled that the disputed information is a judgment, the opinion of a journalist, therefore, it is not possible to verify them. In April 2010, the claim was completely denied. In June 2010, the Information Bureau filed an appeal, at the moment the case is being considered.

7th place

Plaintiff: ZAO Mikhailovsky Broiler

Respondent: Russian Information Agency Vostok-Media LLC

Amount of claim: 5,000,000 rubles.

The claim of Mikhailovsky Broiler CJSC against Vostok-Media LLC (manages the news agency of the same name) was filed with the Primorsky Territory Arbitration Court in April 2009. The plaintiff demanded to remove a number of articles from his website vostokmedia.ru that would defame his business reputation and recover from the defendant 5 million rubles

“Vostok-Media” materials, which came out under the eloquent headings “Mikhailovsky Broiler” will bring Primorye to cancer? ”And“ Mikhailovsky Broiler ”prove its quality in court”, contained quotes from visitors to the Internet forum vlcrime.net, as well as excerpts from the Latvian edition "7 secrets." The plaintiff considered that the following phrases from used sources caused damage to his reputation: “Of course, everything was bought and seized, therefore the SES“ lets ”these products on the counters of Primorye, and chicken meat lovers regularly receive doses of the strongest chemistry, which over time accumulates in the body and causes various diseases - up to cancer ”,“ Drinking chickens from Mikhailovsky broiler provokes oncological and other diseases, in hospitals already lie with oncology as former employees of this enterprise ”and others .

The court decided that the media had the opportunity to edit the replicas of visitors to the Internet forum before publication, but did not do it, and the quotations from the "7 secrets" were given with distortion, therefore, the lawsuit of the Mikhailovsky Broiler was partially satisfied: materials from Vostok-Media agency were removed from the site, and the amount of compensation eventually dropped to 650,000 rubles.

Vostok-Media LLC filed an appeal in July 2010, but a month later the proceedings were discontinued on his own application.

6th place

Plaintiff: Businessman Khramtsov Oleg Vladimirovich

Defendant: Office of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare in the Tomsk Region

Amount of claim: 5,500,000 rubles.

On the sixth line in the rating is the appeal of an individual entrepreneur Oleg Khramtsov to the Arbitration Court of Tomsk Region in August 2008. Then Khramtsov demanded from a number of business entities to compensate him for reputational damage in the amount of 5.5 million rubles. (the applicant later revised his claims, reducing this amount to 500,000 rubles).

The businessman’s dissatisfaction was caused by a press release posted by the Tomsk branch of the Rospotrebnadzor, which stated that the Our Tomsk carbonated drink produced by him was made not on the basis of Vodichka-iodichka water, but on ordinary tap water. And then it can be dangerous to health.

The defendants in this case were the Russian Federation represented by the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare, the Office of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare in the Tomsk Region, and the media in which materials appeared based on Press release: the newspaper "Tomsk news", "Peace" and "Evening Tomsk."

The court was presented the results of the examination, testifying that Khramtsov really produced the drink in violation of sanitary norms. However, the court found the phrase about the use of tap water irrelevant to reality, and a fragment of the press release warning that the drink may be hazardous to health, considered legitimate, since the word “may” indicates that the phrase is a judgment.

As a result, the court decision by decision of February 10, 2010 partially satisfied the claim of businessman Khramtsov, obliging the Office of Rospotrebnadzor for the Tomsk Region to refute previously published information on the Internet. The court reduced the amount of compensation for reputational damage to 20,000 rubles. The appeal of the entrepreneur was rejected. The case is currently being considered by the court of cassation.

5th place

Plaintiff: New Time LLC

Respondent: CJSC "VZGLYAD.RU"

Amount to claim: 10,000,000 rubles

In the fifth position in the ranking - the largest lawsuit of one media to another. In November 2009, Novoye Vremya LLC (released by The New Times magazine) appealed to the Moscow Arbitration Court with a claim against Vzglyad.ru LLC , in which it demanded to refute the information disseminated by the Internet publication, as well as to pay compensation for damage business reputation in the amount of 10 million rubles.

In particular, the outrage of “New Time” was caused by two fragments of the article “Mishchenko: Western funds behind the attack on the office of“ Russia is young. ” They stated the following: “It (provocation) was carried out by Albats (Evgenia Albats - Editor-in-chief of The New Times magazine) and The New Times magazine,“ This fact was very well used by Albats and the editors of The New Times magazine "In order to accuse us of having done this after the murder of (Khutorsky)."

In February 2010, the lawsuit was denied in full. Although the court confirmed the fact that the information was disseminated by the respondent, he acknowledged that the information was “expressing a purely subjective opinion on a number of events that had occurred, and also aimed at the so-called political-publicistic discussion initiated in the media, in connection with than they can not be checked for compliance with reality and to be the subject of proof. "

Disagreeing with the court’s decision, Novoye Vremya filed an appeal in March 2010, in which it requested the court’s decision to cancel and accept a new judicial act on the settlement of claims. This request was also denied.

4th place

Plaintiff: St. Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions

Defendants: Cross-Media Publishing House LLC, MEDIA.S-Pb LLC, Media.SPb LLC, A. P. Dyachenko

Amount of claim: 10,000,000 rubles.

The fourth place in the ranking of the largest lawsuits filed due to the appearance on the Internet of information that, according to the plaintiff, damages his business reputation, was an appeal to the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region of the St. Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions (in Soviet times He was called the Higher Trade Union School of Culture). The lawsuit was connected with the material “Border on the nose”, published on the website of the St. Petersburg “Novaya Gazeta” in October 2007.

Its author, Alexei Dyachenko, wrote that the company Nevskiye Tekhnologii, whose representatives “do not particularly hide before local residents that they are acting in the interests of [the rector of the trade union university] Alexander Zapesotsky,” leads “dubious vanity” around the house at Lysy Nose, Sea Oaks Street, Building 4, where Zapesotsky "according to eyewitness accounts, appears regularly - to relax, relieve stress, improve health." The purpose of this “fuss”, according to the journalist, is to expand the site where the house is located, and examples of “doubtfulness” are an attempt to survive from the nearby territory of the rescue station, alluvial land and a number of other actions.

The article was published in October 2007, and on April 1, 2008, the State Unitary Enterprise filed a claim for protection of business reputation in which it demanded that several fragments of the article be declared untrue, including the expression “another conflict involving the Rector of Humanitarian University of Trade Unions, Alexander Zapesotsky, time in Lisie Nos ", the phrase that" Alexander Sergeevich and persons connected with him, according to their public version, carry out "work to protect the coastal borders of the Russian Federation" and the statement that o “at once, the two supervisory authorities have serious complaints against Nevskie tekhnologii.” The plaintiff also asked the court to collect 30,000 rubles as compensation for damage to business reputation. with Dyachenko and 9.97 million rubles. with LLC “MEDIA.S-Pb.”, which owns the site.

The court of first instance rendered its decision on September 28, 2009. The lawsuit was denied. SPGUP disagreed with such a verdict and filed an appeal. Its consideration was completed on January 20, 2010. The Thirteenth Arbitration Appeal Court indicated that, according to paragraph 7 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 2, 2005 No. 3, a lawsuit on protection of business reputation cannot be satisfied by the court if at least one of the circumstances - the fact of the defendant’s dissemination of information about the claimant, the defamatory nature of this information and, inconsistency with their reality, agreed with the court of first instance’s assessment that there are no defamatory information in the claimant’s Tawil appeal.

At the moment, the dispute is not over. The plaintiff disagreed with the decision of the appeal court and filed a cassation appeal. She is currently pending before the Federal Arbitration Court of the North-West District.

3rd place

Plaintiff: Orbita LLC

Respondents: Rostov Regional Public Organization “Don Association for the Protection of Consumer and Entrepreneurs”, Unanyan Seyran Ivanovich

Amount of claim: 17,000,000 rubles.

17 million rubles. - This is the third largest assessment of damage to business reputation caused by information prevalent on the Internet. On January 23, 2009, the auto show Orbita (LLC of the same name) filed a lawsuit against the Rostov Regional Public Organization Don Association for the Protection of Consumers and Entrepreneurs and Seiran Hunanyan. According to the claimant, the organization published on its website “http://dzpp.aanet.ru/” (currently unavailable) a negative review of Hunanian about the work of the car dealership, which later formed the basis of a number of articles with loud names: “Kashka with a mouse” (newspaper "Rostov official"), "Auto with a dark past" (newspaper "Moskovsky Komsomolets" on the Don ")," Premiere of Hunanyan "(" Rossiyskaya Gazeta ") and others.

On the website of the Don Association for the Protection of Consumer and Entrepreneurs, the following review was published: “... Dear consumers !!! You want: What would someone dig in your “dirty underwear”, figuring out where you got the money for an expensive purchase (car) or who is your civilian husband (wife)? To communicate with you rudely during the warranty service of the car? [...] To be called a fraud? [...] If yes, then buy Peugeot and Nissan cars at motor shows Orbita Limited Liability Company official dealer in Rostov-on-Don (one of the record holders in litigations with consumers, more than 15 only in 2007) If you are unlucky and the car you sold turned out to be of inadequate quality, you will experience all the aforementioned delights of communication with the dealer on your own “skin”.

"Orbit" demanded to refute this information as inconsistent with reality and discrediting its business reputation, as well as to recover 15 million rubles. with a public organization and 2 million rubles. from Seyran Hunanyan. Later in the course of the proceedings the claimant refused the claim to the client.

The defendant was unable to provide evidence of the reliability of the published information, on the basis of which in September 2009 the Arbitration Court of the Rostov Region allowed the Orbit claim. The amount of compensation was significantly reduced - up to 10,000 rubles. The appeal and cassation appeal of the public organization left the higher courts without satisfaction.

2nd place

Plaintiff: Construction Management No. 155 CJSC

Defendants: BFM.RU LLC, United Media LLC

Claim amount: 300,000,000 rubles.

In second place among the most “expensive” claims for damage to reputation on the Internet - the case of opposition to the construction company SU-155 and the holding company United Media. In May 2009, CJSC Construction Management No. 155 appealed to the Moscow Arbitration Court with a demand to oblige the bfm.ru website and Radio Business FM to refute the widespread information that the construction company ceased to exist (sounded on the radio), also about the misuse of 17 billion rubles allocated by the state for housing projects for the military (published on bfm.ru).

As compensation for damage to the business reputation of SU-155 (controlled by Mikhail Balakin, an ex-official of the Moscow mayor's office) demanded to pay 150 million rubles from each media. The reason for the lawsuit was the phrase uttered on the air by correspondent Rushan Yanov "according to unconfirmed information so far, now there is a question at all about the existence of the SU-155 developer, or rather, a source told me that there is no such company anymore." In addition, the construction company demanded that the defendant pay damages in the amount of 19.6 million rubles. - how much did the apartment cost, the sale of which to Emelin E.O. collapsed after a potential buyer got acquainted with the information about the problems of SU-155.

The court granted the claim in part by obliging both media to rebut the previously disseminated information, while reducing the amount of compensation for damage to the developer's business reputation to 10 million rubles. In February 2010, both parties appealed against the decision of the arbitral tribunal. In April, the court ruled that the decision was upheld.

1st place

Plaintiff: Planet LLC

Respondents: Arkadiy Mamontov, Federal State Unitary Enterprise All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company

Claim amount: 300 304 000 rub.

The first place in the ranking of the largest claims for the protection of business reputation on the Internet is taken by the attempt of the travel agency “Planeta” to sue the VGTRK and journalist Arkady Mamontov 300.3 million rubles. “Planeta” LLC appealed to the Moscow Arbitration Court with a demand to refute the information spread by the respondents on the websites related to the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, and earlier in the “Special Correspondent” television program, which, according to the plaintiff, damaged the company's business reputation.

In particular, Planet was outraged by the information that she and her CEO Vitaly Anserov were allegedly involved in the organization of child sex tourism. The company estimated the damage to its business reputation on the part of VGTRK at 290.3 million rubles, and on the part of Mamontov - at 10 million rubles.

The court of first instance dismissed the claim. The plaintiff could not prove the fact of the dissemination of inaccurate information discrediting the business reputation, and the court found the submissions presented as evidence by the subjective opinion of the plaintiff and his representatives based on his own perception of the content of the television program.

In addition, the company name of Planet LLC was not contained in the text of the journalistic material provided by the plaintiff, therefore the court decided that it was impossible to identify the travel agency in it. The decision of the arbitration court also stated that the plots of the program "are of an author's nature, constitute an expression of the subjective position of the special correspondent Mamontov A.V., contain evaluative categories, personal opinion, the author's judgment, his subjective conclusions".

Planeta tried to appeal the decision of the court of first instance to the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal, but the company also rejected the complaint there.

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/103111/

All Articles