An Anchorage woman is being sued by someone on the other side of the country for what she wrote on eBay.
The I-Team has been investigating how much danger we're all in when we post something online. This is one of those legal cases that could affect most of us. At one time or another, we've all posted something online. But for one Anchorage woman the I-Team met, her posting could cost her nearly 2,000 dollars.
Everywhere you go on the Internet, someone's asking for your opinion about a controversy in Anchorage, or something you bought online.
But what you say can get you sued.
Sonya Smith learned that the hard way after she bought a wine
rack on eBay.
"When I opened the box I was a little shocked. It was a really small box and all the pieces were unassembled, unfinished, and it came with paper glue," said Smith.
When she didn't see any directions, she e-mailed the seller.
"And he told me, the beauty of the product was that you did not need directions," said Smith.
Actually, Smith says, she did. She doesn't know anything about woodworking.
So why not just return it?
She says there was a catch.
"If the product fit together properly --- if he felt it did --- then he would charge me a re-shelving fee, which he refused to disclose the price of to me," said Smith.
Frustrated, Smith decided to leave a comment on eBay, which said:
"Didn't fit together right, when I had a problem with it they were extremely rude."
In response, she got an e-mail. Someone named Cary wrote:
"We are not exactly sure of what the problem is here...We addressed each of your concerns, point by point...We feel that we were professional and direct, but certainly not rude."
It goes on to ask Smith to remove her comments from eBay. She says she's a new eBay user and doesn't know how.
Response from Michael Kalmus
In March, Smith got a court notice in the mail. She was going to have to defend herself in a lawsuit, in a courthouse all the way in Floyd, Virginia, where the seller lives. Court documents show his name is Michael Kalmus. He's accusing Smith of defamation, a legal term for making a false statement that hurts someone's reputation.
The I-Team has been getting legal opinions from Virginia and across the country about this case. First, we were told, it's a reminder that what you write online is considered published material. So when you say something about a person's character or business, you're opening yourself up to this type of defamation claim.
It's a big issue for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group well-known in legal
circles for fighting to protect Internet users. A spokeswoman tells the I-Team, just because you believe what you're writing about someone online is true, doesn't mean you won't be sued. This is because people can file a lawsuit over anything.
The group's attorneys point out that the "truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim, but keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove."
"I just know now that I will think twice before leaving a negative comment, even if I do feel like I was cheated," said Smith.
And in a way, she feels cheated by the lawsuit, too. Her fiancée and his friends finally got the wine rack put together. But something else is missing.
"It is very sad. I feel if you buy a product, you should be able to say how you feel about it," said Smith.
Sometimes, it seems, free speech isn't free.
The I-Team contacted the seller by mail and e-mail. We haven't heard from him. The next court date for this case is in May. Luckily for Smith, the judge is allowing her to handle it over the phone. Meanwhile, you may be protected in a lawsuit like this from having to pay up, if you have homeowner's or renter's insurance. But it has to be a personal transaction, not business related. You'll want to check with your insurance agent to see if you're covered
posted on April 29, 2008 05:18:37 PM
Remember the smug bad eBay selleron Judge Judy? Sold a mother/daughter 2 pictures of cell phones, then left terrible retaliatory feedback that claimed they were dead beats who never paid? They sued for a refund and for defamation of character and Judy awarded them the max.
posted on April 29, 2008 06:44:30 PM
It doesn't say she bought a winerack kit, it says she bought a winerack. At the very least there should have been instructions. It would be interesting to know if the work "rack" was in the listing.
posted on April 29, 2008 08:30:50 PM
There is something wrong with this matter. This is not a Small Claims matter as the Court would have no jurisdiction. And, it is certainly not a Federal matter as the amount of damages is too low, and would not qualify.
I believe this suit and the other one which was $10,000 is a lot of hogwash. I question the jurisdiction of the Courts involved. I wonder if these suits were self-filed by the Plaintiffs?
I was just thinking the same thing. The Virginia Court won't have jusidiction here. This is an easy case for the lady in Alaska. Any first year law student could end this one in a heart beat.
posted on April 29, 2008 08:58:21 PM
Stone, you are correct. If the Defendant submits to the jurisdiction of the Court, then they are required to defend the suit. Apparently, the Defendants accepted the Court's jurisdiction.
This should be fairly simple, in that the buyer is entitled to her opinion. It would seem that the definition of rude is objective, and her definition does not have to agree with that of the Seller or anyone else.
This entire matter is getting more press than necessary.
