We at scamFRAUDalert always believe Ripoffreport.com Corporate Advocacy Program or [CAP] is a disguise for “Pay for Removal” of complaints. They have expanded the CAP program lately with the VERIFIED program of consumer complaints against some of ED Madegson adversaries including companies which filed lawsuits against ROR. Simply put, if you pay ED, your complaint get shrink and does not appeared in top google searches versus an unpaid complaint.
US District Judge Denise J. Casper of Massachusetts seems to agree. The Judge says http://www.Ripoffreport.com Corporate Advocacy Program or CAP for short is suspect to unfair practices under Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law Act-Chapter 93A and is allowing a lawsuit filed by Richard A. Goren; Christian DuPont dba Arabianights to go forward.
Ripoffreport.com make these advertisement on its site.
The Plaintiffs’ final portion of the c. 93A claim, premised on Xcentric’s Venture, LLc dba http://www.Ripoffreport.com CAP and VIP Arbitration services, may proceed. The Plaintiffs argue that it is unfair for Xcentric to refuse to take down the defamatory Reports while simultaneously advertising services by which Goren can pay Xcentric to restore his reputation. Pl. Mem., D. 21 at 22;Am. Compl.¶¶ 33-35. A trade 17 practice or act violates c. 93A if “it is
(1) within the penumbra of a common law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness;
(2) immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous; or
(3) causes substantial injury to competitors or other business people.”Morrison v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 441 Mass. 441, 457 (2004)(quoting Heller Fin. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 410 Mass. 400, 408 (1991)).
This definition of prohibited conduct is very broad, and privity is not required by c.93A “so long as the parties are engaged in more than a minor or insignificant business relationship.” Standard Register, Co. v. Bolton-Emerson, Inc., 38 Mass. App. Ct. 545, 551 (1995). The First Circuit has observed that “[w]hat, specifically, constitutes a ‘minor or insignificant business relationship’ has not been fully fleshed out in the Massachusetts courts, but it has been described as requiring that ‘there must be exist some commercial relationship between the parties or the plaintiffs must demonstrate the defendants’ actions interfered with trade or commerce.’”
In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig. , 582 F.3d 156, 193 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Spencer v. Doyle, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 6, 12 (2000)). Here, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Xcentric’s acts are within the “penumbra” of “unfairness,” or they are “immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous,”
or they interfered with trade or commerce.