Florida Court of Appeals called Ripoff Report's practice of permitting a defamatory statement to remain on its website "appalling, "
Did it consider that all of the courts permit false and defamatory statements and frivolous allegations to remain on their public records, including their websites? The courts model is virtually identical to that of complaint

The Florida Court of Appeals called complaint's business practices appalling because we do not independently investigate everything submitted to us and we do not remove allegations which have been proven to be incorrect. This statement is ironic considering that all courts (including Florida courts) permit plaintiffs to file pleadings with false and defamatory allegations, the courts never independently investigate those allegations (defendants must hire lawyers and pay huge legal fees to exonerate themselves), and even when an allegation is proven to be false, courts will allow the statement to remain visible in their public records, including in many cases on their websites. Does that make the courts practices appalling?

One other seriously misleading point in the Florida courts decision is this the court seemed to suggest that because Ms.

Company: Florida Court of Appeals called Ripoff Report's practice of permitting a defamatory statement to remain on its website "appalling, "
Country: USA
State: Florida
City: Miami
Address: Dade County

  <     >