January 21, 2014.
Dear Criteo Team,
This message will also be published online as an open letter for historic and evidentiary reference, should your clients require the same, if they become subject to our boycott.
Please accept this seven (7) day notice of our intention to boycott your business and every one of your clients whose ads appear on Ripoffreport.com.
On Nov 22, 2013 an Arizona court found that our boycott against Ripoffreport.com, its advertisers, and all those who support it, is protected speech. This is a major victory for free speech for the hundreds of thousands of victims of Internet defamation who do not have the wherewithal to fight for themselves.
We note with concern that your ad service appears to be serving ads to ripoffreport.com. This assumption is based on certain code or scripts appearing within the ripoffreport.com website.
![CRITEO.COM Notice of Interntion to Boycott Ripoffreport Victims Action Group]( "CRITEO.COM Notice of Interntion to Boycott Ripoffreport Victims Action Group")
- CRITEO.COM Notice of Interntion to Boycott Ripoffreport Victims Action Group
We believe such an arrangement is at the expense of hundreds of thousands of victims who are defamed on ripoffreport.com (not including the small proportion of actual scammers who deserve to be there). The victims are effectively injured, without the availability of reasonable relief, because of the immunity conveyed to Ed Magedson and his “Ripoff Report” through section 230C of the Communications Decency Act [Ref: http://goo.gl/g8lo5G AND http://goo.gl/z9ZtkW ]
We believe that Ed Magedson, the owner of Ripoffreport.com, is an emotional terrorist. As such, our position is that any entity that funds, partners with, or supports his activities is also an emotional terrorism organisation (that would be you if you share profits with him):
REF: https://www.google.com/search?q=ed+magedson+terrorist
A Florida Appeals Court’s recent declaration that his company demonstrates “Appalling” business practices:
[Ref: http://goo.gl/W0L7nb ]
We understand that the possibility exists that you did not make a conscious decision to serve your customers ads to Ripoffreport.com. If this is the case you may be eligible for exclusion from the boycott. Would you kindly advise as to your intentions moving forward?
Please note that entities that continue to support ripoffreport.com financially, or in any other way, will come under our intense scrutiny. The practical outcome of that scrutiny would come in two phases:
Phase 1 – Direct Boycott
Phase one of the scrutiny will look something like this; this first case study is Ripoff Report’s marketing manager, but the results are analogous to what the board members and executives of Ripoffreport Enablers:
https://www.google.com/search?q=mary+hagen+ripoffreport
This case study is Ripoffreport’s attorney:
https://www.google.com/search?q=maria+crimi+speth
Phase 2 – Boycott of your clients whose ads appear on ripoffreport.com
48 hours after Phase 1 is launched, our team will turn its attention to each and every one of your clients whose ads appear on Ripoffreport.com. We have over 300 followers, many of whom are monitoring the site. We will make it unambiguously clear to your clients that our boycott of their businesses is a direct consequence of your choice to allow their ads to appear on Ripoffreport.com.
Phase 2 will look something like this:
List of current Ripoffreport Client & Boycott subjects.
Before you think about filing a law suit against our boycott team….
Ripoffreport.com already sued us, and we prevailed. Although they obtained a temporary injunction initially, once we made an appearance and defended ourselves, the judge found our boycott to be protected speech. Here are some excerpts:
“Turning to the postings in this case, the court finds that everything in
authorizedstatement.org and badforpeople.com consists of protected speech.”
AND
“Although Xcentric likely is suffering irreparable harm from Mr. Roberts’s postings, the
court finds that Xcentric is not likely to prevail on the merits against Mr. Roberts and that public
policy weighs against a preliminary injunction. The request for preliminary injunction will
therefore be denied.”
The full court order and other documents pertaining to this lawsuit, and our recent victory, are available here:
