August 31, 2010 at 11:03Business reputation on the Internet
Goodwill is an extremely vulnerable intangible asset, and it is especially easy to damage it on the Internet - a virtual space whose regulatory mechanisms in Russia are only in its infancy. You can increase production over the years and increase sales, spend millions on your own image, but one piece of material on the site you visit or the negative feedback of a more or less famous blogger, and sometimes an inglorious anonymous author at some forum can lead to disaster.
The main property of the Internet - copy-paste - allows you to endlessly replicate any informational message that gets there. It is worth selling a product to the “thousand-year-old” whose quality does not satisfy him, as after a couple of hours this event can become central in the online media with a millionth audience. But what if claims to a product or service are far-fetched, and information about their poor quality is not true or, at least, the manufacturer thinks so?
In this case, this manufacturer will go to court. There are more and more claims to protect reputation. According to the legal information system Pravo.ru , in 2009, 98 such applications were submitted to arbitration courts, and in 2010 107 - in just eight months (cases related to the Internet were counted). Pravo.rupresents a rating of the largest claims to protect business reputation related to the Russian segment of the Internet, and analyzes in detail the top ten.
10th place
Claimant: Vyatka-SUEK LLC
Defendant: Arina Radova, Our Editorial Board, Our Reporter Newspaper
Amount of claim: 2,000,000 rubles.
Closes the top ten most “expensive” litigations about the business reputation defiled on the Internet is the claim of Vyatka-SUEK LLC against the editorial office of the newspaper Nash Variant for 2 million rubles.
In March 2010, Vyatka-SUEK, a subsidiary of Russia's largest coal holding, appealed to the Arbitration Court of the Kirov Region with a request to declare information disseminated on the website of the newspaper Reporter untrue, which is published by the Editorial Board of the newspaper "Our Option". The plaintiff did not like the following excerpts of the published material: “Whether it is an accident or not, but the agreement with Vyatka-SUEK, according to sources familiar with the situation, was allegedly signed in February for supplies for March. And the price, according to informed interlocutors, amounted to 1,970 rubles per ton (that is, 470 rubles more than if public tenders were held). At the same time, it would seem that Vyatka-SUEK is under a contract to deliver 3 thousand tons of “black gold”. According to some simple estimates, we get a contract for almost 6 million rubles. It is interesting that many who knew about this situation, after the emergence of information about the criminal case against the adviser to the governor, now amicably nod towards Andrey Votinov. They say he proceeded from the initiative of “helping” a coal company in terms of concluding a state contract ”and“ By the way. If a tender is held in favor of a particular company, their “corruption” component is equal to 2 or 3 dollars per ton of raw materials. ”
The court found that the first of these fragments is an expression of the subjective opinion and views of the defendant, the information contained in it cannot be checked for compliance with their reality, since they are of a reference and hypothetical nature. As for the second passage, the court did not see that the information contained in it was disseminated about the plaintiff, but rather about the unlimited range of unscrupulous companies alleged by the author of the article. Based on this, the court rejected the lawsuit by Vyatka-SUEK. In July 2010, the company filed an appeal, which is currently pending before the Second Arbitration Court of Appeal.
It is interesting that during the hearing of the case it turned out that Arina Radova, to whom the lawsuit was addressed together with the editorial board of the newspaper “Our Option”, does not exist, that this is just a pseudonym. The plaintiff had to amend the statement of claim accordingly.
9th place
Claimant: Drembach Nikolay Vladimirovich
Defendant: LLC “Lock-and-hardware company“ Citadel ”
Amount of claim: 3,000,000 rubles.
In February 2010, Nikolai Drembach filed a lawsuit in the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region against the Citadel Lock and Hardware Company LLC, accusing him of disseminating false information defaming his business reputation and demanding compensation in the amount of 3 million rubles.
The plaintiff stated that on the site neplatim.su the defendant posted information that Drembach holds the position of director of two companies - LLC Murmansk Trust Company and LLC Atoll-Nord Trading House, which are unscrupulous partners and have debt obligations.
As evidence, the plaintiff submitted to the court a printout of the page of the site neplatim.su where such information was actually contained.In April 2010, Nikolai Drembach was denied the claim, on the grounds that the court did not find confirmation of the distribution injured defamation is a defendant his right to appeal to higher courts Drembach not used..
8 place
Plaintiff: JSC "Firm" News "- publisher of" Persona "
Defendant: ANO “Novaya Gazeta Publishing House” (Editorial Office and Novaya Gazeta Building), L. Nikitinsky
claim amount: 3,398,400 rubles.
CJSC Firm Informburo filed a lawsuit against ANO Novaya Gazeta 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 material “The court to the point of mockery” published on the Novaya Gazeta website , as inconsistent with reality and defaming business reputation, as well as recovering 3.05 million rubles from Novaya Gazeta. and 339 840 rubles. from the author of the article Leonid Nikitinsky.
The plaintiff was dissatisfied with several phrases related to the activities of the Persona newspaper, which had the same founders as the plaintiff - T. Krivtsova and Isakov E.A. In particular, the material said: “Judging by the site, over the 10 years of the existence of the Persona newspaper, 20 issues have not been issued, moreover, in 2008, not a single one. According to the data available to us, the economic activities of the citizens Isakov and Krivtsov, who also established the Informburo Firm CJSC, practically do not pay anyone, at least in cashless form, ”“ The project is not original, but in the spirit of the times: similar they are made by PR agencies under the financing of the “persons” themselves and their sponsors ”,“ From the standpoint of professional journalism, it [the Persona newspaper] never existed ”.
The court ruled that the disputed information constitutes a judgment, the opinion of a journalist, therefore, it is not possible to verify it. In April 2010, the lawsuit was completely denied. In June 2010, the Information Bureau filed an appeal; the case is currently under consideration.
7th place
Claimant: CJSC Mikhailovsky Broiler
Defendant: LLC Russian Information Agency Vostok-Media
Claim amount: 5,000,000 rubles.
The claim of Mikhailovsky Broiler CJSC against Vostok-Media LLC (which manages the news agency of the same name) was filed with the Arbitration Court of Primorsky Krai in April 2009. The plaintiff demanded to remove a number of articles defaming his business reputation from the vostokmedia.ru website and recover from the defendant 5 million rubles
"Vostok-Media" materials, which came out under the eloquent headlines "Mikhailovsky Broiler" will bring Primorye to cancer? " and "Mikhailovsky Broiler" proves its quality in court ", contained quotes from visitors to the online forum vlcrime.net, as well as fragments of material from the Latvian edition of 7 Secrets. The plaintiff considered that the damage to his reputation was caused by the following phrases from the sources used: “Everything was bought and seized by itself, therefore the SES“ skips ”this product to the shelves of Primorye, and chicken lovers regularly receive doses of the strongest chemistry, which accumulates over time in the body and causes various diseases - up to cancer ”,“ The use of hens from the Mikhailovsky broiler provokes oncological and other diseases, already lie in the hospitals 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, and the quotes from 7 Secrets were misrepresented, so the claim of Mikhailovsky Broiler was partially satisfied: materials from the Vostok-Media agency were removed from the site, and the amount of compensation ultimately decreased to 650,000 rubles.
Vostok-Media LLC filed an appeal in July 2010, but a month later the proceedings were terminated on his own request.
6th place
Claimant: Entrepreneur Khramtsov Oleg Vladimirovich
Defendant: Office of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being 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 the Tomsk Region in August 2008. Then Khramtsov demanded that a number of business entities compensate him for reputation damage in the amount of 5.5 million rubles. (later, the applicant revised his claims, reducing this amount to 500,000 rubles).
The businessman’s dissatisfaction was caused by a press release posted on the Internet by the Tomsk branch of Rospotrebnadzor, which said that his carbonated drink “Our Tom” 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 Well-Being, the Office of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-being in the Tomsk Region, as well as the media in which materials appeared based on published press release: newspapers "Tomsk News", "MIR" and "Evening Tomsk".
The court was presented with the results of the examination, indicating that Khramtsov did produce a drink in violation of sanitary standards. However, the court recognized the phrase about the use of tap water as untrue, and found the fragment of the press release warning that the drink could be hazardous to health, as the word “may” indicates that this phrase is a judgment.
As a result, the court, by a decision of February 10, 2010, partially satisfied the lawsuit of businessman Khramtsov, obliging the Office of Rospotrebnadzor in the Tomsk Region to refute previously published information on the Internet. The court reduced the amount of compensation for reputational harm to 20,000 rubles. The entrepreneur's appeal was dismissed. The case is currently being considered by the cassation court.
5th place
Claimant: LLC “New time”
Defendant: CJSC “VZGLYAD.RU”
Amount of claim: 10,000,000 rubles.
The fifth position in the ranking is the largest lawsuit from one media to another. In November 2009, LLC New Time (publishes The New Times magazine) appealed to the Moscow Arbitration Court with a lawsuit against LLC Vzglyad.ru, which demanded to refute the information circulated by the Internet publication, as well as to pay compensation for damage to business reputation in the amount of 10 million rubles.
In particular, the outrage of “New time” caused two fragments of the article “Mishchenko: Western funds are behind the attack on the office of“ Young Russia. ” 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 correctly used by Albats and the editors of The New Times magazine "So that after the murder (Khutorsky) we are accused of the fact that we did it."
In February 2010, the lawsuit was denied in full. Although the court confirmed the fact that the information was disseminated by the defendant, it acknowledged that the information was “a statement of a purely subjective opinion on a number of events that occurred, and also aimed at the so-called political and journalistic discussion that began in the media, in connection with than they cannot be checked for compliance with reality and be the subject of proof. "
Disagreeing with the court’s decision, Novoye Vremya filed an appeal in March 2010 asking for the court’s decision to set aside and adopt a new judicial act to satisfy the claims. This request was also refused.
4th place
Claimant: St. Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions
Defendants: Cross-Media Publishing House LLC, MEDIA.S-Pb LLC, Media.SPb LLC, Dyachenko A. P.
Claim: 10,000,000 rubles.
The fourth place in the rating of the largest lawsuits filed due to the appearance on the Internet of information that, according to the plaintiff, damages his business reputation, was the appeal to the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region of the St. Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions (in Soviet times it was called the Higher Trade Union School of Culture). The lawsuit was related to the “Border on the nose” material published on the website of St. Petersburg's Novaya Gazeta in October 2007.
Its author, Aleksey Dyachenko, wrote that the Nevsky Technologies company, whose representatives “do not particularly hide with the locals that they act in the interests of [the rector of the trade union university] Alexander Zapesotsky,” leads a “dubious fuss” around the house at Lisiy Nose, Morskie Dubki street, 4, where Zapesotsky "according to eyewitnesses, regularly appears - to relax, relieve stress, improve health." The purpose of this "fuss", according to the journalist, is to expand the site on which the house is located, and examples of "doubtfulness" are an attempt to survive the rescue station from the nearby territory, reclaimed land and a number of other actions.
The article was published in October 2007, and on April 1, 2008 SPGUP filed a lawsuit to protect business reputation, in which it demanded that several fragments of the article be declared untrue, including the expression “another conflict involving the rector of the Humanitarian University of Trade Unions Alexander Zapesotsky is unfolding at present time in Fox Nose ”, the phrase that“ Alexander Sergeevich and related persons, according to their public version, carry out “work to protect the coastal borders of the Russian Federation” and the statement that about “two supervisory authorities immediately had serious complaints against Nevsky Technologies LLC. The plaintiff also requested the court to recover 30,000 rubles in compensation for damage to business reputation. with Dyachenko and 9.97 million rubles. with LLC “MEDIA.S-Pb.”, which owns the site.
The trial court issued its decision on September 28, 2009. The lawsuit was denied. SPGUP disagreed with this verdict and filed an appeal. Its consideration was completed on January 20, 2010. The Thirteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal indicated that, according to paragraph 7 of the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 24, 2005 No. 3, a lawsuit to protect business reputation could not be satisfied by the court if at least one of the three circumstances - the fact that the defendant disseminated information about the plaintiff, discrediting the nature of this information and the discrepancy of their reality, agreed with the assessment of the trial court that there was no information discrediting the plaintiff in the article disputed Tawil appeal.
The dispute is not over at the moment. The plaintiff did not agree with the decision of the appellate court and filed a cassation appeal. It is currently pending before the Federal Arbitration Court of the Northwest District.
3rd place
Claimant: LLC “Orbita”
Defendants: Rostov Regional Public Organization “Don Association for the Protection of Consumers and Entrepreneurs”, Unanyan Seyran Ivanovich
Amount of claim: 17,000,000 rubles.
17 million rubles - This is the third largest damage assessment of business reputation caused by information disseminated on the Internet. On January 23, 2009 the Orbita Motor Show (LLC of the same name) filed a lawsuit against the Rostov regional public organization Don Consumer and Entrepreneurs Protection Association and Seyran Hunanyan. According to the plaintiff, the organization published on its website “http://dzpp.aanet.ru/” (currently unavailable) Hunanyan’s negative feedback on the work of the car dealership, which subsequently formed the basis of a number of articles with high-profile names: “Puss with a mouse” (Rostov official newspaper), Cars with a Dark Past (Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper on the Don newspaper), Premier Unanyan (Rossiyskaya Gazeta) and others.
The very following review was published on the website of the Don Association of Consumer and Entrepreneurs Protection: "... Dear consumers !!! Do you want: What would someone delve into your “dirty laundry”, figuring out where you got the money for an expensive purchase (car) or who is your common-law husband (wife)? To communicate with you roughly during the warranty service of the car? [...] To be called a scammer? [...] If yes, then buy Peugeot and Nisan cars in car dealerships of Orbita limited liability company of an authorized dealer in Rostov-on-Don (one of the record holders in litigation with consumers, more than 15 only in 2007) If you are out of luck, and the car sold to you turned out to be of inadequate quality, you will experience all of the above charms of communicating with the dealer on your own "skin".
Orbit demanded to refute this information as untrue 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 proceedings, the plaintiff refused the lawsuit against the client.
The defendant could not provide evidence of the reliability of the published information, on the basis of which in September 2009 the Arbitration Court of the Rostov Region granted the claim of Orbit. The amount of compensation was significantly reduced - up to 10 000 rubles. The appeal and the cassation appeal of the public organization were rejected by the higher courts.
2nd place
Claimant: CJSC Construction Management No. 155
Defendants: LLC BFM.RU, LLC United Media
Claim amount: 300,000,000 rubles.
In second place among the most “expensive” claims for reputation damage inflicted on the Internet is the case of opposition to the construction company SU-155 and the United Media holding. In May 2009, Construction Management No. 155 CJSC appealed to the Moscow Arbitration Court with a request to oblige the bfm.ru website and Business FM radio station to refute common information that the construction company had ceased to exist (sounded on the air), and also about the misuse of 17 billion rubles allocated by the state for housing projects for the military (was published on bfm.ru).
As a compensation for damage to the business reputation, the SU-155 (controlled by Mikhail Balakin, an ex-official of the Moscow City Hall) demanded to recover 150 million rubles from each media. The claim was based on a phrase uttered by correspondent Rushan Yanov on the air "according to unconfirmed information, now the question is generally about the existence of the SU-155 developer, or rather, a source told me that such a company no longer exists." In addition, the construction company demanded that the defendant recover damages in the amount of 19.6 million rubles. - how much was the apartment, the sale of which Emelin E.O. fell through after a potential buyer got acquainted with the information about the problems of the SU-155.
The court partially satisfied the lawsuit, obliging both media outlets to refute previously distributed 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 the decision of the arbitral tribunal. In April, the court ruled that the decision was upheld.
1st place
Claimant: Planet LLC
Defendants: Mamontov Arkady Viktorovich, Federal State Unitary Enterprise All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company
Claim amount: 300 304,000 rubles.
The first place in the rating of the largest claims on protecting business reputation on the Internet is occupied by the attempt of the Planet travel agency to sue VGTRK and journalist Arkady Mamontov 300.3 million rubles. Planeta LLC appealed to the Moscow Arbitration Court with a demand to refute the information circulated by the defendants on websites related to the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, and earlier, on the television program Special Correspondent, which, according to the plaintiff, defamed the company's business reputation.
In particular, Planet was outraged by the information that she and her general director Vitaly Anserov were allegedly involved in organizing child sex tourism. The company estimated the damage caused to its business reputation by VGTRK as 290.3 million rubles, and by Mamontov as 10 million rubles.
The trial court dismissed the claim. The plaintiff could not prove the fact of the dissemination of false information defaming the business reputation, and the court found the justifications presented as evidence the subjective opinion of the plaintiff and his representatives based on their own perception of the contents of the television program.
In addition, the company name Planeta LLC was not contained in the text of the journalistic material provided by the plaintiff, so the court decided that it was impossible to identify the travel agency in it. The decision of the arbitral tribunal also indicated that the plots of the program “are of an author’s character, represent the expression of the subjective position of the special correspondent A. Mamontov, contain assessment categories, own opinion, the author’s judgment, his subjective conclusions.”
Planet tried to appeal the decision of the trial court at the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal, but the company’s complaint was also rejected there.
The main property of the Internet - copy-paste - allows you to endlessly replicate any informational message that gets there. It is worth selling a product to the “thousand-year-old” whose quality does not satisfy him, as after a couple of hours this event can become central in the online media with a millionth audience. But what if claims to a product or service are far-fetched, and information about their poor quality is not true or, at least, the manufacturer thinks so?
In this case, this manufacturer will go to court. There are more and more claims to protect reputation. According to the legal information system Pravo.ru , in 2009, 98 such applications were submitted to arbitration courts, and in 2010 107 - in just eight months (cases related to the Internet were counted). Pravo.rupresents a rating of the largest claims to protect business reputation related to the Russian segment of the Internet, and analyzes in detail the top ten.
10th place
Claimant: Vyatka-SUEK LLC
Defendant: Arina Radova, Our Editorial Board, Our Reporter Newspaper
Amount of claim: 2,000,000 rubles.
Closes the top ten most “expensive” litigations about the business reputation defiled on the Internet is the claim of Vyatka-SUEK LLC against the editorial office of the newspaper Nash Variant for 2 million rubles.
In March 2010, Vyatka-SUEK, a subsidiary of Russia's largest coal holding, appealed to the Arbitration Court of the Kirov Region with a request to declare information disseminated on the website of the newspaper Reporter untrue, which is published by the Editorial Board of the newspaper "Our Option". The plaintiff did not like the following excerpts of the published material: “Whether it is an accident or not, but the agreement with Vyatka-SUEK, according to sources familiar with the situation, was allegedly signed in February for supplies for March. And the price, according to informed interlocutors, amounted to 1,970 rubles per ton (that is, 470 rubles more than if public tenders were held). At the same time, it would seem that Vyatka-SUEK is under a contract to deliver 3 thousand tons of “black gold”. According to some simple estimates, we get a contract for almost 6 million rubles. It is interesting that many who knew about this situation, after the emergence of information about the criminal case against the adviser to the governor, now amicably nod towards Andrey Votinov. They say he proceeded from the initiative of “helping” a coal company in terms of concluding a state contract ”and“ By the way. If a tender is held in favor of a particular company, their “corruption” component is equal to 2 or 3 dollars per ton of raw materials. ”
The court found that the first of these fragments is an expression of the subjective opinion and views of the defendant, the information contained in it cannot be checked for compliance with their reality, since they are of a reference and hypothetical nature. As for the second passage, the court did not see that the information contained in it was disseminated about the plaintiff, but rather about the unlimited range of unscrupulous companies alleged by the author of the article. Based on this, the court rejected the lawsuit by Vyatka-SUEK. In July 2010, the company filed an appeal, which is currently pending before the Second Arbitration Court of Appeal.
It is interesting that during the hearing of the case it turned out that Arina Radova, to whom the lawsuit was addressed together with the editorial board of the newspaper “Our Option”, does not exist, that this is just a pseudonym. The plaintiff had to amend the statement of claim accordingly.
9th place
Claimant: Drembach Nikolay Vladimirovich
Defendant: LLC “Lock-and-hardware company“ Citadel ”
Amount of claim: 3,000,000 rubles.
In February 2010, Nikolai Drembach filed a lawsuit in the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region against the Citadel Lock and Hardware Company LLC, accusing him of disseminating false information defaming his business reputation and demanding compensation in the amount of 3 million rubles.
The plaintiff stated that on the site neplatim.su the defendant posted information that Drembach holds the position of director of two companies - LLC Murmansk Trust Company and LLC Atoll-Nord Trading House, which are unscrupulous partners and have debt obligations.
As evidence, the plaintiff submitted to the court a printout of the page of the site neplatim.su where such information was actually contained.In April 2010, Nikolai Drembach was denied the claim, on the grounds that the court did not find confirmation of the distribution injured defamation is a defendant his right to appeal to higher courts Drembach not used..
8 place
Plaintiff: JSC "Firm" News "- publisher of" Persona "
Defendant: ANO “Novaya Gazeta Publishing House” (Editorial Office and Novaya Gazeta Building), L. Nikitinsky
claim amount: 3,398,400 rubles.
CJSC Firm Informburo filed a lawsuit against ANO Novaya Gazeta 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 material “The court to the point of mockery” published on the Novaya Gazeta website , as inconsistent with reality and defaming business reputation, as well as recovering 3.05 million rubles from Novaya Gazeta. and 339 840 rubles. from the author of the article Leonid Nikitinsky.
The plaintiff was dissatisfied with several phrases related to the activities of the Persona newspaper, which had the same founders as the plaintiff - T. Krivtsova and Isakov E.A. In particular, the material said: “Judging by the site, over the 10 years of the existence of the Persona newspaper, 20 issues have not been issued, moreover, in 2008, not a single one. According to the data available to us, the economic activities of the citizens Isakov and Krivtsov, who also established the Informburo Firm CJSC, practically do not pay anyone, at least in cashless form, ”“ The project is not original, but in the spirit of the times: similar they are made by PR agencies under the financing of the “persons” themselves and their sponsors ”,“ From the standpoint of professional journalism, it [the Persona newspaper] never existed ”.
The court ruled that the disputed information constitutes a judgment, the opinion of a journalist, therefore, it is not possible to verify it. In April 2010, the lawsuit was completely denied. In June 2010, the Information Bureau filed an appeal; the case is currently under consideration.
7th place
Claimant: CJSC Mikhailovsky Broiler
Defendant: LLC Russian Information Agency Vostok-Media
Claim amount: 5,000,000 rubles.
The claim of Mikhailovsky Broiler CJSC against Vostok-Media LLC (which manages the news agency of the same name) was filed with the Arbitration Court of Primorsky Krai in April 2009. The plaintiff demanded to remove a number of articles defaming his business reputation from the vostokmedia.ru website and recover from the defendant 5 million rubles
"Vostok-Media" materials, which came out under the eloquent headlines "Mikhailovsky Broiler" will bring Primorye to cancer? " and "Mikhailovsky Broiler" proves its quality in court ", contained quotes from visitors to the online forum vlcrime.net, as well as fragments of material from the Latvian edition of 7 Secrets. The plaintiff considered that the damage to his reputation was caused by the following phrases from the sources used: “Everything was bought and seized by itself, therefore the SES“ skips ”this product to the shelves of Primorye, and chicken lovers regularly receive doses of the strongest chemistry, which accumulates over time in the body and causes various diseases - up to cancer ”,“ The use of hens from the Mikhailovsky broiler provokes oncological and other diseases, already lie in the hospitals 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, and the quotes from 7 Secrets were misrepresented, so the claim of Mikhailovsky Broiler was partially satisfied: materials from the Vostok-Media agency were removed from the site, and the amount of compensation ultimately decreased to 650,000 rubles.
Vostok-Media LLC filed an appeal in July 2010, but a month later the proceedings were terminated on his own request.
6th place
Claimant: Entrepreneur Khramtsov Oleg Vladimirovich
Defendant: Office of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being 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 the Tomsk Region in August 2008. Then Khramtsov demanded that a number of business entities compensate him for reputation damage in the amount of 5.5 million rubles. (later, the applicant revised his claims, reducing this amount to 500,000 rubles).
The businessman’s dissatisfaction was caused by a press release posted on the Internet by the Tomsk branch of Rospotrebnadzor, which said that his carbonated drink “Our Tom” 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 Well-Being, the Office of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-being in the Tomsk Region, as well as the media in which materials appeared based on published press release: newspapers "Tomsk News", "MIR" and "Evening Tomsk".
The court was presented with the results of the examination, indicating that Khramtsov did produce a drink in violation of sanitary standards. However, the court recognized the phrase about the use of tap water as untrue, and found the fragment of the press release warning that the drink could be hazardous to health, as the word “may” indicates that this phrase is a judgment.
As a result, the court, by a decision of February 10, 2010, partially satisfied the lawsuit of businessman Khramtsov, obliging the Office of Rospotrebnadzor in the Tomsk Region to refute previously published information on the Internet. The court reduced the amount of compensation for reputational harm to 20,000 rubles. The entrepreneur's appeal was dismissed. The case is currently being considered by the cassation court.
5th place
Claimant: LLC “New time”
Defendant: CJSC “VZGLYAD.RU”
Amount of claim: 10,000,000 rubles.
The fifth position in the ranking is the largest lawsuit from one media to another. In November 2009, LLC New Time (publishes The New Times magazine) appealed to the Moscow Arbitration Court with a lawsuit against LLC Vzglyad.ru, which demanded to refute the information circulated by the Internet publication, as well as to pay compensation for damage to business reputation in the amount of 10 million rubles.
In particular, the outrage of “New time” caused two fragments of the article “Mishchenko: Western funds are behind the attack on the office of“ Young Russia. ” 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 correctly used by Albats and the editors of The New Times magazine "So that after the murder (Khutorsky) we are accused of the fact that we did it."
In February 2010, the lawsuit was denied in full. Although the court confirmed the fact that the information was disseminated by the defendant, it acknowledged that the information was “a statement of a purely subjective opinion on a number of events that occurred, and also aimed at the so-called political and journalistic discussion that began in the media, in connection with than they cannot be checked for compliance with reality and be the subject of proof. "
Disagreeing with the court’s decision, Novoye Vremya filed an appeal in March 2010 asking for the court’s decision to set aside and adopt a new judicial act to satisfy the claims. This request was also refused.
4th place
Claimant: St. Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions
Defendants: Cross-Media Publishing House LLC, MEDIA.S-Pb LLC, Media.SPb LLC, Dyachenko A. P.
Claim: 10,000,000 rubles.
The fourth place in the rating of the largest lawsuits filed due to the appearance on the Internet of information that, according to the plaintiff, damages his business reputation, was the appeal to the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region of the St. Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions (in Soviet times it was called the Higher Trade Union School of Culture). The lawsuit was related to the “Border on the nose” material published on the website of St. Petersburg's Novaya Gazeta in October 2007.
Its author, Aleksey Dyachenko, wrote that the Nevsky Technologies company, whose representatives “do not particularly hide with the locals that they act in the interests of [the rector of the trade union university] Alexander Zapesotsky,” leads a “dubious fuss” around the house at Lisiy Nose, Morskie Dubki street, 4, where Zapesotsky "according to eyewitnesses, regularly appears - to relax, relieve stress, improve health." The purpose of this "fuss", according to the journalist, is to expand the site on which the house is located, and examples of "doubtfulness" are an attempt to survive the rescue station from the nearby territory, reclaimed land and a number of other actions.
The article was published in October 2007, and on April 1, 2008 SPGUP filed a lawsuit to protect business reputation, in which it demanded that several fragments of the article be declared untrue, including the expression “another conflict involving the rector of the Humanitarian University of Trade Unions Alexander Zapesotsky is unfolding at present time in Fox Nose ”, the phrase that“ Alexander Sergeevich and related persons, according to their public version, carry out “work to protect the coastal borders of the Russian Federation” and the statement that about “two supervisory authorities immediately had serious complaints against Nevsky Technologies LLC. The plaintiff also requested the court to recover 30,000 rubles in compensation for damage to business reputation. with Dyachenko and 9.97 million rubles. with LLC “MEDIA.S-Pb.”, which owns the site.
The trial court issued its decision on September 28, 2009. The lawsuit was denied. SPGUP disagreed with this verdict and filed an appeal. Its consideration was completed on January 20, 2010. The Thirteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal indicated that, according to paragraph 7 of the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 24, 2005 No. 3, a lawsuit to protect business reputation could not be satisfied by the court if at least one of the three circumstances - the fact that the defendant disseminated information about the plaintiff, discrediting the nature of this information and the discrepancy of their reality, agreed with the assessment of the trial court that there was no information discrediting the plaintiff in the article disputed Tawil appeal.
The dispute is not over at the moment. The plaintiff did not agree with the decision of the appellate court and filed a cassation appeal. It is currently pending before the Federal Arbitration Court of the Northwest District.
3rd place
Claimant: LLC “Orbita”
Defendants: Rostov Regional Public Organization “Don Association for the Protection of Consumers and Entrepreneurs”, Unanyan Seyran Ivanovich
Amount of claim: 17,000,000 rubles.
17 million rubles - This is the third largest damage assessment of business reputation caused by information disseminated on the Internet. On January 23, 2009 the Orbita Motor Show (LLC of the same name) filed a lawsuit against the Rostov regional public organization Don Consumer and Entrepreneurs Protection Association and Seyran Hunanyan. According to the plaintiff, the organization published on its website “http://dzpp.aanet.ru/” (currently unavailable) Hunanyan’s negative feedback on the work of the car dealership, which subsequently formed the basis of a number of articles with high-profile names: “Puss with a mouse” (Rostov official newspaper), Cars with a Dark Past (Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper on the Don newspaper), Premier Unanyan (Rossiyskaya Gazeta) and others.
The very following review was published on the website of the Don Association of Consumer and Entrepreneurs Protection: "... Dear consumers !!! Do you want: What would someone delve into your “dirty laundry”, figuring out where you got the money for an expensive purchase (car) or who is your common-law husband (wife)? To communicate with you roughly during the warranty service of the car? [...] To be called a scammer? [...] If yes, then buy Peugeot and Nisan cars in car dealerships of Orbita limited liability company of an authorized dealer in Rostov-on-Don (one of the record holders in litigation with consumers, more than 15 only in 2007) If you are out of luck, and the car sold to you turned out to be of inadequate quality, you will experience all of the above charms of communicating with the dealer on your own "skin".
Orbit demanded to refute this information as untrue 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 proceedings, the plaintiff refused the lawsuit against the client.
The defendant could not provide evidence of the reliability of the published information, on the basis of which in September 2009 the Arbitration Court of the Rostov Region granted the claim of Orbit. The amount of compensation was significantly reduced - up to 10 000 rubles. The appeal and the cassation appeal of the public organization were rejected by the higher courts.
2nd place
Claimant: CJSC Construction Management No. 155
Defendants: LLC BFM.RU, LLC United Media
Claim amount: 300,000,000 rubles.
In second place among the most “expensive” claims for reputation damage inflicted on the Internet is the case of opposition to the construction company SU-155 and the United Media holding. In May 2009, Construction Management No. 155 CJSC appealed to the Moscow Arbitration Court with a request to oblige the bfm.ru website and Business FM radio station to refute common information that the construction company had ceased to exist (sounded on the air), and also about the misuse of 17 billion rubles allocated by the state for housing projects for the military (was published on bfm.ru).
As a compensation for damage to the business reputation, the SU-155 (controlled by Mikhail Balakin, an ex-official of the Moscow City Hall) demanded to recover 150 million rubles from each media. The claim was based on a phrase uttered by correspondent Rushan Yanov on the air "according to unconfirmed information, now the question is generally about the existence of the SU-155 developer, or rather, a source told me that such a company no longer exists." In addition, the construction company demanded that the defendant recover damages in the amount of 19.6 million rubles. - how much was the apartment, the sale of which Emelin E.O. fell through after a potential buyer got acquainted with the information about the problems of the SU-155.
The court partially satisfied the lawsuit, obliging both media outlets to refute previously distributed 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 the decision of the arbitral tribunal. In April, the court ruled that the decision was upheld.
1st place
Claimant: Planet LLC
Defendants: Mamontov Arkady Viktorovich, Federal State Unitary Enterprise All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company
Claim amount: 300 304,000 rubles.
The first place in the rating of the largest claims on protecting business reputation on the Internet is occupied by the attempt of the Planet travel agency to sue VGTRK and journalist Arkady Mamontov 300.3 million rubles. Planeta LLC appealed to the Moscow Arbitration Court with a demand to refute the information circulated by the defendants on websites related to the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, and earlier, on the television program Special Correspondent, which, according to the plaintiff, defamed the company's business reputation.
In particular, Planet was outraged by the information that she and her general director Vitaly Anserov were allegedly involved in organizing child sex tourism. The company estimated the damage caused to its business reputation by VGTRK as 290.3 million rubles, and by Mamontov as 10 million rubles.
The trial court dismissed the claim. The plaintiff could not prove the fact of the dissemination of false information defaming the business reputation, and the court found the justifications presented as evidence the subjective opinion of the plaintiff and his representatives based on their own perception of the contents of the television program.
In addition, the company name Planeta LLC was not contained in the text of the journalistic material provided by the plaintiff, so the court decided that it was impossible to identify the travel agency in it. The decision of the arbitral tribunal also indicated that the plots of the program “are of an author’s character, represent the expression of the subjective position of the special correspondent A. Mamontov, contain assessment categories, own opinion, the author’s judgment, his subjective conclusions.”
Planet tried to appeal the decision of the trial court at the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal, but the company’s complaint was also rejected there.