Judge : I heard these speakers and I have to agree with the reviewer's / defendant sentiment.
Thin Line Between Critique and Courtrooms: A Dialogue on the Recent Audiophile Drama
Hey Audiogonians,
In the vast, vibrant universe of audio reviews, where the line between subjective opinion and objective analysis often blurs, a new saga unfolds. It involves a Youtuber, well-known within our community for their take on speaker designs – designs that, while innovative, haven't shied away from criticism. The plot thickens with another Youtuber's revelation: the speaker's designer and manufacturer has filed a lawsuit against a reviewer over their less-than-glowing feedback.
The core of the debate? Whether it's acceptable to push back against reviewers when their findings diverge from what manufacturers desire. It's not a new drama; history is littered with tales of reviewers facing legal threats for daring to express their truth. Yet, each story brings a fresh perspective on the delicate dance between free speech and brand reputation.
This particular episode raises several intriguing questions:
- Where do we draw the line between constructive criticism and damaging feedback?
- Is the courtroom really the arena for settling disputes over reviews, or should dialogue prevail?
- And crucially, what does this mean for the future of honest, independent audio reviews?
This isn't just about the nitty-gritty of legal battles, many of which remain cloaked in confidentiality and technical jargon. It's about the principle: the right to voice one's opinion in a space that thrives on diversity of thought.
So, fellow audiophiles, what's your take? Have you ever felt swayed by a review, only to discover a different truth upon listening? Have you faced the ire of those who didn't appreciate your candid feedback?
📢Let's make this a discussion to remember – not just for the controversy, but for the unity and respect we can foster, even in disagreement.
Did Tekton actually sue Erin, or merely "threaten" to sue? What would constitute a "threat"? If Erin relies heavily on measurements, an incorrect measurement would could damage the company's reputation and I can see why they would take action. If the Tekton representative's explanation is correct, that action involved getting Erin to redo the measurements and repost his review after such correction in the measurement protocol. While this certainly suggest pressure on Erin to change his review to avoid further threats, the ball is in Erin's court--he could still post a negative review, but, at least he will not have published factually incorrect measurements. It appears to me that there is a bit too much hysteria about evil companies attacking reviewers. This does not happen often, and in this case, it is not even clear from the discourse here that Tekton did anything more than protect their interest by getting the reviewer to do the measurements correctly. It is pure speculation on the part of the posted video that the measurement issues were minor and insubstantial. |
I’m not a lawyer and don’t have any special expertise in libel/slander laws, but I’m guessing that before taking legal action in a case like this, a manufacturer has to first publicly and/or privately advise the alleged offender that they have made false claims about their product and that if they don’t stop doing so then legal action will be pursued. Otherwise, a lack of such a warning immediately after the manufacturer becomes aware of the alleged false claims might indicate tacit approval and could affect any right to future legal damages if the matter can’t be resolved out of court. I haven’t reviewed all the reports cited in this thread, but it sounds like Tekton could have been more tactful in how they went about dealing with the reviewer, but it may have been legally necessary to protect any future case.
Again, I'm not an expert but I'm not sure a finding of malice would be necessary. As I understand from a bit of googling, malice is required for a defamation finding against a public figures or officials. In all other cases, mere negiligence in making knowingly false defamatory statements is sufficient. So it seems that if someone knows that a claim is false and makes it anyway, it may be actionable regardless of motive. I hate to sound like a defender of big business, which I'm not, but the law can be complex (probably too much so!) and it's not usually a good idea to reach conclusions about stuff like this unless you 1) know all the facts, and 2) know the law. |
I watched Erin's video right when it came out of those hideous garage speakers. The review samples were sent to him by a viewer, not the manufacturer. The manufacturer should have just opened a constructive dialog with Erin, first. But the way this was handled was wrong and heavy-handed is being polite. There are so many other speaker brands out there with better finishing and aesthetics that if Tekton goes away, I wouldn't notice. |
I will be donating to this when I have a few minutes today. https://www.gofundme.com/f/erins-audio-corner-litigation-fund |
+1 @roadcykler |
This reeks of insecurity, not surprising for a company that can't design loudspeakers correctly. Tekton would have to prove malice on the part of the reviewer, which is just short of impossible. The sad part is the reviewer will have to pay lawyers to defend himself. Just the threat of being sued might keep other reviewers from mentioning obvious problems with designs which hurts us. |
"- Where do we draw the line between constructive criticism and damaging feedback?" The line should be at "Lied" If the manufacturer or the reviewer lied with intention to cause damage then there should be recourse. Otherwise not. Dialogue first. If there is willful misrepresentation with the intent of financial harm then the courts should (assuming they are even honest any longer) adjudicate. I think independent reviewers remain encouraged and are not too worried about being bullied. "So, fellow audiophiles, what's your take?" Tekton managed to alienate and anger a LOT of well heeled informed consumers. Way to go you morons! "Have you ever felt swayed by a review, only to discover a different truth upon listening?" Yes- long ago I bought a ChiFi DAC that Thomas was raving about- a Suncoz. $500 in the toilet on that one. Ugh! "Learnt me lesson" "Have you faced the ire of those who didn't appreciate your candid feedback?" Nope- I'm a digital nobody- unless you count Audiogon. I have riled a few snowflakes by accident. Some people are just miserable and want you to join them. |
This reminds me of the political left cancel culture of destroyer a opponent when it doesnot fit their narrative . Your 1st amendment right is to your opinion . you should ask to not have your outcome displayed if they don’t like them. I am not familiar with the speaker in question but unless speaking personally about their integrity ,and moral character I don’t think they have much of a case. |
The majority of opinions on audio websites are utterly useless. I take them as garbage. But if I made a living engineering and designing speakers I would hold people accountable for the ignorant BS they spread. Many people who participate on audio websites are idiots who know very little about what they are talking about and can destroy a reputation just to hear themselves speak. Why not hold them accountable? |
Will you explain why you didn’t do that in the first place instead of threatening to sue him? Forgot that little tidbit. Now you’re playing the understanding good guy after the "fact". 😂 Looks like nothing more than damage control after your litigation threat bought you a truckload of bad publicity.
|
whats the debate? |
SLAPP suits have always been popular with those people/businesses that could not rebut criticism with legitimate claims or evidence.
Strategic lawsuits against public participation (also known as SLAPP suits or intimidation lawsuits),[1] or strategic litigation against public participation,[2] are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[3] In a typical SLAPP, the plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate.[4] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. SLAPPs bring about freedom of speech concerns due to their chilling effect and are often difficult to filter out and penalize because the plaintiffs attempt to obfuscate their intent to censor, intimidate, or silence their critics. |
There seems to be comity between the parties. There's back and forth after this pinned posting, so I don't really know where things stand, now. But this seems to be pull-back from litigation. For more, see this discussion:
|
Yeah man...go after somebody for subjective criticism and you not only look like a fool, but instantly earn all the bad publicity you're likely gonna get. If you actually believe in your product...any product...you gotta take a hit once in a while. Suck it up. I recently noticed an older ad for a Tekton Moab with beryllium tweeter/mid array for 18 grand. Now it's 30 grand. I should have invested in beryllium futures. Sue me. |
Post removed |
This seems very heavy handed on the part of the manufacturer, if it’s actually happening the way it’s being reported. Erin seems like a reasonable guy and I suspect he would have been amenable to a discussion about his testing method with the manufacturer, where any issue could have been resolved amicably. I’ve no time for people who resort to the threat of litigation when there are clear and obvious alternatives. “Vote with your feet” is my default position when I hear stuff like this… |
Has anyone ever wondered why a middle eastern dude thinks he’s a Chinese chick (in all these years)? It’s quite strange. |
Well said @panerai557 |
So I guess there's no 1st amendment in hifi journalism? Reviewers review a product however he wishes to and tell his thoughts about it however he wants to. It is up to viewers how they react to the review either buy it or not. I commend review which does not sugar coat. Like some stereophile reviews, I can pick out things reviewers didn't like. Art Dudley was pretty clear about product he didn't like. Read his review on EAR Yoshino CD player. Also John Atkinson said that Simaudio 700i does not deliver power according to its spec. I think after that Simaudio stopped sending their products to Stereophile for reviews The problem I see these days is everyone has to be right. There's no room for negotiation and understanding. Things are so short fused, especially on the internet. These designers should be more open minded and willing to work with reviewers and improve on things. |
I expect ASR will have more protection from manufacturer/distributor lawsuits than most since so much - and sometimes all - of his content is emperical measurements. Now a litigant can always claim ASR's measurement technique is flawed and therefore besmirching their product unfairly, and drag Amir into court and outspend him. But as others have said this is the new American social/economic context, where nothing matters except the $$. Corporate concepts of honesty, integrity, long term customer satisfaction and fair competition in the marketplace are going the way of the dinosaur.
|
Tekton also threatened to sue ASR publicly in an open forum recently for a review they did. It is a long thread and can’t be bothered to paraphrase it. What I can tell you is I will personally avoid Tekton now and forever, not because of what they call “bad” reviews but because of their attitude on the forums and toward reviews. Again I looked at the measurements and thought they were better than expected but my expectations were pretty low. the thread can be read here.
|
thecarpathian, Erin’s Audio corner has direct comments on this YouTube page community page regarding this issue. He states Tekton is questioning his test method due to not having feet on the speakers as there are holes straight through the cabinet that the feet. Erin did not state directly Tekton is the company suing….
|
He does like to throw the ’slander’ word around a lot. He’s done it here more than a few times.(Even though he means 'libel'.) And I just know he’s reading this... Will he comment? If he’s really that hot headedly dumb, yes! If he has even a scintilla of common sense, no! I would be happy to contribute to Erin’s potential GoFundMe. I cannot stand a bully. |
I’m no lawyer, and have no opinion nor a dog in this fight herein, but here is what a lawyer bud informally highlighted as an online GOOGLE search for the general public as an informal,layman’s “fast “n dirty”background info blurb on a complex and evolving area of alleged tort law,
“ …. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation..”
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED COURTROOM CLAIM FOR “LIBEL” ” …. a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation….”
SLANDER vs LIBEL ” …. This general area of law is called defamation law. Libel and slander are types of defamatory statements. Libel is a defamatory statement that is written. Slander is a defamatory statement that is oral.…”
Plaintiff can possibly lose his alleged case or have his alleged claim for damages amended if the defendant can ultimately support his alleged defamation defence. Defamation law continues to change and evolve. Defamation attorneys must have extensive knowledge of First Amendment and other aspects of defamation law to effectively prosecute claims for businesses, professionals and individuals who have been defamed. Historically, the distinction between libel and slander was significant and had real-world implications regarding how a case was litigated including the elements that had to be proven and who had the burden of proof. Illinois courts have changed their approach, however, as the Illinois Supreme Court explained in Bryson v. News America Publication, Inc.:
The tort of defamation (sometimes referred to as defamation of character) can be divided into claims involving two distinct types of statements: - defamatory per se statements and - defamatory per quod statements. Statements that are defamatory per se (sometimes referred to generically by courts as libel per se) are so obviously and naturally harmful to one’s reputation on their face that proof of injury is not required. Illinois law recognizes five types of statements that are considered defamatory per se:
Importantly, a statement can only be considered defamatory per se if the harmful effect is apparent on the face of the statement itself. If extrinsic facts or additional information about the person being defamed is required to understand the harmful effect of the statement, then it cannot be defamatory per se. That is not to say the statement is not defamatory if extrinsic facts are required; it just cannot be defamatory per se. If a defamatory statement does not fall into one of the defamatory per se categories or requires extrinsic facts, then it is considered defamatory per quod. Unlike in cases involving defamation per se, defamation per quod claims require the plaintiff to allege and prove special damages (also called “special harm” by some courts). The term “special damages” or “special harm” is a legal term of art in defamation law that means the loss of something with actual economic or pecuniary value. In other words, a plaintiff alleging defamation per quod must be able to show specifically how the defamation caused a specific, quantifiable loss of money such as the commission from a lost sale or the salary from a lost job.
|