The End of Ripoff Report

Magedson’s Karma: In Iowa?

In 2015 Ripoff Report sued Iowa county attorney, Ben Smith in order to stop a criminal investigation. Countdown to the Iowa trial due to start 15 May 2017. Watch the countdown clock tick here. There is substantial evidence of Ed Magedson’s tactics of  harassment and extortion and that he pays flunkies to publish content on Ripoff Report (and other websites) for the purposes of harassment and extortion.

Ed Magedson has utilised the Ripoff Report’s high Google page rank to instigate, finance and control a vicious and prolonged campaign of intimidation by global humiliation against a number of witnesses in a US criminal case, anyone remotely associated with the witnesses and, in fact, anyone who challenges his business model of extortion.

 

Magedson’s penchant for vengeance and causing pain and distress will be his undoing! He and Ripoff Report have been sued in the US for USD$60,000,000 by a decorated plastic surgeon and Army Reserve Colonel who devotes some of his time to treating war veterans. Ripoff Report attorney Adam Kunz and his paid stooge Darren M Meade have been sued in Texas by a fellow activist, Shawn Richeson, owner of ClickaNerd.

Ripoff Report: Attorneys or Cohorts?

Ed Magedson and Ripoff Report have been represented for years by Maria Crimi-Speth, and Adam Kunz from the law firm Jaburg Wilk. They enforced a take down order against my fellow Australian activist Michael Roberts over the Advertising Boycott (which I designed and implemented). Kunz says he was reduced to ‘begging’ advertisers to stay with Ripoff Report. But the advertising clients were horrified that their brand was associated with such abusive content. Magedson and Crimi-Speth of Ripoff Report lost! 

Watch Kunz’s admission of ‘begging’ advertisers on this video.

We Know All Their Secrets

Ed Magedson has a long history of the commission of crimes to further his on ends – money! These include extortion, harassment and reputation assassination. He thinks that no-one knows about his past and present crimes. But secrets are like the iceberg that hit the Titanic:  More than 90% are not visible on the surface.

Magedson also preys on young men and those who are ‘challenged’.

Ripoff Report: Section 230 Immunity is Doomed

Recently the US Courts have began to recognise that Ripoff Report is an extortion racket that has leveraged its high Google page rank for commercial gain. In Vision Security v Xcentric Ventures (the ROR controlling company), in which Kunz was representing Magedson and Ripoff Report, the Judge stated:

Xcentric argues that drawing all inferences in favour of Vision Security, it must be found to have been a neutral publisher. The facts as alleged, however, support a contrary conclusion. Applying the Iqbal standard, the court must give weight to the following allegations: Xcentric maintains the “Ripoff Report” website with a tag line, “By Consumers, for consumers” and “Don’t let them get away with it. Let the truth be known.” Contrary to the stated tag line, the Ripoff Report allows competitors, not just consumers, to post comments. The Ripoff Report home page states: “Complaints Reviews Scams Lawsuits Frauds Reported, File your review. Consumers educating consumers.” These allegations allow a reasonable inference that the Ripoff Report encourages negative content.

The Judge further noted:

These specifically pleaded facts support a reasonable inference that Xcentric was not a neutral publisher. It had an interest in, and encouraged, negative content. It refused to remove the content, even when told by the author that it was false and he wanted it removed. What interest would a neutral publisher have in maintaining false and harmful content against the wishes of the author unless it advanced its own commercial interests? The alleged facts allow a reasonable inference that Xcentric refused to remove the offensive content to promote its own corporate advocacy program. Indeed, it is reasonable to infer that the very raison d’etre for the website was to commercialize on its ability to sell its program to counter the offensive content the Ripoff Report encouraged. See Accusearch, 570 F.3d at 1200.

Ripoff Report’s section 230 immunity is in serious danger.