Media Press Release Threatens to Sue

Posted by Greg on February 28th, 2006

Awhile back, I posted about a press release company that posted what looked like a fake trackback to my site.

Apparently, they’re not happy about that post.


David Hay wrote:
Hi again,

I’m David, from www.media-press-release.com

I have discussed with our legal department from California about our serious problem. We advise your to perform a clean of our brand name from your site.

You have 3 days, till Wednesday morning to delete this post blogging.webguerrilla.com/blog-spamming-part-2

This will save your business with your clients and our brand name.

I kindly request to remove this post from this page blogging.webguerrilla.com/blog-spamming-part-2

Please confirm me when has been deleted your offensive post.

Many thanks,

David Hay

david@media-press-release.com

Website: www.media-press-release.com
IP: 86.105.70.148

It’s interesting that David didn’t deny they were responsible for the comment. (The original comment came from David’s IP) Nor did he offer any information that would make me think I was mistaken about my original post. If they want me to edit or remove the post, they’re going to have to explain what part of it is inaccurate.

Work

Comments

12 Responses to “ Media Press Release Threatens to Sue ”

  1. Paul Reilly on March 1st, 2006 6:14 am

    Nice one Greg!

    Give ‘em rice!
    :)
    Paul

  2. Greenguy on March 1st, 2006 10:00 am

    Looks like everyone is taking after Traffic Power errr 1P. They are kind of like terrorist. You give in to their demands and more of them come out with the same tactic. Since almost everyone gave into 1P this company thinks they can get away with it.

    Don’t let em intimidate you.

    Greenguy

  3. Chung on March 1st, 2006 12:48 pm

    I think they can’t sue you for something so stupid. What is Paypal going to do with a site like paypalsucks.com? Lol, and what about the yesmen.com ? They go around making fun of corporations.

  4. randfish on March 2nd, 2006 1:33 am

    Seen this type of thing from some of my posts, too. When I don’t write back; I never hear from them again. I’m always amazed too that they never bother to pick up the phone…

  5. Anthony Parsons on March 2nd, 2006 2:10 am

    I think their a backyard shop with nothing more than words… let alone advise from any legal department… more like a friend of a friend of a friend, who does conveyancing or something similar…

    I actually love it when people send me that sort of crap… and some have even sent a cease and decist, which went no further once my barrister replied… most have little balls to stand upon (and use), let alone attempt to know the law…

  6. Brian Turner on March 2nd, 2006 5:36 am

    Sad to see when a company responds to negative publicity with threats.

    If you’re caught with your pants down, you say “Hey, my pants were down - I’m sorry - I won’t let it happen again”.

  7. Paul Reilly on March 2nd, 2006 8:35 am

    Hey Greg,

    Did you expand your study on competitive sabotage through aggressive link aquisition using mass distributed anchor text?

    Paul

  8. UnreferencedVariable on March 2nd, 2006 11:19 am

    Oh no, they have a legal department in CALIFORNIA!

    If they cannot write a simple email using basic rules of grammer I doubt they have the ability to explain their position in a rational way.

  9. phantombookman on March 2nd, 2006 11:26 am

    Looking at the gramar I would not want them doing press releases for me.

    It cannot be right surely ?

  10. Aaron Pratt on March 3rd, 2006 4:44 pm

    Think of all the cool backlinks this will bring. :)

  11. Rae on March 4th, 2006 8:23 am

    In light of this new development, I’m thinking one of two things…

    1. They’re really, really stupid (who would antagonize Boser AGAIN unless a competent legal team told him he was nailable, at which point, a serious legal communication would have been made)

    or

    2. Boser’s blog brings a lot more traffic than anyone thinks.
    ;-)

  12. IncrediBILL on March 4th, 2006 12:05 pm

    I went to their site and they don’t appear to be using link condoms on their one and only sponsored link which would therefore make the original post appear to be inaccurate at a minimum.

    Are they aware of how the FTC frowns upon distributing misleading information to drive sales?

Got something to say?