Protecting business reputation on social networks. Crisis situation for a company on social networks - action plan! Why online?

We live in the 21st century, and there is no need to convince anyone of the benefits of information technology. The President of the country and the Government are carrying out systematic work, as a result of which the Internet has come to every school, to a resident of the most remote corner of our country. Today we can talk about the commercialization of the Internet as an accomplished event. Indeed, almost every company has its own website on the World Wide Web. And many companies not only follow the trends of the times, but also try to really use them in their business. And there’s no need to say anything about e-commerce. There are more than enough online stores selling anything on the Internet.

A huge number of publicly accessible social networks, various forums, and chats have appeared in which our population of various ages and social groups communicate.

However, along with the benefits, the Internet also brought the opportunity spread negative information about a person. Along with business, all its attributes came into the virtual space, including unfair competition.

Often political strategists use the World Wide Web for black PR!

It seems to the boor that he is anonymous on the Internet, and under a virtual mask he can write whatever he wants. You can fearlessly offend or slander a person and there is no need to fear that anyone will find out the name of the offender or in any way force him to answer for his words.

Unfortunately, this opinion is largely justified. Few people dare to go to court and defend themselves, their reputation and their dignity. There are very few precedents in Russia for resolving disputes about online abuse. Some people don’t have money, some are lazy, some are afraid of being branded as a troublemaker. Many judges, prosecutors, lawyers and other lawyers are afraid to get involved in this type of case. And slander and insults are becoming more and more every day.

What to do, how to protect yourself from virtual tyranny?

So, let's look at what levers there are to influence boors and “woeful businessmen”, and how can you protect yourself from attacks on the Internet?

Firstly, every Internet user, of course, needs to know their rights as reflected in the legislative acts of the Russian Federation.

Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 21:

Personal dignity is protected by the state. Nothing can be a reason to belittle him.

Article 23:

Everyone has the right to privacy, personal and family secrets, protection of their honor and good name.

Article 34:

Economic activities aimed at monopolization and unfair competition are not permitted.

Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Article 129:

Slander, that is, the dissemination of deliberately false information that discredits the honor and dignity of another person or undermines his reputation.

Article 130:

Insult, that is, humiliation of the honor and dignity of another person, expressed in an indecent form.

Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Article 152:

A citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation, unless the person who disseminated such information proves that it is true.
The rules of this article on the protection of a citizen’s business reputation are correspondingly applied to the protection of the business reputation of a legal entity.

Secondly, if there is an incident, you can follow the path civil protection, and in the direction criminal prosecution of the guilty person. Also, the law does not exclude the simultaneous use of these two ways.

Thus, the Law allows both citizens and legal entities to be protected from all the phenomena discussed above. At the same time, not everything is as simple as we would like.

To file a claim in an arbitration court or a court of general jurisdiction, you must know and indicate the defendant. Moreover, in accordance with paragraph 1, art. 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation: Harm caused to the person or property of a citizen, as well as harm caused to the property of a legal entity, is subject to compensation in full by the person who caused the harm.

A problem arises - to protect your rights in court it is necessary to establish and identify the villain .

Let's say a citizen decides to seek protection in the direction of criminal prosecution. He comes to the police, they answer him - Article 129 and 130 are cases of private prosecution, go to court. Of those who reach the magistrate and receive a decision to initiate criminal proceedings based on the fact against unidentified persons, not many will find the strength to wait for the police to identify the attacker. Most likely, in the bowels of some police department, the criminal case will be dismissed for failure to identify the person subject to criminal liability.

The result is the same - the scoundrel has not been identified and, according to the law, there is no one to ask!

Dead end? No! In this situation, if this damages the business, the company’s reputation or the image of a business person, it is necessary to contact specialists. How can they help you, how will they try to be useful to you? It is known that any event leaves traces in the surrounding world. A good professional always knows where and how to find these traces.

Can we help you?

The association of security structures "Oskord" is, first of all, a team of high professionals. Among us there are competent lawyers and information security specialists. At the pre-trial stage, we will help prepare the relevant documents. Our consultations in each specific situation will help you obtain evidence. Your copyright, brand, good name today can be protected from any attacks.

You can find more detailed information about the work of the information security service in the “information services” section, or by calling by phone in Moscow.

What actions should you take to protect your rights? Is it possible to oblige the Instagram administration to delete this post? The user's full name and account name are known, and the user lives in another region.
Sergey

Hello. You can contact the administration in writing; if they refuse, then only through the courts.

The court at the location of the defendant, district. Art. 152. gk

Article 152. Protection of honor, dignity and business reputation

1. A citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation , unless the person disseminating such information proves that it is true. The refutation must be made in the same way in which information about the citizen was disseminated, or in another similar way.
At the request of interested parties, it is possible to protect the honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen even after his death.

2. Information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen and disseminated in the media must be refuted in the same media. A citizen in respect of whom the specified information has been disseminated in the media has the right to demand, along with a refutation, that his response also be published in the same media

3. If information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen is contained in a document emanating from an organization, such a document is subject to replacement or revocation.

4. In cases where information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen has become widely known and, in connection with this, a refutation cannot be brought to public knowledge, the citizen has the right to demand the removal of the relevant information, as well as the suppression or prohibition of further dissemination of this information by seizure and destruction, without any compensation, of copies of material media containing the specified information made for the purpose of introducing into civil circulation, if without destroying such copies of material media, deleting the relevant information is impossible.

5. If information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen turns out to be available on the Internet after its distribution, the citizen has the right to demand the removal of the relevant information, as well as a refutation of this information in a way that ensures that the refutation is communicated to Internet users.

6. The procedure for refuting information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen in cases other than those specified in paragraphs 2 - 5 of this article is established by the court.

7. Application of penalties to the violator for failure to comply with a court decision does not relieve him of the obligation to perform the action prescribed by the court decision.

8. If it is impossible to identify the person who disseminated information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen, the citizen in respect of whom such information was disseminated has the right to apply to the court to declare the disseminated information untrue.

9. A citizen in respect of whom information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation has been disseminated, along with a refutation of such information or publication of his response, has the right to demand compensation for damages and compensation for moral damage, caused by the dissemination of such information.

Please note that you will have to prove all this yourself. Since this is posted online, be sure to print out all these screenshots, correspondence, etc. before filing a claim. and have them certified by a notary - then they will be evidence in court.

To collect evidence, in principle, you can also write a statement to the police, but verification of the facts of slander is very difficult to achieve, after all, these are cases of private prosecution, as far as I remember.

Speaking about negative reviews on the Internet, you need to determine what is meant by this wording from a legal point of view. In the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 3 of February 24, 2005, paragraph 7 explains that the dissemination of information discrediting a business reputation should be understood, in particular, as information containing statements about a legal entity violating the current legislation or committing a dishonest act , incorrect, unethical behavior, dishonesty in business activities, violation of business ethics or business customs.

Determining the Proper Defendant

To determine the forms and methods of defense, it is necessary to identify several essential conditions that will help establish the proper defendant.

As a rule, a company whose business reputation is damaged cannot reliably identify the author of the review. And even if it is known, but there is no documentary evidence, the court will refuse to satisfy the requirements.

In paragraph 5 of the said Resolution, defendants in claims for the protection of business reputation are the authors of untrue and derogatory information, as well as the persons who disseminated this information.

Consequently, the proper defendant is not only the author, but also the platform on which such a review was left. But it is possible that the domain, as well as the server on which the site is located, is located outside the Russian Federation.

In this case, the appropriate defendant will be the Office of the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Communications.

Which court should I file an application for protection of business reputation?

The Arbitration Procedural Code determines that only arbitration courts are authorized to consider cases of protection of reputation that takes place in the field of business and other economic activities.

Moreover, such cases are considered by the arbitration court, regardless of whether the parties to the dispute are citizens (individuals), individual entrepreneurs, or legal entities or other organizations.

However, if the dispute does not concern entrepreneurial and other economic activities, it is within the competence of a court of general jurisdiction.

Evidence of publication of a negative review

In courts of general jurisdiction (regional, global, city, etc.) and in Arbitration Courts (when the plaintiff and defendant are legal entities or individual entrepreneurs) rules apply: each party is obliged to prove what it refers to. Consequently, if you indicate the address of the review and a printout from the site, then in most cases the judge will refuse to attach the documents to the plaintiff, since the judge will not go to the site to check the accuracy of the statements.

It is more correct to contact a notary to record a negative review. This document is called the “Evidence Inspection Protocol.” The notary himself visits the site and records this in the form of descriptive text and screenshots. It is worth keeping in mind that not every notary does this. The cost of the service is from 6,000 rubles.

The applicant is not required to prove that the information is true. In accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the responsibility to prove the accuracy of the disseminated information lies with the defendant. The plaintiff is obliged to prove the fact of dissemination of information by the person against whom the claim is brought, as well as the defamatory nature of this information.

YouTube video: evidence of negative information

With video things are more complicated. Along with the claim, you must provide the disk on which the video was saved. However, the defendant may claim that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of its publication on YouTube.

For example, the Arbitration Court of the Krasnodar Territory, in its decision dated February 12, 2016 in case No. A33-15606/2015, tried to make an official request:

“At the same time, during the trial, the defendant’s representative also stated the argument that the plaintiff did not prove the fact that the controversial videos were posted on the Internet on the YouTube website. By a ruling dated January 12, 2016, the court demanded information from the limited liability company “Google” about who the above videos were posted, who owned the account […] in the period from 05/01/2015 to 08/31/2015.

According to a letter from the limited liability company Google dated January 29, 2016, this organization does not administer the YouTube service and does not have the technical ability to provide the requested information. The YouTube service is provided by the American company YouTube LLC. All information related to the YouTube service is collected and processed in the United States by YouTube LLC."

However, the plaintiff in this case was a little lucky, since the court invited the defendant to provide an agreement with the provider in order to make him a request, but he did not provide such documents, and the judge took the side of the applicant, ordered the defendant to issue a refutation, but refused to collect 300 thousand rubles of moral and reputational harm, since negative consequences have not been proven.

Subjective opinion and unreliable feedback - what's the difference?

A common belief is erroneous that the person who wrote the review can interpret it as a subjective opinion. Actually this is not true. At the same time, the courts also make mistakes, but there are also courts of appeal and cassation.

In fact, if the information posted on the site is presented in an affirmative form, then it cannot be considered as a subjective opinion, since the distributor reported them as facts that actually took place. Accordingly, information can convince an unlimited number of people of something, and potential partners, clients and customers of the applicant form a negative opinion.

In relation to entrepreneurial activity, the criterion of defamation may include not only information about the obviously immoral and unethical behavior of a person, but also those that, although they do not indicate such behavior, still detract from the actual qualities (dignities) of a particular entity acting in business sphere, clearly underestimate the achieved (including economic) indicators, cast doubt on its competitiveness and market viability, which can negatively affect business relations with counterparties, reduce demand for the goods produced, that is, lead to an unfavorable economic result. However, there are exceptions . Thus, in 2013, the airline ticket booking service OneTwoTrip filed a claim with the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, where the defendant was the social network Vkontakte (case No. A56-61842/2013). The applicant asked to remove the group with negative reviews on the site, considering them unreliable and discrediting business reputation.

But the court did not agree with the plaintiff, recognized the information as the subjective opinion of the authors, and in addition, in its decision dated February 12, 2014, it indicated that the plaintiff had not confirmed that the reviews in the group related specifically to this company.

Perhaps the appellate authority would have considered it differently, but the complaint was filed in violation of the requirements and was returned without consideration.

Important! What requirements should be presented in the statement of claim?

In the pleading part, it is necessary to demand a refutation of the information in the same way in which the false review was made. That is, if it was in a social network group with pinning to the top line, then the refutation should be done in exactly the same way. In this case, it is advisable to indicate in the court decision a period within which the message should not be deleted.

As for moral and reputational damage, most often the courts refuse to satisfy such claims or significantly reduce them due to the lack of evidence that confirms or determines exactly the amount indicated in the claim.

(What methods does a commercial organization have to protect itself from the spread of defamatory information on the Internet, and what methods are available only through physical doors)

In the era of developed information technologies, which allow unlimited exchange of almost any information, an Internet user can both receive any information and, on the contrary, distribute it in full compliance with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. For this purpose, bulletin boards, forums, blogs, personal pages, media feeds, etc. are used. Unfortunately, this also applies to information that harms the reputation of citizens or companies.

A damaged reputation in your personal life threatens quarrels with friends, divorce of spouses and other troubles. Business reputation, although an intangible asset, is closely intertwined with material benefits. Therefore, gossip can cause quite significant financial damage.

Damage to the business reputation of an organization can be caused by defamation in relation to the organization itself, its employees, or in relation to the products it produces or the trademark used, etc. For example, by disseminating false information about the introduction of bankruptcy proceedings. It is clear that negative information causes the company to lose a positive opinion about its business qualities in the eyes of consumers and partners, undermining their trust, making it difficult to plan activities, and reducing demand for the goods or services offered. As a result, business profitability drops significantly.

However, the law does not provide protection from all unpleasant information. It is necessary to distinguish between statements of facts and value judgments, opinions, and beliefs from defamation - the dissemination of false and disgraceful information.

A fact is something that can be verified or established. For example, the information contained in court decisions, decisions of law enforcement agencies and other official documents is completely true (decision of the Central District Court of Volgograd dated January 26, 2011 in case No. 2-954/11).

Judgments, opinions, beliefs are a person’s personal attitude to events, facts, his assessment of the quality of goods, services, and so on. By expressing his point of view, the author merely interprets the facts and expresses his emotional attitude towards them.

You can only request protection from information that:

fictitious and did not take place in reality,
stated in an affirmative form,
is of a disgraceful nature,
widespread.

Untrue information is statements about facts or events that did not take place in reality at the time to which they relate. Judicial practice recognizes, in particular, the following false information as defamatory:

about the commission of an offense or crime;
about committing a dishonest act;
unethical or dishonest behavior in business, personal or public life;
about low economic and other indicators,
about non-competitiveness.

Any information can be expressed in different forms: allegorically, figuratively or offensively. If an opinion is expressed in an offensive form, the victim can also demand protection of his reputation (decision of the Tuapse City Court of the Krasnodar Territory dated April 27, 2012 in case No. 2-237/2012). In this regard, the Supreme Court recommends conducting a linguistic examination or consulting a psychologist (paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Review of the practice of courts considering cases in disputes regarding the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, approved on March 16, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Review dated March 16, 2016)).

Ways to protect your reputation

You should start protecting your reputation by contacting the owner of the Internet resource or its provider. Thus, a site may have a moderator who monitors compliance with the rules established on it. If this is a platform for reviews, it is worth trying to resolve the conflict with the author of the libel online. If the site is registered as a mass media outlet (hereinafter referred to as the media), the victim can print a comment or retort to a previously published note or article. Correctly chosen words can not only neutralize negative statements, but also increase the company’s reputation rating on the Internet.

It makes sense to contact the provider directly when it is a Russian organization, and false information clearly violates applicable laws or ethical standards.

If it is impossible to protect a reputation peacefully, the victim can go to court with demands against the author of the note or the site owner (provider) (Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 21 of the Review of Judicial Practice of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation No. 1 of 02.16.2017 (hereinafter referred to as Review No. 1), Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 07/09/2013 No. 18-P):

about refuting information on the Internet;
about removing information from the site;
on compensation for losses caused by the dissemination of defamatory information (for example, a decrease in sales volume, refusal of counterparties from contracts);
for compensation for moral damage (legal entities cannot make this claim). Instead, the company has the right to demand compensation for reputational damage;
on recognizing defamatory information as false if the gossip was spread by an unknown person, as most often happens on the Internet.

Evidence and proof

If it is not proven that the information is defamatory, has been disseminated or does not correspond to reality, the court will refuse to satisfy the stated requirements (paragraph 4 of the Review dated 03/16/2016).

Plaintiffs often have difficulty presenting evidence to support the dissemination of defamatory information on the Internet. The Supreme Court clarified that the victim is in no way limited in presenting to the court evidence of the dissemination of false information. The main thing is that they are relevant and obtained without breaking the law.

The victim can record the content of the Internet page by contacting a notary on the basis of Article 102 of the Fundamentals of the Legislation of the Russian Federation on Notaries. As a preliminary interim measure, this allows you to quickly save controversial information, which can be deleted at any time by the author who posted it.

By the way, a properly designed screenshot can also serve as evidence. It should contain:

address of the website from which the printout was made;
signature and information about the person who made the copy;
date and time of the image;
organization seal (if available).

It is advisable to notarize the fact of publication of the Internet page and its screen copy itself (a snapshot of the Internet page).

By virtue of Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the responsibility to prove the conformity of disseminated information with reality lies with the defendant.

If a company requires compensation for reputational damage, it must confirm (Article 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 21 of Review No. 1):

the presence of an established reputation in one or another area of business relations (industry, business, services, education, etc.);
the occurrence of adverse consequences as a result of the dissemination of defamatory information, the fact of loss of confidence in reputation or its decline.

Other ways to protect the reputation of individuals

According to the Federal Law of July 13, 2015 No. 264-FZ “On Amendments to the Federal Law “On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection” and Articles 29 and 402 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,” citizens have the right to contact directly the search engine operator to remove them from issuing search links to unreliable defamatory information. Operators must do this out of court. Data is not deleted from World Wide Web resources. Only links to pages are destroyed. To completely remove information, you will have to contact the site owner.

It is possible to limit access to personal information in this way if information about the citizen:

does not contain reliable information about him;
violates the law;
not relevant at the current time;
has lost its significance.

If the name of the gossiper is known to the victim, you can file a complaint with law enforcement agencies.

Article 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for fines for libel from 500,000 rubles to 5,000,000 rubles. It should be understood that general statements that do not contain any indication of a false fact do not constitute libel. For example, the expressions “bribe taker”, “fraudster” and others.

As part of the criminal case initiated, a civil claim for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation may also be filed.

The named methods of protection are intended only for citizens - individuals. Legal entities can defend themselves in the ways provided for in Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Resolution dated April 25, 2013, judicial district No. 361 of the Basmanny District Court of Moscow).

Conclusion

Search engine operators, website owners and providers rarely remove information when requiring a court decision because they do not have the legal tools to determine whether the information posted is accurate or unreliable.

Unfortunately, courts also often reject claims to protect reputations on the Internet or significantly reduce the amount of compensation for damage caused. This situation is not caused by the hostility of the judges, but by the poor preparation of the plaintiffs, including the incorrect method of defense. An experienced lawyer will help you professionally prepare documents taking into account the latest trends in judicial practice, restore your good name and compensate for the damage as much as possible.

Anna Poletaeva

The article was prepared specifically for

legal company "Era of Law"

(publication)

As a general rule, a post posted on a social network is not the subject of judicial protection in disputes about the protection of business reputation, since it represents a subjective judgment of a person (approved by the Presidium of the RF Armed Forces on March 16, 2016; hereinafter referred to as Review dated March 16, 2016) . But there are exceptions to this rule.

However, the court of first instance rejected the claim (decision of the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan dated November 30, 2015 in case No. A07-12906/2015). Higher courts left this act unchanged (,). The publication of information on a social network, according to the judges, cannot be considered defamatory of business reputation, since it represents judgments and subjective opinions expressed by the defendant.

Not agreeing with this position, company "R" filed a complaint with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in which it asked to cancel the acts adopted by the lower courts ().

The court recalled that a legal entity has the right to demand a refutation of information discrediting its business reputation if the person who disseminated such information does not prove that it is true (,).

In this case, the circumstances that are relevant when considering such cases are:

the fact that the defendant disseminated information about the plaintiff;
the defamatory nature of this information;
discrepancy with their reality (clause 7 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated February 24, 2005 No. 3 "").

If at least one of these circumstances is absent, the claim cannot be satisfied.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation also emphasized that the dissemination of information discrediting the business reputation of legal entities also includes the dissemination of information on the Internet.

S. did not deny the fact that the disputed information was disseminated. But at the same time, she believed that this information was not defamatory, since it was an expression of her subjective opinion. The lower courts agreed

But the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation noted that when considering cases of protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, it is necessary to distinguish between statements of fact, the correspondence of which can be verified, and value judgments, opinions and beliefs, which are not the subject of judicial protection, since they cannot be check for validity ().

The information disputed by Company "R" represents information about the organization's illegal and dishonest behavior and is formulated in the form of statements. The information presented by S. does not indicate that the facts described are in the nature of assumptions and that she personally assesses the plaintiff’s behavior in this way. The chosen style of presentation of information, the Court emphasized, indicates the presence of the described facts in reality (the fact of underestimation of the cost of work, the fact of setting a dumping price, the fact of incompetence of the compilers of tender documentation, facts of corruption and other illegal behavior, fraud). All these facts can be verified. Therefore, such information is not subjective.

This is confirmed by the position of the defendant himself, who insisted that his statements were true.

In addition, even if the information is presented as the subjective opinion of the author, it may be the basis for (). This is possible in the case where such information indicates the illegal nature of the subject’s behavior and is offensive in nature.

Taking this into account, the RF Supreme Court canceled the acts of the lower courts and sent the case for a new trial.