Court holds SEO firm responsible for online sales of counterfeit golf clubs

[Marvin Johnston]

For anyone involved in counterfeit goods, this might be a wake-up call. The part that is *really* scary is this is the first time an ISP "had been found liable for contributory infringement without prior notification of counterfeit sales by a client retailer."

The SEO firm absolutely should have known better. But I hope the ISP has the resources to fight this verdict.

Legal/Regulatory - Court holds SEO firm responsible for online sales of counterfeit golf clubs - Internet Retailer

Marvin

[InternetSuccess001]

Hmm... The precedent might not be that good... While selling counterfeit goods is not good, by including the ISP as being indirectly responsible/contributing to it, you may start getting people afraid to host anything that could be marginally considered 'questionable'. A bit of a slipperly slope.

[Alan Petersen]

Wow. I'm surprised they went after host and SEO firm. It's the old addage... "ignorance not an excuse".

The monetary punishment against the ISP was way worse than the actual guy that set the site up!

Interesting read. Thanks for sharing.

[RanD]

They didn't go after the ISP, they went after the Web host, which was the same company that did the SEO. They apparently helped build the sight, which is why they were responsible.

It said " assisting in the construction and hosting of the e-commerce site"

and

"The manufacturer amended the complaint to include Bright Builders after learning of its role in creating the e-commerce site"

They apparently helped build the sight, which is why they were responsible.

After doing a Google search, I found the company, Bright Builders, has a very bad reputation scamming people out of thousands of dollars, and has a C- BBB rating. I'm guessing that they new exactly what was going on, which is why they were held responsible.

[Bill Farnham]

Here's what's pathetically funny about this story...

"A service provider is held liable without being notified goods were phony, lawyers say."

The website name...CopyCatClubs dot com

Their tag line...“Along with our exceptional customer service, we are your one stop shop for the best copied golf equipment on the Internet.”

I bet it didn't take a Sherlock Holmes to make a case against these thieves.

The lesson here...stay in school. Third grade is a little too early to drop out.

~Bill

[BloggingPro]

So is the payment processor for this site being held responsible as well?

[kindsvater]

Whoever wrote that article needs to get a few facts straight:

- This was a jury verdict, not a court deciding liability.

- Bright Builders had previously argued to the court that as a web host it had no liability. Two problems:

1. The 1 page motion the web host submitted reportedly included no legal authority, citations, or factual references.

2. In response Roger Cleveland Golf noted that Bright Builders was not just a web host. It had encouraged the sale of golf clubs on the website, provided instructions on how to drop ship, designed the website, and was paid $10,000 for their business coaching services.

In other words, this is nothing web hosts have to worry about.

On the other hand, if you charge someone $10,000 to design their website and coach them how to sell counterfeit products don't complain when you are dragged into a lawsuit.

** Adding hosting to your business coaching services is not some magic wand that will waive off liability for everything else you did.

[Marvin Johnston]

Originally Posted by kindsvater

In other words, this is nothing web hosts have to worry about.

On the other hand, if you charge someone $10,000 to design their website and coach them how to sell counterfeit products don't complain when you are dragged into a lawsuit.

** Adding hosting to your business coaching services is not some magic wand that will waive off liability for everything else you did.

Thanks! I was hoping you would chime in with a translation to put it in context.

Marvin