Thin Line Between Critique and Courtrooms: A Dialogue on the Recent Audiophile Drama

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.

Will you explain why you didn’t do that in the first place instead of threatening to sue him? Forgot that little tidbit.

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.

Tekton would have to prove malice on the part of the reviewer, which is just short of impossible.

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.

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.  

@james633 

I would too but it's closed

This is the answer to the question we see all too often, "why do we see only good reviews". Reviewers exist to make money, not get sued and lose money.