Senior-Focused Company Sues Internet Firm Over Defamatory YouTube Video
A YouTube video by ComplaintBox attacked Crash Proof Retirement by falsely stating that the plaintiff “exists to exploit seniors,” said a complaint Nov. 17 (docket 2:23-cv-04546) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia brought by Crash Proof and parent company Retirement Media Inc. (RMI).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
RMI and Crash Proof Retirement, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, offer “guaranteed financial investment vehicles based in the life insurance industry that could provide steady growth while protecting customers from losses during market downturns,” said the complaint. Crash Proof Retirement’s founder, Phil Cannella, organizes educational events nationally and operates a radio show, "Crash Proof Retirement Show," on WPHT and KYW in Philadelphia.
Crash Proof Retirement has more than 400 videos on YouTube and RMI has 30, said the complaint. The defendants, ComplaintBox and John Does 1-3, published the video titled "Phil Cannella’s ‘Crash Proof Retirement’ Plan to Land You in a Ditch" on YouTube July 13. In it, defendants make “intentional and recklessly false, disparaging, and defamatory statements about Crash Proof Retirement,” the complaint said. Defendants also make use of RMI’s trademarks, it said.
The purpose of Cannella's video is to “disseminate negative content that harms” plaintiffs' business relationships, said the complaint. Defendants aim to “dissuade current and potential customers from engaging with plaintiffs’ business" and “extort Plaintiffs into paying a ransom” to remove the video, the complaint said. Since creating a YouTube channel on May 24, defendants have posted “hundreds of similar videos regarding other individuals and businesses,” it said.
ComplaintBox advertises itself as a “trusted news channel dedicated to uncovering fraud, corruption, and unethical practices,” said the complaint. It purports to “give a voice to the victims, raise awareness, and promote accountability in order to create a more just and transparent society,” but instead, it “manipulates its own viewers into serving as the fulcrum of its extortion.” ComplaintBox “preys on consumers by creating the appearance of reputability and advocacy,” it said. The more pressure ComplaintBox applies to reputable businesses, “the higher the ransom it can charge,” the complaint said.
The video maligns plaintiffs by saying Crash Proof Retirement “exists to exploit seniors,” said the complaint. The video “falsely contends the company made false promises about client returns and deliberately withholds" details of its products, it said. The video says Crash Proof Retirement “deploys deceptive, predatory marketing tactics and uses false endorsements," said the complaint. ComplaintBox called Crash Proof “nothing more than a marketing ploy to sell fixed annuities as retirement products.” The plaintiff said it has more than 300 customer testimonials “that prove the falsity of this accusation.”
Plaintiffs believe the video was created using an AI program “that scraped the internet for any information on Crash Proof Retirement, regardless of the truth or falsity of that information.” An artificial voice narrates the video and uses “apparently stock images and videos,” the complaint said. The video displays “a reckless disregard for the truth,” they added.
Defendants’ “anonymity prevents the parties from resolving this dispute amicably,” said the complaint, noting defendants “leverage anonymity to extort” others into paying a ransom for removal of defamatory content they disseminate. Defendants registered a website with a fake address in Iceland to get around the EU’s general data protection regulation, the complaint said. Plaintiffs attempted to serve defendants with a cease-and-desist notice demanding that the video be removed, but their publicly available email addresses “were phony, and the notice could not be delivered," it said.
Plaintiffs’ claims include violations of the Lanham Act, commercial disparagement, statutory unfair competition and tortious interference with business relations. They seek general compensatory damages for reputation damage, lost profits, customers, customer relationships and loss of goodwill; punitive and exemplary damages; injunctive relief, including removal of the video; and attorney fees, legal costs and pre- and postjudgment interest. Efforts to reach the defendants were unsuccessful.