Motorhub/Keighley Trade Centre thread (take two!)

[14]

FWIW said:

So Haymarket have received a complaint from Motorhub about the thread? ??

I have no idea if Haymarket have received a complaint and I’m not sure if PH know either, since Haymarket don’t own PH. Also look at the other reasons for the no naming and shaming rule.

[AlexRS2782]

FWIW said:

So Haymarket have received a complaint from Motorhub about the thread? ??

HM haven't owned PH since the start of this year:

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[anonymous-user]

14 said:

Durzel said:

14 said:

I never said Haymarket went to court, though a publisher did get taken to court and lost about 20 years ago. I meant future court cases were PH to decide to defend itself. I know Petrol Ted and Haymarket had to pay out due to naming and shaming. The no naming and shaming rule has been in place since before Haymarket bought PH, so no it has nothing to do with upsetting advertisers.

Pretty sure you're referring to Godfrey vs Demon Internet (2001)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v_Demon_In...

This case set a legal precedent for online defamation and hosting of said content. Short version - Haymarket are legally on the hook if they are informed of libelous content and do not respond to it.

Thanks for the link.

Im not entirely sure this case would apply as it was brought against an ISP that hosted it's own forums.

If PH is an operator of a website, in my "absolutely not a solicitor" opinion, would section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 be more relevant, which seems to give website operators much more leeway and subsection 12 seemingly giving operators like PH a total "get out"?


Operators of websites

(1)This section applies where an action for defamation is brought against the operator of a website in respect of a statement posted on the website.

(2)It is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website.

(3)The defence is defeated if the claimant shows that—
(a)it was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement,
(b)the claimant gave the operator a notice of complaint in relation to the statement, and
(c)the operator failed to respond to the notice of complaint in accordance with any provision contained in regulations.

(4)For the purposes of subsection (3)(a), it is possible for a claimant to “identify” a person only if the claimant has sufficient information to bring proceedings against the person.


(11)The defence under this section is defeated if the claimant shows that the operator of the website has acted with malice in relation to the posting of the statement concerned.

(12)The defence under this section is not defeated by reason only of the fact that the operator of the website moderates the statements posted on it by others.

[PistonHeads]

Hi everyone,

We have reviewed the situation and have decided that Motorhub will remain on PH. However, to be clear, we do not condone the behaviour for which they were fined.

Like you, we don’t want any PHers (or anyone for that matter) to have a bad car buying experience, especially when using PH. However, monitoring dealership activities that occur outside of PH is currently beyond our scope. That said, we are exploring ways we can better address issues like this in the future. Our sister site, CarGurus, has both consumer reviews of dealers as well as technology-based solutions that address suspicious pricing on listings on the CarGurus platform. These may be approaches we will consider implementing in the future on PH. As and when we have more news about any plans for future developments, we’ll let you know.

Best wishes
Jon MacKinnon
Senior Director, Business Operations - PistonHeads