I stuck with reference source content above, allow me to put in my own non-lawyer assessments here.
Copyright infringement: This appears to be fair use, because it’s “criticism or comment”.
Defamation by implication: Because all sides admit that the video is accurate, and the content which they are suggesting is defamatory is so short and succinct, I have a hard time believing that it would rise to the level of “defamation”.
False advertising: Plaintiff must show that the defendant made false or misleading statements. All sides admit that the video was accurate. Where is the false or misleading statement? Not to mention that false advertising is normally levied against someone trying to inflate the value of their own product, or deflate the value of a competitor product.
Violating Florida Deceptive … Act: This can be charged in federal court, because it’s a “complement” to the FTC Acts. I don’t see where anything “deceptive or unfair” is alleged, because … all sides admit the video is accurate.
Tortious interference with business relationships: I don’t know what “relationship” they’re relying on here. Informal relationship with customers? Retailers? I’m not seeing any improper conduct here.
Unjust enrichment: This is a “You didn’t pay your bill” or “You didn’t uphold your end of the agreement” kind of thing. I have no idea where they even got this charge from.
Civil conspiracy: This would be the civil court “side” of criminal conspiracy. If someone is convicted of criminal conspiracy, their sentence is a criminal one. Once such a sentence exists, people who have experienced loss because of that criminal conspiracy can file civil suit to collect damages. That’s not what’s going on here, but I also know that one can be not guilty in criminal court while being found liable in civil court for the “same thing”. Here, though, because (wait for it) all sides agree that the video is accurate, I’m not sure what the fraudulent, wrongful, or deceitful act would be, and there’s definitely not the intent to commit a planned wrongful act. No way this sticks.
Trade libel: All parties – you know the drill. The truth cann’t be libelous. And there’s that pesky actual malice thing again.
Feels like a SLAPP suit is the correct response here, because these charges are all utter bollocks.
Holy fuck, thank you for taking the time!!
I stuck with reference source content above, allow me to put in my own non-lawyer assessments here.
Copyright infringement: This appears to be fair use, because it’s “criticism or comment”.
Defamation by implication: Because all sides admit that the video is accurate, and the content which they are suggesting is defamatory is so short and succinct, I have a hard time believing that it would rise to the level of “defamation”.
False advertising: Plaintiff must show that the defendant made false or misleading statements. All sides admit that the video was accurate. Where is the false or misleading statement? Not to mention that false advertising is normally levied against someone trying to inflate the value of their own product, or deflate the value of a competitor product.
Violating Florida Deceptive … Act: This can be charged in federal court, because it’s a “complement” to the FTC Acts. I don’t see where anything “deceptive or unfair” is alleged, because … all sides admit the video is accurate.
Tortious interference with business relationships: I don’t know what “relationship” they’re relying on here. Informal relationship with customers? Retailers? I’m not seeing any improper conduct here.
Unjust enrichment: This is a “You didn’t pay your bill” or “You didn’t uphold your end of the agreement” kind of thing. I have no idea where they even got this charge from.
Civil conspiracy: This would be the civil court “side” of criminal conspiracy. If someone is convicted of criminal conspiracy, their sentence is a criminal one. Once such a sentence exists, people who have experienced loss because of that criminal conspiracy can file civil suit to collect damages. That’s not what’s going on here, but I also know that one can be not guilty in criminal court while being found liable in civil court for the “same thing”. Here, though, because (wait for it) all sides agree that the video is accurate, I’m not sure what the fraudulent, wrongful, or deceitful act would be, and there’s definitely not the intent to commit a planned wrongful act. No way this sticks.
Trade libel: All parties – you know the drill. The truth cann’t be libelous. And there’s that pesky actual malice thing again.
Feels like a SLAPP suit is the correct response here, because these charges are all utter bollocks.