Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Author Topic: Another turn-the-table case: New You Media vs. Adlife Marketing  (Read 2212 times)

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
For some reason, Adlife Marketing seems to attract a disproportionate number of lawsuits of people seeking declaratory judgments against them. 

In the case of New You Media v. Adlife Marketing filed in Florida on Dec. 15, 2016, it was a short-lived case whereby New Your Media accused Adlife of sending an $8,000 demand letter, purportedly agreeing to settle for $1,500 then increasing the settlement to $5,000.  My guess is this did not sit well with New You Media and they decided they didn't want to be jerked around anymore, make the matter a public record, and filed a lawsuit against Adlife Marketing for declaratory judgment.

https://ia601900.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.497954/gov.uscourts.flsd.497954.1.0.pdf

The docket shows that the case was dismissed only 3 weeks later on January 6, 2017.  I assume that New Your Media and Adlife Marketing settled the matter. But the fact that New You Media filed a lawsuit against Adlife Marketing says that they weren't just going to take things sitting down and they objected to Adlife Marketing's conduct or actions.

Filing a lawsuit and seeking a declaratory judgment is not feasible for most people getting extortion letters but it is definitely feasible for businesses looking to make a statement by going on the offense.  Not something I necessarily recommend but it is undeniable that it gets the accuser's attention in the matter to gain some serious leverage. IN this case, Adlife Marketing must have agreed to something otherwise New Your Media would not have dismissed the case so quickly after filing it.

As a reminder, there was a pro se defendant Rhon Johnson who flipped the matter against Getty Images and filed a countersuit whereby the defendant made a number of counter-accusations against Getty Images. I interviewed Rhon Johnson and was impressed at how he handled himself and the case. From what I gather, Getty Images was respectful to him and they came to a settlement Rhon could get behind. But I suspect they gave him a lot more respect AFTER a countersuit was filed (at Getty's expense) and Rhon demonstrated he would be willing to persevere and push forward on his own if he had to.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/the-interesting-case-of-getty-images-v-jj-cleaning-co-(rhon-johnson)/

People often think that you have to throw dollars at lawyers to benefit but sometimes all it takes is some grit to stand up. My guess is that the Getty Images lawyers really didn't want word to get out that this billion dollar corporation was going to get into a fight with a spunky, sole proprietor (who believed in his position) over a small image infringement matter.

In the matter of the two turn-the-table lawsuits against Adlife Marketing, I get the feeling the dispute is "among equals" (not a David vs. Goliath in most Getty cases) but it is entirely role reversal when the accused goes after the accuser.

My guess is that the two declaratory judgment lawsuits against Adlife Marketing has left a sour taste in their mouth and they have now outsourced their demand letter work to Mathew Higbee and Higbee & Associates.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/new-letter-by-higbee-associates-on-behalf-of-adlife-marketing-(food-images)!/

Higbee & Associates now have the job of making sure their clients don't get any more declaratory judgment lawsuits and countersuits.  (On a side note, if anyone is asking for one, it is the Nicholas Youngson misleading "creative commons" honeypot set up going on there).
« Last Edit: May 01, 2017, 07:04:10 PM by Matthew Chan »
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

 

Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.