Comments on: Devil is in the details

By: nevins

nevins — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:38:01 +0000

“Am I really responsible for the *irrational* actions of others if my speech triggers it?”

You are responsible for the third party harm though the irrational actions of others if that was your intended goal. Many of those spreading the P and G rumor had the intent to harm P and G for their own benefit. That the harm was mediated though ‘irrational’ individuals acting in predicable and (for them) legal manner according to your design does not absolve you of responsibility for the consequences.

As for the Amway folk in question having retracted their comments. Retracting an arrow from the prey is not the same as having not shot the arrow in the first place. The injured party is never quite as whole as before the assault/retraction combination.

By: Charlie B

Charlie B — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:46:44 +0000

The P&G Satan rumors date back to the early 1980s if not before that. By 1996, anybody in competition with P&G like Amway should have known them to be false.

The major difference between a minister in his pulpit and Amway was Amway stood to profit by lost P&G sales.

By: David Nieporent

David Nieporent — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:43:48 +0000

Mike, of course I do not welcome defamation directed my way — although, as I said, I’m willing to negotiate — but don’t you see a slight difference between “He’s a bad lawyer” (Believable) and “He donates a share of his legal fees to Satan”? (Slightly less credible, I think.)

And don’t you see the difference between posting it on your blog vs. sending a voice mail around and then quickly retracting it?

I certainly don’t suggest that P&G should do nothing about defamation, particularly in the instances when a competitor is the culprit. That doesn’t mean that there’s not some disproportionality here. (And that doesn’t mean it’s not absurd that it takes the legal system a dozen years to resolve a relatively straightforward claim such as this.)

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:08:09 +0000

I find this a very interesting case because these are the type of claims that, in an even remotely rational world, would be completely ignored. If you read the statements complained about, it’s inconceivable that any rational person could believe them. A second’s thought will show that a statement like “there aren’t enough Christians to make a difference” is utterly implausible.

Yet, people believed them. It seems reasonable that there would have been real damages.

What if I say, “Proctor and Gamble’s Board of Directors is filled with alien replacements and they steer the company to prepare our planet for takeover by a race of insects.” If people believe this and avoid P&G products, can I be sued?

Am I really responsible for the *irrational* actions of others if my speech triggers it?

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 02:03:37 +0000

David: I assume if, from my blog, I posted defamatory remarks about you, you’d do nothing about it? Somehow I find it hard to believe that if I attacked your professional capabilities (or called you a child molester), you’d ignore it – especially if you could prove it was costing you clients.

By: nevins

nevins — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:51:34 +0000

Lots of people have been noted to pass along the P and G rumor over the years. I recall a case where a foolish preacher acted on a tip and lambasted P and G from the pulpit, only to get a visit from a process server. He was acting negligently in spreading the rumor, but he also had personal gain involved. Hellfire and damnation preaching needs the devil, and he capitalized while disparaging the name of another.

Likewise with Amway distributors. Want to pump your own sales, then tell the public via a rumor mill that the largest commercial source of cleaning products, your largest direct competitor, is the devil. They had much to gain from their smear campaign. They also apparently had much to loose.

By: richlb

richlb — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:33:53 +0000

Back in my private school days, I remember the zeal with which the Baptist school I attended disseminated this rumor. There were whole lists of products sent home to parents to tell you what NOT to buy. It may not have caused 1 customer out of 10,000 to decide not to buy one box of detergent, but it caused most of the reactive parents in my school to wipe all P&G products off their shopping lists.

By: Griffin3

Griffin3 — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:00:23 +0000

Hrmm. That works out to be $1,480,769 for each of the 13 stars in that old Proctor & Gamble logo, doesn’t it. Coincidence?

By: Ted

Ted — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:32:29 +0000

Here's the complaint. To be fair, P&G has alleged that Amway has been much more involved in spreading the rumor than this one particular voice-mail, and Amway conceded fault in earlier litigation in the 1980s.

By: David Nieporent

David Nieporent — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:26:27 +0000

Frank,

1) Note that lost profits, not lost sales, is the proper measure.

2) You moved a decimal point; it’s 3 hundredths of a percent, or 3 ten thousandths, but not 3 ten thousandths of a percent.

3) If they had started the rumor, one might be able to make that claim. Or if they had distributed the rumor through the mass media. But all they did was briefly disseminate it — and quickly retract it — through the Amway voice mail system. Hard to imagine that it would affect that many consumer decisions.

4) Assuming there were an effect of that tiny size, I’d be rather skeptical that P&G could identify it and prove a causal connection. (From what I could tell from the pleadings, P&G had to engage in multiple attempts at data mining before they could claim any damages at all.)