Recently I placed advertisements with a local independent newspaper. I was late on paying my bills with the owner of the newspaper.
The paper then decided to run negative ads about my business, stating I have "sub-par" products, and why shop at my store when there are perfectly better stores like mine in the area.
They went on to say I have bad service and am in a worse location than my competitors and that I am more expensive than the competition and les professional.
Is there anything I can do about this?
They claim they will run these ads until I pay my bills.

I would like to thank you all for your very helpful responses.
To follow up with a few of the answers and give a little more detail:
1. The "negative ads" I referred to were done in somewhat of a consumer report, where they are reporting my business and then showing my competitors in a better light. But the graphic design of this article looks similar to an advertisement.
2. Some of my competitors do have better locations & product, I will admit that.
Thank you all again for everything!!

Hello cleo:

Yes, you can, and I would - TODAY.

excon

PS> Actually, the legal term for what they're doing is libel.

Yes, you can sue that newspaper for libel, since they printed lies about your business. But where is your proof? Do you have copies of these ads? Do you have the other proof of what they said to you about continuing their smear campaign against you until you pay for the ads? Why haven't you paid for the ads? If you can proof that their negative campaign against you has directly affected your sales and therefore affected your ability to pay for the ads... you might have a case... however you incurred a debt for a service and that is your responsibility.

As for their arguments about your "sub par" products, bad service, more expensive, and less professional - can the newspaper prove it?

Hello again:

The shy one points out some good stuff. An absolute defense to libel, is the truth. I read, very carefully, the words you used (words are, after all, the nuts of this case). The paper won't have any difficulty proving (assuming it's true) that you have sub par products that are more expensive.

However, when they used subjective terms such as "bad service", and "less professional" is where you can nail them.

When I say today, I mean that you need to hire a lawyer TODAY. I don't mean that you should start messing around trying to trap them into giving you evidence. Let your lawyer do that. If you try to be too smart, you'll outsmart yourself.

excon

Yes, they should have just ran adds saying you ddid not pay their bill, which was the truth.

It is hard to believe a news paper would do this unless they had good proof of it, since they know they can be sued.

But you can hire an attorney and sue them. Just remember if what they are saying is true, and they prove it, you will not win, So take a look at your business, if what they are saying is true, pay your bill, if it is a lie, sue them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cleo brown

Recently I placed advertisements with a local independent newspaper. I was late on paying my bills with the owner of the newspaper.
The paper then decided to run negative ads about my business, stating I have "sub-par" products, and why shop at my store when there are perfectly better stores like mine in the area.
They went on to say I have bad service and am in a worse location than my competitors and that I am more expensive than the competition and les profesional.
Is there anything I can do about this?
They claim they will run these ads until I pay my bills.

---

What they're doing is extortion. They'll stop the smear campaign when you pay? I'd see about filing criminal charges against them. The most they can do for not paying your bil on time is stop running your adds. Save every thing and go to an attorney. That's your best bet.

And just for the record... Slander is the spoken word and Libel is the written word. So they did commit libel as the others have said.

Do you have their threat to continue running the ads in writing or on record? Because I agree with Chippers that this is extortion and that's a criminal offense. Excon is correct, you need to see a lawyer immediately.

The only thing that concerns me is that I agree with Chuck in finding it hard to believe an newspaper would do this. Libel is the first thought of any editor when reviewing a story or even ad copy. Truth is the only defense against libel so, they may think they can prove what they have said. So you really need to look closely at your actions. Are there other stores offering the same or similar products at lower prices? Are your competitors in a better location? Have you had customer complaints? Maybe they have disgruntled customers to testify?

I'm playing devils advocate here trying to show you that it could be an uphill battle. But if you can prove the threat to keep running the negative info until you pay, then you will have a stronger case. Their credibility will be shot.

I suppose it would also depend on the type of article you are referring to. If it was some type of "consumer report" or opinion piece where it is clear to the reader that they are expressing an opinion, it may not be a libel. The better avenue to pursue would be proving that they are extorting you by promising to stop the negative ads when you pay your bills.

Hello again:

Yes, I'm troubled too. She did say "ads" but newspapers don't run ads for themselves, do they? It certainly may have been an opinion piece.

Hopefully she'll clarify.

excon

Did the newspaper produce this ad or was it produced by one of your competitors that just happened to choose to run it in the same newspaper? If the newspaper originated the ad and you can show damages as a result, such as a decrease in profits since the ad was published, then it sounds like you have a good case. See a lawyer and provide him/her with a copy of the ad in question.

Hello chipp:

I was talking about the negagive "ads" she said the paper was running. I don't think that was hard to discerne...

In terms of disagreeing, I disagree with your use of the word "extortion". This isn't that - not even close. You should break out that old legal dictionary.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello chipp:

I was talking about the negagive "ads" she said the paper was running. I don't think that was hard to discerne.......

In terms of disagreeing, I disagree with your use of the word "extortion". This isn't that - not even close. You should break out that old legal dictionary.

excon

---

Hello excon dude,

I did look look it up. Just to be sure I didn't put my foot in my mouth. To obtain something(like money) but use of illegal mean such as threats. The paper threatened to continue to run negative adds until she paid. My disagreement with you(respectfully so) was regarding whether it was an opinion piece vs a paid add. An opinion piece would be on the paper's dime more like a food critics would be. That was all I disagreed about with such an intelligent man.(seriously)

Ps. Did you ever find out a place for sex adicts to go? :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chippers

My disagreement with you(respectfully so) was regarding whether it was an opinion piece vs a paid add.

---

May I call your attention to the suggested guidelines on using the Comments feature:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/feedba...ure-24951.html

I don't have a problem with your disagreeing with excon about whether it was an opinion or an ad. But I do have a problem with your using the comments feature to do so. excon was posting his opinion, not a point of fact.

Would someone clarify the extortion angle? I understand what extortion is but if someone has a debt, like the person who wrote the original question and there is someone who is holding the debt over her head, so to speak, by running negative ads... isn't there a better legal term for it? Because there is the debt. Or is any forceful, negative action on the part of the person who is owed the debt, considered extortion?

I am really not trying to insult anyone, I just do not fully understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shygrneyzs

Would someone clarify the extortion angle? I understand what extortion is but if someone has a debt, like the person who wrote the original question and there is someone who is holding the debt over her head, so to speak, by running negative ads.... isn't there a better legal term for it? Because there is the debt. Or is any forceful, negative action on the part of the person who is owed the debt, considered extortion?

I am really not trying to insult anyone, I just do not fully understand.

---

Well I know what the law is in New York. New York has its own Penal Law which is a codification of the "common law" and very similar to the model penal code (the basis of state law in numerous states in the union), so I am sure it would be similar wherever you go.

In New York, there isn't a specifc crime called "extortion". Extortion falls under "Larceny" which covers a wide range of acts.

Larceny by extortion is defined as follows:

A person obtains property by extortion when he compels or induces another person to deliver such property to himself or to a third person by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the property is not so delivered, the actor or another will:

(i) Cause physical injury to some person in the future; or

(ii) Cause damage to property; or

(iii) Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or

(iv) Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him; or

(v) Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or

(vi) Cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action injurious to some person's business; except that such a threat shall not be deemed extortion when the property is demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or

(vii) Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense; or

(viii) Use or abuse his position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely; or

(ix) Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.

So to answer your question: The fact that there is a legitimate debt underlying the reason for the extortion would not mitigate that fact that the paper is breaking the law. (assuming they are in fact guilty of what we are assuming). There are legitimate ways of collecting a debt without resulting to breaking the law.

An easier analogy might be to ask yourself what would happen if your credit card company sent someone to your house to beat you up because you were late on payments. Certainly the legitimate underlying debt wouldn't justify criminal conduct.

Shy brings up a good point about there being a vaild debt. But it's the nature of the threat. There are plenty of legal ways to collect a debt. Libel is not oen of them.