WE WILL PROTECT YOUR HONOR,

PROTECTION IN THE COURT OF THE BUSINESS REPUTATION OF A LARGE STATE ENTERPRISE IN CASE AGAINST THE INTER TV CHANNEL TO REFUTE CORRUPTION ACCUSATIONS.

In May 2020, the Inter channel in the Podrobnosti program aired a story about the management of one of the state-owned enterprises of Ukraine. In the story, journalists accused the head of the board of corruption, and other board members’ complicity for the sale of the company’s assets.
After filing a lawsuit to refute false information and protect honor, dignity and business reputation, GENTLS attorneys successfully negotiated with the legal service of the Inter channel. The parties reached an amicable agreement.
On the basis of the agreement approved by the court, the TV channel undertook not to disseminate defamatory information; the plaintiff withdrew the claim against the defendant. The court decision came into force.

REPRESENTING OF THE COMPANY FROM KYIV AND ITS OWNER IN THE ECONOMIC COURT ON THE CLAIM ON PROTECTION OF BUSINESS REPUTATION, REMOVAL OF THE ARTICLE FROM THE SITE AND THE VIDEO IN YOUTUBE AND COMPENSATION OF DAMAGES.

Pseudojournalists (authors without names) published defamatory information on the “Aktualna Pravda” website discrediting our client. We identified the site owners via the WhoIs service and filed a lawsuit with the court.
Assisted by the experts in recording the content on the Internet, we documented the defendants’ complicity for the dissemination of defamatory information. The linguist’s opinion helped to establish what defamatory information does not apply to value judgments and can be refuted under the law.
Thus, the court found defamatory negative information about the plaintiff and ruled it to be removed from the defendant’s website and YouTube channel. In addition, the court awarded UAH 125,000 damages and UAH 98,000 plaintiff’s expenses for legal aid and experts’ opinions. The court decision came into force and was enforced.

REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF THE PRIME MINISTER IN THE COURT ON THE CLAIM FILED BY THE FORMER PRIME MINISTER TO REFUTE THE INFORMATION RELATING TO HER ENRICHMENT IN RELATION TO THE 2009 GAS CONTRACTS.

On December 7, 2017, the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv ruled in favor of our client and dismissed the former Prime Minister’s claim. We managed to convince the court that our opponents did not have proof of the purity of the gas contracts and the integrity of the reputation of the former Prime Minister.
In support of our legal position, we provided two expert opinions in the court – of a linguist and a psychologist. Both documents were accepted by the court as evidence.
The court’s decision was upheld by the higher courts. Thus, the plaintiff failed to refute the information about the receipt of dividends from the Russian Federation under the 2009 gas contracts.

PROTECTION OF THE INTERESTS OF “OSCHADBANK” IN THE CASE OF THE CLAIM FILED BY THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

The attorneys of the former President of Ukraine filed a lawsuit against “Oschadbank”, accusing its management of disclosing banking secrets and disseminating allegedly defamatory information about the deposit of USD 1.15 billion on the former President’s accounts.
We managed to protect people’s right to know the information of public interest. We have proven that limiting the privacy of officials of such a rank is justified. Information about their assets can be publicly disclosed, as this guarantees the right to freedom of speech. We based our position on the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.
According to the ECHR practice, the following key aspects should be considered in such cases:

1. The degree of public interest in the disseminated information.
2. The degree of publicity of the person whom this information concerns.

The previous conduct of the interested person, methods and circumstances of collecting information, its accuracy, form and consequences of publication should be considered.
We drew the court’s attention to the fact that in order to satisfy the claim to refute the information, corpus delicti is required, one of the elements of which is harm caused to V. Yanukovych’s business reputation. We managed to convince the court that the plaintiff did not prove his high reputation and the fact of causing harm.
As a result, the court denied the request of the former President’s attorneys to refute the information and dismissed the charges against “Oschadbank” for disclosing bank secrets.

REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF THE FORMER PRIME MINISTER IN THE COURT ON THE SUIT TO REFUTE DEFAMATORY INFORMATION ABOUT THE PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE.

In November 2016, some media published the publication by the Ukrainian blogger, claiming that the former Prime Minister had bought 24 real estate properties in Florida (USA) of USD 1-5 million. The former Prime Minister called this information a lie and decided to file a claim to refute it.
During the trial, we provided an extract from the Florida real estate registry that our client did not own any real estate there, as well as requested the defendant to prove the acquisition of the real estate in question.
The blogger did not provide any evidence, therefore the court ruled in favor of the former Prime Minister and ordered the defendant to refute the information he had disseminated. The court decision came into force and was enforced by the blogger.

REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF THE MEMBER OF THE PARLIAMENT OF UKRAINE IN THE COURT ON THE CLAIM TO REFUTE DEFAMATORY INFORMATION.

In February 2020, a journalistic investigation was published about the alleged meetings of the member of the parliament with the leaders of the so-called DPR in Moscow and the trade in coal with the occupied territories. It was republished by other websites.
We filed a lawsuit to refute defamatory information and remove it from the websites and the defendant’s YouTube channel. In the course of proceedings, we presented evidence that the charges were groundless. Moreover, a witness was interrogated and confirmed that the circumstances described in the journalistic investigation had been deceiving.
As a result, the claim was fully upheld. The court found negative information about our client defamatory. It was ruled to remove the investigation from the websites and the defendant’s YouTube channel.

PROTECTION OF THE INTERESTS OF ODESA BUSINESSMAN IN THE PRE-TRIAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT.

Our client’s foes shared defamatory information related to the alleged raiding and illegal takeover of land in Odesa by our client on their own websites and web resources of their partners.
Within the framework of the pre-trial settlement, we conducted legal analysis of negative content and identified contacts of the websites. We sent them complaints on behalf of attorneys, proving defamatory nature of the information and demanding that the compromising articles should be removed immediately.
Much of the content was removed voluntarily. Some sites refused to remove articles for free and demanded reward. With regard to such unlawful demands, we commenced criminal litigation, after which the opponents agreed to remove the articles with defamatory information.

How do you understand whether the defamation case is winning or losing and what case should be dismissed?

“Based on our experience and constant monitoring of judicial practice, we can predict with a high probability what the court decision will be.
We study the nature of the information, which the client considers negative: whether it is value judgments or factual statements; whether the information contains images and humiliation or just constitutes content that is harmful for the client.
Value judgments are not subject to refutation. But if they are offensive and degrading to the dignity, business reputation of a person, then non-pecuniary damage can be sought.”

What are the reasons for applying to the court to refute negative information?

“The judicial decision may be used by the client when selected to the position, to confirm virtue, to refute rumors in order to find business partners or investors, to get a bank loan.
Moreover, the decision strengthens the bargaining position with journalists or site administrators when removing the content if it was republished.”

How do you remove information from YouTube?

“Legally. YouTube policies contain grounds for removing content that violates video hosting policies. For example, copyright infringement, disclosure of data, and dissemination of information that stokes tensions.
We have come a long way to understand which arguments YouTube accepts and which it rejects. For example, we have recently removed a video about a member of parliament, where the authors showed his wife’s telephone number, which constitutes a violation of data protection rules. However, it is useless even to try to remove a video from YouTube only on the basis of the reputation infringement (without a court decision).
Our partners’ exclusive capacities of communication with YouTube make the work more effective.”

Do you work against so-called “Internet trash heap” sites that are not afraid of court decisions on removing information?

“Yes, we protect clients from this kind of pseudo-journalism. These sites tend to prioritize information warfare and blackmail.
Often it is not one, but a whole group of sites. Sometimes there can be more than a hundred of them. These resources are owned by persons who are already known in the previous cases or become known via exclusive sources of information.
In most cases, we agree with the owners of such sites on the voluntary removal of customized content. Should it fail, we initiate criminal prosecution for extortion.”

What actions do you take to remove negative content from Google search?

“We analyze the content and decide if it violates Google policies, for example, copyright or personal data. If it constitutes the violation, we submit a request for removal.
If there are no obvious violations, there is a prospect of judicial proceedings.
At the same time, we call SERM experts to produce positive content about the client, the correct index of materials in Google and gradual substitution of negative information by positive content in search results.”