WE WILL PROTECT YOUR HONOR,
DIGNITY AND REPUTATION
in the court, on the Internet and wherever they were attacked upon.
What issues do we settle?
Accusation and insult
Lawsuit on defamation
HOW WE WORK
- we collect evidence to strengthen the position;
- we document defamatory content in a legally appropriate manner;
- we acquire a linguists expert opinion;
- we reasonably ground the violation of your rights.
- we litigate in the court (throughout Ukraine);
- we provide the required evidence;
- we seek judicial decision in your favor;
- we monitor the enforcement of court decision.
- we draft a claim to remove/correct negative information;
- we identify the owners of the Internet resource;
- we contact them (even if they are abroad);
- we seek to remove/correct negative information.
from YouTube, namely:
- we study legal grounds for the removal;
- we analyze alleged copyright infringements;
- we investigate unlawful disclosure of personal data;
- we submit a claim to YouTube and seek the removal.
- we draft a list of resources with negative content;
- we study legal grounds for the removal;
- we submit a claim to Google with the relevant arguments;
- we negotiate with Google and seek the removal.
- we collect compromising information about the opponents;
- we engage author-analysts to prepare investigation;
- we cooperate with reputable publications as to publishing materials;
- we analyze feedback and new publications.
— Defamation lawyer
Oleh Gromovyi —
one of the leading litigation lawyers according to the rating
“Top 100 Lawyers of Ukraine” (2020).
- Managing partner of GENTLS.
- Master of Intellectual Property Law.
- 15 years in the field of jurisprudence.
- 10-year experience in the field of reputation protection.
- Author of the reputation protection blog on Liga.net.
- Graduate of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).
5 REASONS WHY PEOPLE TRUST US
Since we respect confidentiality in work with our clients, we publish case examples without any names. However, these are true situations with real participants and decisions in our favor in the courts.
GENTLS is a law firm that specializes in defamation cases.
We represented the interests of two Prime Ministers, politicians, MPs, businessmen (including those from the Forbes list), top managers of the leading companies and public figures.
As of 2020, we are included in the list of Top-100 Lawyers of Ukraine in the Client’s Choice nomination. Moreover, GENTLS is a member of the authoritative international rating LEGAL 500.
OUR GOAL is to reveal the truth in order to protect your honor, dignity and reputation.
To this end, we will achieve the refutation of defamatory information by means of a court decision, as well as the cessation of the dissemination of lies, insults and other unreliable data.
We will assist you all the way – from the beginning to the very victorious end. Moreover, we will assess the prospects at initial stage, explaining everything as it is and suggesting the best way to proceed.
Before inquiring about the amount of our fee,
ask yourself how you value
Should you fail to stop the dissemination of defamatory information, how much will it cost?
It may result in an unconcluded contract, loss of funding for elections and other preparatory initiatives, deprivation of preferences and high powers, decrease in business profit, suspension of funding, etc…
Furthermore, delays in response are costly, because information attacks are not a targeted strike. They are a weapon of mass destruction. It is the situation when people make a mountain out of a molehill.
Therefore, the sooner you hire an attorney, the faster the situation can be resolved and the fewer resources it will take.
Now, GENTLS attorneys will help you to take an advantage rather than loose.
POWER OF THE INTERNET AND NEW RULES OF THE GAME
Success produces envy
Negative information on the Internet is explosive
Do not let enemies disturb your plans
Your reputation is worth standing up for it, because you have been working hard for years to build it.
READY TO START NOW?
FILL IN THE FORM
TO ORDER SERVICES:
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.”