Signal-arnaques.com condemnation

Signal-arnaques.com sentenced for non-compliance with the consumer code 1

By one interim order of December 22, 2021, the Paris Commercial Court condemned the signal-arnaques.com platform for non-compliance with the Consumer Code. According to Articles L. 111-7-2 and D. 111-17 of the said code, this platform dedicated to online reviews must publish them together with their publication date, as well as that of the consumer experience concerned. However, this date was missing in the denunciations aimed at Mac Assistance. As a result, the site was ordered to delete several pages concerning this company.


Mac Assistance had noted several unwelcome comments about it on the www.signal-arnaques.com platform, particularly concerning assistance failures and requests for additional payment for repairs.

The court mentions in particular the opinion of a certain Pascaline which does not include any evidence that would allow Mac Assistance to identify its author. A possible fault committed and therefore the reason for his dissatisfaction, but also the impossibility of producing a coherent answer. Especially since a priori, after reading the dialogue and comments completely, nothing is truly identifiable. 

"Given the non-compliance with the provisions of the Consumer Code, the damage caused to Mac Assistance, the impossibility for Mac Assistance to justify itself, the need for the intervention of a moderator in this type of site which allow the publication of texts which can very quickly destroy the reputation of a company without providing the slightest proof”, the court ordered the signal-arnaques.com platform to delete the pages concerned and condemned it to pay Mac Assistance €5,000 pursuant to article 700 CPC.


Signal-arnaques.com Conviction Details

Case law: Case law

Paris Commercial Court, interim order of December 22, 2021

For the reasons set out in its summons dated October 20, 2021, filed in the office of the Bailiff, to which reference should be made for the statement of facts, MAC ASSISTANCE LTD asks us to:

Having regard to article 873 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
Having regard to article 1240 of the Civil Code,
Having regard to Articles L. 111-7-2, L. 111-8, D. 111-16 and D. 111-17 of the Consumer Code,

NOTE that HERETIC does not comply with the provisions of Articles L. 111-7-2 and D. 111-17 of the Consumer Code;

NOTE that HERETIC's failure to comply with the provisions of Articles L. 111-7-2 and D. 111-17 of the Consumer Code constitutes a manifestly unlawful disturbance

ORDER HERETIC to remove from its platform https://www.scamdoc.com, within 8 days of notification of the order to be made, from the page accessible at the following URL address: https:/ /www.scamdoc.com/xxx.

ORDER HERETIC to remove www.signalarnaques.com from its platform, within 8 days of notification of the order to be made,
the pages accessible at the following URLs:


https://www.signal-arnaques.com/xxx
https://www.signa1-arnaques.com/xxx
https://www.signal-arnaques.com/xxx
https://www.signal-arnaques.com/xxx
https://www.signal-arnaques.com/xxx
https://www.signal-arnaques.com/xxx

ASSOCIATE this conviction with a penalty payment of 1,000 euros per day of delay or breach,

RESERVE the liquidation of the penalty,

CONDEMN the company HERETIC to pay the company MAC ASSISTANCE LTD the sum of 10,000 euros as a provision for damages, in compensation for its moral prejudice,

ORDER HERETIC to pay the sum of 5,000 euros on the basis of article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as to pay all costs, including the costs of establishing the official report.

The case was first raised on November 10, 2021 and adjourned to hearing on December 8, 2021.

SAS HERETIC submits substantiated conclusions by which it asks us to:
Having regard to article 12 of the code of civil procedure,
Considering the law of July 29, 1881,

ln eliminates titis,
Declare that the action of the company MAC ASSISTANCE is a defamation action, Declare the nullity of the summons,

Alternatively,
Having regard to law no. 2004-575 of June 21, 2004,
Having regard to article 873 of the code of civil procedure,
Having regard to article 1240 of the civil code,

Dismiss MAC ASSISTANCE from all of its requests,

Order the company MAC ASSISTANCE to pay the company HERETIC the sum of €5,000 as a provision to be applied to the compensation for its loss,

Order MAC ASSISTANCE to pay HERETIC the sum of €5,000 under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Order MAC ASSISTANCE to pay all the costs.

After having heard the counsel of the parties in their explanations and observations, we submitted the delivery of our order, by making it available at the registry, on Wednesday, December 20, 2021.

DISCUSSION

Mac Assistance is a service company, registered in Hong Kong, offering remote troubleshooting services for Apple brand products.

HERETIC and publisher of websites: www.signal-arnaques.com and www.scandoc.com

We retain from the writings of the council of HERETIC that the first site on the one hand aims to inform consumers about online scam techniques and on the other hand the reporting of scams or attempted scams of which these the same consumers think they have been victims, the second allows to analyze a merchant site or other and to determine the trust score.

In summary, HERETIC is a community platform that allows Internet users to report scams or find out about them.

Mac Assistance notes several comments that are not very kind to it, written on the www.signal-arnaques.com platform, among other things concerning the failures of assistance and requests for additional payment to repair. She asks the President of this Tribunal to order the removal of six Internet pages published on the Strasbourg platform.

The six pages have the following numbers: //xxx, //xxx, //xxx, //xxx, //xxx, //xxx.

We note in particular that if the alleged opinions are dated, the dates of the "consumption experience", which must be mentioned according to the provisions of Articles L111-7-2 and D111-17 of the Consumer Code, are not mentioned. , thus not allowing Mac Assistance to respond precisely to the allegations for lack of being able to identify either the author of the opinion, or the reason for this opinion, or any faults committed by Mac Assistance.

We note that HERETIC exposes, on page 6 of its conclusions, a message from a certain Pascaline on the page numbered //xxx, an opinion which does not refer to any specific action, no piece of evidence which would allow Mac Assistance to identify its author: "if you are a client...", thus confirming the impossibility for the plaintiff in the instance to identify this Pascaline, to identify a possible fault committed and therefore the reason for his dissatisfaction, but also the impossibility of producing a coherent response, especially since a priori, after reading the dialogue and comments completely, nothing is truly identifiable.

We therefore hold that it is not the defamatory statements that are to be judged in this case, but the impossibility of identifying the authors of these statements, their reason and of course the veracity of the allegations.

Thus we retain that this is in no way a defamation procedure, but a procedure between companies aimed at obliging the defendant in the proceedings to respect the laws in force, that this company is a commercial company which falls good of the commercial court and its president.

We consider moreover that the mention "scam", contained in the domain name, has in reality a criminal qualification, "fraud", that in this case there is no proven fraud which would come under the provisions of the article 313-1 and following of the penal code.

Thus we hold that the summary summons is perfectly admissible, that it only relates to uncontrolled remarks that it will be up to the Judicial Court to possibly qualify as "defamatory" and which immediately endanger the company Mac Assistance,

For the aforementioned reasons, given the non-compliance with the provisions of the Consumer Code, the damage caused to Mac Assistance, the impossibility for Mac Assistance to justify itself, the need for the intervention of a moderator in this type of sites that allow the publication of texts that can very quickly destroy the reputation of a company without providing the slightest proof, we will condemn Heretic in the terms of the request with the exception of the request for a provision for damages which does not is justified by any document.

Considering that it also seems equitable, taking into account the elements provided, to allocate to the plaintiff the sum of €5,000 pursuant to article 700 CPC.


DECISION

Ruling by contradictory order in first instance. 
Having regard to article 873 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
Having regard to article 1240 of the Civil Code,
Having regard to Articles L. 111-7-2, L. 111-8, D. 111-16 and D. 111-17 of the Consumer Code,

Note that HERETIC does not comply with the provisions of Articles L. 111-7-2 and D. 111-17 of the Consumer Code;

Note that HERETIC's failure to comply with the provisions of Articles L. 111-7-2 and D. 111-17 of the Consumer Code constitutes a manifestly unlawful disorder;

Order the HERETIC company to remove https://www.scamdoc from its platform. com, within 8 days of notification of the order to be made, from the page accessible at the following URL address:
https://www.scamdoc.com/xxx

Order HERETIC to remove www.signalarnaques.com from its platform, within 8 days of notification of the order to be made,
the pages accessible at the following URLs: 


https://www.signal-arnaques.com/xxx
https://www.signal-arnaques.com/xxx
https://www.signal-arnaques.com/xxx
https://www.signal-arnaques.com/xxx
https://www.signal-arnaques.com/xxx
https://www.signal-arnaques.com/xxx

And this, under penalty of 1,000 euros per day of delay or breach,

We do not reserve the liquidation of the penalty payment which will remain within the jurisdiction of the enforcement judge,

Order HERETIC to pay the sum of 5,000 euros on the basis of article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

Let's reject the excess demand.

We also order SAS HERETIC to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those to be recovered by the registry liquidated at the sum of €16.01 including VAT, including €2.46 VAT.

The tribunal : Jean-Louis Gruter (president), Renaud Dragon (clerk)

Lawyers: Me Romain Darrière, Me Guillaume Dauchel, Me Clément Hervieux, Me Sandra Ohana

Source : Legalis.net

consult our files on Signal Scams & Scamdoc

One Comment

  1. Amazing Trustpilot you are not…
    Incredible Trustpilot you are not reliable and you do not let people express themselves on this company which has been condemned twice by French justice. You have once again deleted my review. And strangely after the manager is hiding my review for a week.Today you put my review and 5 minutes later you delete it. What are you doing. Who manages this customer account ??? The manager himself.

    According to the transparency page, 91% of negative opinions deleted. The Signal scams customer score is not reliable.

    Unfortunately, Flo's opinion is right, negative opinions are systematically deleted on this profile.

    Moreover, in view of the response of the manager of this SARL signal scams, it seems that this dear gentleman does not live in the same reality as us:

    2 court convictions in one year and according to the manager, it's the judges who didn't understand anything

    These opponents or those who raise alerts about the dangerousness of the Signal Arnaques site are all potential crooks. This dear manager whose company has been condemned to the monopoly of honesty.

    According to the manager's comment, the DGCCRF is still with him.
    Are we to understand that an organization financed by our taxes has all become the armed wing of the Signal scams site.

    Ask yourself the right questions? How does a small-scale private company like Signal scams allow itself so many excesses and defamation on other companies when it has been the subject of several court convictions?

    How does the manager, as he describes it in his response to Flo, decide with his partners (the DGCCRF?) to break reputations and businesses? There is no more justice in France, no more courts, no more police for the manager of this SARL to grant himself his powers????

    Worse, he made an advertising business out of it. For each report on his site, there are Google Adsense ads. So there is an obvious conflict of interest.

    In other words, the manager has an interest in reporting anything and everything to increase his income and make money in the uncontrolled defamation space of Signal scams.

    Besides, to convince you, I invite you to type Signal scams on Google and you will see the ads. You don't naively think that a company paid ads to Google to report scams. No, it's an investment.

    But where are we going? Any company that does not support a few negative opinions on its profile and whose manager begins to insult his opponents of crooks for free, wants to replace the police, the justice system, etc. via its offspring Signal scams without having neither the qualities nor the skills and who herself is very very very very very far from being flawless in her business.

    Trustpilot check what is happening with this account and the methods of the person who manages because you are not going to silence us!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SHOPPING CART

close
en_GBEnglish (UK)