Re:Glassdoor not so anonymous
by lostcolony on Monday July 18, 2022 @09:45PM
(#32146524)
Yeah. Definitely Streisand effected themselves. Wonder if they can sue their own legal counsel for causing themselves so much monetary loss (given that's the grounds they're using to de-anonymize the reviewers)?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Yah. The reviews didn't even look that bad.
Nothing like getting lots of press for suing critical employees to improve your rep.
The... remaining reviews may not look that bad. I imagine a scenario may exist where a fired employee has to sign an NDA and take down their review to receive severance or suchlike.
The review that started this legal case was reposted to Reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/w2lvgp/zuru_gla...
Re:Glassdoor not so anonymous
by ahaferburg on Wednesday July 20, 2022 @04:25AM
(#32162941)
They didn't sue the employees.
Not yet, but they need to know who the employees are, first.
In their filing against Glassdoor, they declared their intent to sue the employees.
The judge's order only permits them to use the information for the purpose of pursuing defamation actions in New Zealand:
> 5. Zuru may use the information disclosed by Glassdoor only for purposes of the anticipated defamation action in New Zealand.
Re:Glassdoor not so anonymous
by edisondotme on Monday July 25, 2022 @08:35AM
(#32223461)
Ha, like poking more holes in a sinking ship!
Agreed. This banner is the new warrant canary [1]
The Legal Action Canary?
A canary is something which is present when everything is fine and removed when the situation changes. It’s a stealthy technique for when you can’t be explicit. Adding a giant red warning at the top of a page is the opposite of a canary.