A wireless network device manufacture sent a brutal letter to a customer this past Monday, threatening to “take action” against the man unless he deleted his review from Amazon.com.

amazon-logo-reviewThe letter, sent by Mediabridge Products the maker of the router, stated that he was making “untrue, damaging and disparaging statements” about their product. After posting the negative review about the Medialink Wireless Router product, an attorney for Mediabridge sent the letter explaining that the company “zealously guards its hard-earned reputation” and that the man had “harmed Mediabridge and [they] intend to hold [him] liable for all damages sustained.”

The man, who goes by the user name “Trevely”, has since deleted his review. In the original review, Trevely gave his own personal account of his experience with the product. However, he also made accusations that the company was possibly paying for fake positive reviews. While that accusation is potentially libelous by his phrasing, it is against Amazon’s policy for companies on Amazon to threaten users with lawsuits.

Trevely’s was not the only 1 star negative review for the product on Amazon.com, however he was the first to post their letter. Instead of luring the customer into changing their review, which many companies have been known to do by providing a resolution, Mediabridge Products attempted a heavy-handed spook method and sent out a strongly worded legal notice under threat of lawsuit.

Trevely’s posting of the article drew attention to its Amazon profile, and a flood of negative reviews began to crop up. Amazon revoked Mediabridge’s seller license, preventing sale of not only their routers but also their other well-reviewed and high selling products.

The company has since deleted their Facebook account. In a statement they said:

Unfortunately, as a result of our attempt to get this reviewer to do the right thing & remove his untrue statements about our company, Amazon has revoked our selling privileges. Many hard-working employees whose livelihood depended on that business will likely be put out of a job, by a situation that has been distorted & blown out of proportion.

A lot of people are outraged by this statement, saying that the company is not claiming ownership of their mistake, and instead focuses the blame on the reviewer for their loss of jobs, instead of their own business practices.

Image via Annette Shaff / Shutterstock.com

About 

Martin Ackerman is a freelance writer and current editor originally from Staten Island, NY. His university schooling focused on English education and Japanese. He has a (not so secret) passion for art history and political science. When he isn't writing or editing you can find him at sci-tech conventions, building the latest LEGO city or pampering his cat, Tea. You can follow him on Twitter @MarMackerman.