Bob is your average consumer having bought a vehicle that turns out to have been an undisclosed “lemon law buyback” without any branding.

Big Co., from the get go, had no intention to be bound by the warranty it undertook in connection with the car, and such stored digitally in the flash drive of the car and part of the bargain.

Bob learns of the systemic nature of these issues, and gathers sufficient documentary evidence to support that this is business as usual for Big Co., in fact, formal policies are aimed at short-cutting refund-or-replace duties to be plausible proven through several distinct schemes.

Bob possesses evidence sufficient to raise reasonable suspicion that the breadth and width of these schemes was a cord instead effort under a single ploy to make Big Co. appear profitable and profitable sustainably to the degree that the markets believe Big Co. is self-sustaining leading to its market valuation increasing manifold.

Bob’s substantiating evidence may lead to Big Co.’s market cap caving in.

There is not one law firm for individual-plaintiff suits that has the full scope of expertise across different domains of law to take the case, and Bob will not be successful convincing multiple firms to work together.

Bob needs public attention to potentially raise funds for attorneys or be approached by a major firm pro bono.

What cases or other authority support for Big Co. to successfully get an injunctive gag order against Bob? Are there sufficient support in law, statutory or decisional, for Big Co. to even try without such a motion being frivolous motion?

  • Edited it, appeared more of an opinion question.
    – kisspuska
    Oct 27, 2021 at 20:15
  • Bob should probably know that most states have lemon law title requirements & it would be very difficult for a company to circumvent them across the US. I own such a car & it's listed on the title, and the specific issue was required to have an extended warranty.
    – Tiger Guy
    Oct 28, 2021 at 3:55
  • @TigerGuy Other than there is no point in arguing the actual factuality of the hypothetical facts of a hypo since once proven, it will likely be found asking for legal advice and prohibited; the reality is that there I could name you a dozen of practices that make it plausible almost begging for short-circuiting those requirements.
    – kisspuska
    Oct 28, 2021 at 16:49
  • 1) “goodwill” repairs (if you don’t sign it, they’ll print you refused repairs, bad luck, buddy!); 2) intermittent issues? “Never happened when we looked!”, 3) tightening, loosening, pushing, pulling no replacement, that’s not a repair attempt, 4) “the customer stated” A, next time B, third time C, it’s not the same issue — if you submit your stuff in writing, it won’t go into the RO, if it does, they may try to deter with “diag fees”, if you insist, they’ll goodwill it down and never found your issue, 5) software issues are design defects, and not result of workmanship or material (false: […]
    – kisspuska
    Oct 28, 2021 at 16:54
  • […] the specs of software is in natural language therefor writing software is the per definition manufacturing process of software) regardless, they won’t fix it, or consider it a lemon issue, 6) buybacks in goodwill, signing NDA’s clueless, 7) buying the car back by a subsidiary in a non-branding state, 8) buying the car back contending the cause was actual goodwill in that they buy it back for an issue other than what you reported or considered a substantially impairing condition before 30 days down or enough attempts, 9) “scheduling appointments”, won’t let you in until they have parts[…]
    – kisspuska
    Oct 28, 2021 at 17:00

1 Answer 1


I am not aware of any cases with a fact pattern at all like this in which there has been an injunction against an individual publicizing accusations against a company.

In each of the cases Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer; Lucas Nursery & Landscaping, Inc. v. Grosse; TMI, Inc. v. Maxwell, 368 F.3d 433, 435 (5th Cir. 2004); Cleary Bldg. Corp. v. David A. Dame, Inc., 674 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1265 (D. Colo. 2009)' Name.Space, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 202 F.3d 573, 585 (2d Cir.2000) an individual put up a "gripe sit usign teh trademark of the company or something close to it, as a URL. Courts held this was not trademark infringement adn ther was no reason to enjoin such sites.

More recently "companySucks.com" sites have been created to host complaints about {company}. Atempts to shut these downishe bottom." using trademark law have largely been unsucceaful.

See this page for more on this.

The first amendment makes it hard to shut down such sites, as they are on "matters of public concern" the "actual malice" rule makes defamation cases tough.

  • That should probably mean it would be frivolous to even try.
    – HJay
    Oct 28, 2021 at 21:28
  • Could something similar happen on the court’s motion?
    – HJay
    Oct 28, 2021 at 21:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .