Landmark Education LLC v. Ross description by Digital Media Law Project
Landmark Education LLC v. Ross
[edit]
Landmark Education LLC v. Ross
NOTE: The information and commentary contained in this database entry are based on court filings and other informational sources that may contain unproven allegations made by the parties. The truthfulness and accuracy of such information is likely to be in dispute. Information contained in this entry is current as of the last event mentioned in the "Description" section below; additional proceedings might have taken place in this matter since this event.
Posted September 10th, 2007 by DMLP Staff
Summary
[edit]Summary
Threat Type: Lawsuit
Date: 06/25/2004
Status: Concluded
Location: New Jersey Disposition: Withdrawn
Verdict/Settlement Amount: n/a
Legal Claims: Fraud; Tortious Interference; Trade Libel; Unfair Competition
Landmark Education is a for-profit company engaged in the business of making "education programs" available to the general public and corporations, on subjects including communication, time management, and productivity. Its basic program is "The Forum" -- a three day/one evening seminar... read full description
Parties
[edit]Parties
Party Issuing Legal Threat: Landmark Education LLC
Type of Party: Organization
Location of Party: California; Delaware
Legal Counsel: Gary I. Lerner - Cohen Lans LLP; Paul J. Dillon - Bloom, Rubenstein, Karinja & Dillon, PC
Party Receiving Legal Threat: Rick Ross Institute of New Jersey; Rick Ross
Type of Party: Individual; Organization
Location of Party: New Jersey
Legal Counsel: Peter L. Skolnik - Lowenstein Sandler, PC
Description
[edit]
Description
Landmark Education is a for-profit company engaged in the business of making "education programs" available to the general public and corporations, on subjects including communication, time management, and productivity. Its basic program is "The Forum" -- a three day/one evening seminar directed at "enhancing communication, creativity, and productivity for participants." Participants in the Forum may and are urged to take additional seminars given by Landmark and to recruit new participants for Landmark programs.
Rick Ross runs nonprofit websites, www.rickross.com , www.culteducation.com, and www.cultnews.com, through his non-profit entity, the Rick Ross Institute of New Jersey. The websites provide information to the public about cults and other controversial groups. On the website, Ross solicits contributions and sells his books and multimedia materials. Ross also operates a for-profit business "de-programming" the victims of cults, which is advertised on his sites.
Ross included Landmark on his list of organizations refered to as "controversial groups, some called 'cults," which included organizations such as the Aryan Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda.
Visitors to Ross's sites posted various anonymous "visitor comments" critical of Landmark that allegedly gave the impression that Landmark's programs are cult-like and present risks of physical or mental harm to participants. Other comments accused Landmark of "hypnotizing" and "braninwashing" participants, attempting "cult recruitment" and "mind control." Others indicated that the Landmark Forum "used bright fluorescent lighting with no windows, didn't allow food or drink in the room, and required such long hours," and that participants in the Landmark Forum who wanted to leave were met with "guilt, manipulation and implied threats" and those who did leave were "harassed" by Landmark representatives seeking to convince them to return. The sites contained a disclaimer displayed at the bottom of the visitor comments pages indicating that "the Rick Ross Institute, its Advsiory Board and/or Rick Ross do not necessarily endorse or support any of the views expressed within the documents, articles, reports, and testimonies archivied within this website, with the exception of those specifically so attributed."
Ross's sites also posted anonymously authored "personal stories" detailing unpleasant experiences that befell the authors or someone close to them during their participation in one of Landmark's programs. Some of these personal stories had provacative titles, including "This cannot be healthy emotionally" and "Landmark Education destroyed my life -- from the Forum to the psych ward." These personal stories included statements to the effect that Landmark's programs make a "deliberate assault on your mind," are a "form of mind control," and have "cult attributes."
The websites also hosted a number of articles by third-party authors concerning Landmark, with titles like "Brain Wash," "Mindbreakers," and "Microsoft Paid for Culty Clinics," which had been previously published in other publications.
Additionally, visitors to the websites' forum sections, writing under psuedonyms, posted a number of critical comments accusing Landmark of mind control, brainwashing, and the like. The websites posted rules relating to the forums, stating "the moderators of this forum will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, but it is impossible to review every message. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of this forum, Cult Education.com, Rick Ross.com and/or developers of bulletin software, will be held responsible for the content of any message."
Ross's websites also included links to other websites containing negative content relating to Landmark. The links were accompanied by a disclaimer: "The Rick A. Ross Institute, its Advisory Board and/or Rick Ross do not necessarily endorse or support any of the views expressed within the linked websites listed at the Links page of this website."
At the time of the lawsuit, apparently a search for "Landmark Education" on Google produced Ross's websites on the results list.
Ross also allegedly made several statements to the news media radio shows, indicating that certain of Landmark's methods were "cult-like" and that participants of Landmark's programs had suffered negative mental health effects.
In June 2004, Landmark sued Ross and the Ross Institute in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting claims of product disparagement, tortious interference with ongoing and propspective business relations, trademark disparagement under the Lanham Act, consumer fraud and unfair competition under New Jersey law, and prima facie tort.
Ross and the Institute filed an answer in September 2004 without moving to dismiss. In it, they asserted various defenses, including that the statements were statements of opinion, the fair comment privilege, and lack of actual malice.
The details are not clear, but Landmark appears to have voluntarily dismissed the case in December 2005.
Related Links:
Details
[edit]
Website(s) Involved:
The Rick Ross Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements
Cult Education and Recovery
Cult News From Rick Ross
Content Type(s):
Text
Publication Medium:
Broadcast
Forum
Website
Subject Area(s):
Anonymity
Third-Party Content
Trade Libel
Trademark
Court Information & Documents
[edit]Location of Filing/Threat: New Jersey
Source of Law: United States; New Jersey
Court Name: United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
Court Type: Federal
Case Number: 2:04CV03022
Relevant Documents:
Complaint (06-24-2004)
Answer (09-21-2004)
Last updated on December 21st, 2009
Licensing
[edit]
This work is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, which allows free use, distribution, and creation of derivatives, so long as the license is unchanged and clearly noted, and the original author is attributed.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page.
Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers .
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse