california first-amendment antitrust-law injunctions lemon-law
Can consumer Bob be gagged about a suit against Big Co. revealing major antitrust and policy-driven fraud causing widespread public safety issues?
<p>Bob is your average consumer having bought a vehicle that turns out to have been an undisclosed “lemon law buyback” without any branding.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Bob’s substantiating evidence may lead to Big Co.’s market cap caving in.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Bob needs public attention to potentially raise funds for attorneys or be approached by a major firm pro bono.</p>
<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>
<p>In each of the cases <em>Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer</em>; <em>Lucas Nursery &amp; Landscaping, Inc. v. Grosse</em>; <em>TMI, Inc. v. Maxwell</em>, 368 F.3d 433, 435 (5th Cir. 2004); <em>Cleary Bldg. Corp. v. David A. Dame, Inc.</em>, 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 &quot;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.</p>
<p>More recently &quot;companySucks.com&quot; sites have been created to host complaints about {company}. Atempts to shut these downishe bottom.&quot; using trademark law have largely been unsucceaful.</p>
<p>See <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=sucks+sites" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this page</a> for more on this.</p>
<p>The first amendment makes it hard to shut down such sites, as they are on &quot;matters of public concern&quot; the &quot;actual malice&quot; rule makes defamation cases tough.</p>
