bbb roundup-an investigation of the Better Business Bureau
 Lead story on the Better Business Bureau
Investigation of the Los Angeles Better Business Bureau
News Reports Clearing House of Filed Stories on the BBB
Side by Side Comparisons of Grades given by the BBB to like companies
BBB misconceptions and myths about the Better Business Bureau
bbb roundup grades the BBB using Better Business Bureaus Own Standards
Sign Our Petiton Against BBB
about bbb roundup
contact bbb roundup if you have a story or incident from interacting with the Better Business Bureau
Editorial and Op Ed pieces about the BBB
Follow the story on follow the better business story on twitter


      AN INVESTIGATIVE NEWS SERIES
    ON THE STANDARDS AND PRACTICES   
    OF THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU

          START WITH TRUTH


  V 1.1  April 2009

PART EIGHT:  LOS ANGELES BBB --  ABOVE THE LAW?

This is the eighth of a ten part investigative report into the standards and practices of the Better Business Bureau of the Southland, Inc., here-in-after referred to as the LA BBB.  This ten part report is the result of months of research, interviews, and information supplied or confirmed by a highly placed LA BBB employee of long standing who has requested confidentiality.
On May 1st, 2009, the Los Angeles Superior Court will hear arguments on important motions in a case against the Better Business Bureau of the Southland, Inc. concerning the Strategic Lawsuit Again Public Participation (anti -SLAPP Motion - Statute CC 425:16).

If the judge finds against the plaintiff in these motions, the Better Business Bureau of Southland, Inc. (Los Angeles BBB) may once again sidestep charges of libel, slander or defamation.

The anti-SLAPP laws were designed to protect freedom of speech and the right to seek redress for grievances from corporate attorneys’ misuse of the legal system to muzzle the legitimate complaints of the people against said corporations (i.e. whistle blowers).  This is a noble goal, especially in this age of corporate greed.  The zinger comes in the last sentence of section (a) “To this end, this section shall be construed broadly.”

The Los Angeles BBB has used the anti-SLAPP motion, which became law in 1992, to successfully shut down multiple lawsuits for slander, libel or defamation by arguing that the BBB performs a public service.  

Court papers and cases against the LA BBB

There are several parts to the anti-SLAPP.  The first is the public service phase.  Does the defendant (LA BBB) provide public service, or is it in reality a business?  This time around the plaintiff, Entertainment Career Connection, Inc. argued that since 90 percent of the Los Angeles BBB’s income and 40 percent of their employees are engaged in telemarketing, the Los Angeles BBB is in fact a business, not a public service organization.  Initially, the judge ruled in the plaintiff’s favor then abruptly reversed his decision when the state Court of Appeal expressed interest in the case.

The reversal brought the second phase of the SLAPP motion into play which deals with the public dimension of the issue—is the general public at risk?  A classic example would be the warning required on cigarette packs:  the risk is serious (death) and affects a significant percentage of the public (400,000 deaths a year from smoking.) 

The plaintiff is arguing that they pose no real significant public dimension to the case as they are a very small, niche market business--they provide their services to less than 500 consumers nationwide per year (with only a portion of these in the greater Los Angeles area). The defendant in this action (the Los Angeles BBB), has argued successfully in previous court cases that since they are a public service organization, all pronouncements from them are of interest to the general public, especially those which question a business’ reliability, and therefore can't be held liable. 

Because the LA BBB is representing itself to be a public service organization, by definition they must be held to the highest standards of conduct.  It can be argued that there is a great lack of transparency and improper behavior at the BBB.  The CBBB financial statements are not current as required, they actively avoid the media when criticized, there are no explanations of grades, complaints and other components that lead to the grade the BBB places on a business.
 
MOST TROUBLING IS THE LA BBB'S TWO-FACED APPROACH TO WHAT THEIR BUSINESS REPORTS OFFER THE PUBLIC


THE PUBLIC FACE OF THE LA BBB
FROM THE LA BBB WEBSITE 

Mission and Values Page 
http://www.la.bbb.org/MissionAndValues.aspx

Editor’s Note:  A close read of this page reveals that the Los Angeles Better Business Bureau fails to live up to their published standards.

“BBB is the resource to turn to for objective,
unbiased information on businesses.”

“BBB is your key advisor, most reliable evaluator and most objective expert on the topic of trust in the marketplace. “


THE IN-COURT FACE OF THE LA BBB
FROM SWORN TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM G. MITCHELL, CEO OF THE LA BBB

 


“In our view, the public doesn’t really care….what went into it {the grade.}”

“The grade is kind of arbitrary….I mean this is our opinion.” 

"And that letter grade represents our opinion of what we think..."
Since William G. Mitchell, CEO of the Better Business Bureau of the Southland, Inc. (LA BBB) was under oath when he made the above sworn statements, it is logical to conclude, contrary to their publicly stated position, the Los Angeles Better Business Bureau's business reliability reports and the letter grades accompanying them are arbitrary and opinionated.  They are not fact, they are not objective, they are not un-biased and they are not reliable.  I would also suggest that contrary to Mr. Mitchell's sworn testimony, the public is extremely interested in what goes into the BBB letter grades--too bad the LA BBB does not disclose this information.


It seems the Los Angeles BBB is trying to have its cake and eat it too.  To the public they say they are objective.  To the courts, where it’s definitely in their better interests to do so, they say they are opinionated (that old freedom of speech thing applies to opinions but not representations made as fact--or as being objective.)   To the public they say they are un-biased and factual, to the courts the LA BBB argues they are arbitrary and opinionated.  

I would further argue that the public risk is far greater if the lawsuit gets SLAPPED.  There are simply too many documented instances of unjust, inappropriate letter grades to non-member businesses, about which they have no recourse.   To stop the lawsuit not only endangers the survival of these businesses and their employees, but also deceives the public when they errantly rely on the in-accurate, meaningless business grades from the Better Business Bureau.

Financial stakes are huge.  Just to get through the SLAPP motion can require six figures in legal representation.  If the plaintiff loses, they get to pay the BBB’s legal tab as well.  The BBB legal expenses, on the other hand, are covered by legal insurance as are any judgments found against them.  This is high stakes poker, and considering the cost ramifications it’s no wonder there are a couple dozen businesses eagerly waiting to see if there is finally a way around the SLAPP.

Seth Rafkin, of Cooley, Godward, Kronish, LLP, attorney for the plaintiff and Entertainment Career Connection, Inc. officials (the plaintiff) declined to comment when contacted for this story.

William G. Mitchell, CEO of the Better Business Bureau of the Southland, Inc. and his attorney, Walter Sadler, of Leopold, Petrich & Smith, LLP, attorney for the defendant, Better Business Bureau of Southland, Inc. did not return my emails.  However, both parties visited bbbroundup.com on several occasions after receiving my email.

An interesting footnote:  The BBB Southland's law firm of Leopold, Petrich & Smith, LLP, is not a member of the Better Business Bureau of the Southland, Inc. , making it an interesting choice for the CEO of the BBB Southland.   Perhaps it has to do with their existing “A” grade, in-and-of-itself, an unusual grade for a non-member Southland law firm.



Finally, I would argue that the bbbroundup investigative series has uncovered enough discrepancies between what the BBB says they do, and what they really do, for a reasonable person to reasonably believe the Los Angeles BBB deserves their day in court.  Applied correctly, the law requires it.  Common sense demands it.  The consumer deserves it.
NEXT: RECAP OF WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED ABOUT THE LOS ANGELESBBB

We will recap the entire picture of what we have learned so far about the Los Angeles Better Business Bureau in our ongoing series.

Editor's note:  Neither I or this website have a problem with the Better Business Bureau.  Indeed, there is a need for a consumer advocacy group that the public can turn to, and in most cases, the Better Business Bureau fulfills this role adequately.  What we do have a problem with is the BBB's "A-F" grading system.  It is demonstratively biased, based on hearsay, weighted in favor of dues paying members and offers no recourse when the BBB makes an error.  It is obvious the Better Business Bureau does not now, nor ever will have, the resources to fully investigate the four million businesses in their database, much less grade them with any sense of accuracy.  It's an impossible job, and to think otherwise is a mistake that the BBB should acknowledge so they can get back to their reason for existence--protecting the consumer.  There's an old saying, "who will watch the watchers" and it applies here as the BBB has set themselves up to be above the law.  We are simply here to help the Better Business Bureau do a better job so that they may properly serve the consumer, the business community and themselves.
© 2009 bbbcentral.org.  all rights reserved.
 Previous Articles About the Better Business Bureau of the Southland, Inc. (LA BBB)
background  part one  part two part three  part four part five part six part seven