Luckily for She Wore, I have a legal background so when we set up the blog I was already upskilled on what we can and can not write. Unfortunately, it seems like other platforms have not learned over the years about what content they are allowed to publish without fear of reprisals.
It was no surprise to me that Manchester City have issued numerous blogs with cease and desist letters in the last few weeks.
For those unaware on UK law, a cease and desist letter is used to stop alleged or actual infringements, such as copyright, trademark or libel. They are often used by bigger companies against “smaller” companies or individuals as an initial warning.
Their aim is to encourage the receiver to halt their activities without the need of costly (to both sides) more formal legal action. If the receiver does not halt their activities, the fact that they received the letter will be frowned upon in court as they were fully aware what they were doing might infringe copyright or be libellous.
The letters from Manchester City would have by sent out to inform the receivers of potential libellous comments.
In the UK, you are innocent until proven guilty. If you accuse someone in public of being something (such as a nonce), and they decide to take you to court of the comments, you then have to prove that your statement was correct. Impossible if it was untrue.
Thousands on Twitter make libellous comments everyday, not realising that they are potentially opening themselves up to civil proceedings. Former actor turns activist Lawrence Fox was recently told to pay £180,000 in libel damages following comments on the social media platform.
To put it simply, you can not say or write things that are untrue and might damage another reputation without infringing defamation law (the law that libel (writing) and slander (spoken) sit within).
Most of us get away with making these comments all day long because we are insignificant. A 17-year-old with 367 followers is not worth going after from these company’s point of view. The amount it will cost them to find out who the individual is, their address, issue the letter and so on just is not worth it.
But when you get big enough, with huge influence (or in terms of copywrite make big sales / have a product go viral), you will quickly end up on the radar of big businesses or individuals willing to pursue the matter.
AFTV, for example, were pressured to remove “Arsenal” from their name due to the damage they were doing to the club’s name. Many other clubs use Arsenal within their blog names, but they are deemed either not big enough, or not damaging enough to the club, for them to act.
The United Stand (TUS) are the highest profile company that have allegedly received a cease and desist letter from Manchester City with regards to their 115 charges.
TUS are basically Man U’s version of AFTV – like Robbie Lyle, Brent Di Cesare (AKA Mark Goldbridge), was not a boyhood fan of the club he talked about, and instead spotted an opportunity to make himself a lot of money. The former police officer then created a platform of hate and ridicule to profit from Man U’s demise. And for those wondering, this is not libellous. It is factual.
And that is the thing with libel. You are allowed to write the facts. And Manchester City’s cease and desist letter does not stop people talking about the case.
You will always notice that mainstream media outlets always have a different commentary to blogs and vlogs. They are more formal and do not speculate. That is because these institutions are aware of what they can and can not say, and that you can only report the facts that have been made public and are verified.
The simplest example of libellous comments made against City is calling them “cheats”.
As it stands, they are not cheats. They are innocent until proven guilty remember. They have been charged, but it has not yet been proven they have done anything wrong. So anyone that calls them a cheat right now would be making a libellous comment unless they can prove that City did cheat.
As the Premier League are currently trying to build a case to prove that City cheated, I would be highly surprised if any individual can defend their comments. They will be reliant on the Premier League winning their case which will be the concrete proof needed to label City cheats.
If City successfully defend the accusations leveled against them, we might see them step up their legal action against the likes of TUS, if they decide to continue with their comments.
Labelling a football club (or any sporting individual) a cheat is cleary damaging to reputation. This will be a lesson to those online that you can not just say anything you want without fear of repercussions. Stick to the facts and follow the law (and we have not even got onto injunctions yet).
A few City fans have said things like “the media have changed their tune” since the letters allegedly went out. This is incorrect. The media always acted within the law.
A quick Google of “Manchester City Cheats” shows that no media outlet ever accused them of cheating. They all merely said they had been charged, and what they have been charged with.
Whenever they spoke about Manchester City and “cheating” they always quoted another party such as Stan Collymore. This is not them calling Man City cheats, but them quoting an individual and reporting what that individual said. Still sticking to the facts!
Big fish often do not like strong-arming the little guy. It is bad and also frowned upon in court. That is why they will send a cease and desist letter first rather than going straight for legal action, so that in court they can at least say “we warned you”. It takes away the chance of the little guy presenting themselves as a victim.
Back in 2022, Manchester City sent a cease and desist letter to a 3rd division Chilean club over similarities to their badge.
For transparency, a company I am involved in (not SheWore.com), received a cease and desist letter from the club over the use of Mikel Arteta’s “Transparency, Energy, Clarity” drawing on t-shirts.
We went viral very quickly and were selling 1 a minute at one point. Within a week the club had sent us a letter asking us to stop selling the product. We complied but were also frustrated that others were still selling (and continue to do so). It is an example of how the clubs can not go after anyone, but will go after those who are bigger, or have gone viral.
Some will try and label all this as bullying, and claim Manchester City are trying to change the narrative. The truth is, you can not say anything that damages another reputation unless you can prove it is true. And those labelling City “cheats” can not prove that is is true.
Have a great Tuesday.
Keenos
