Krebs On Security being sued in a defimation lawsuit

Before I post what I wrote, let me make one thing clear. This article is mainly my opinion, and I’m not an attorney. I’m basing my opinion on what I read and the fact that some of this doesn’t make any sense to me on how there’s a case to go forward.

With that said, here’s my piece on this lawsuit Krebs recently was served.

A defimation lawsuit has been filed against the journalist Brian Krebs. The people behind the suit are claiming that Krebs slandered them by posting an article about them they claimed hurt their character.

The lawsuit was sent to Krebs after He published a blog about a company who apparently has a CEO with a fake name.

When I read that original article, i thought it was interesting how someone can get away with faking one name just to try and get away with something.

Then, recently, Brian posted about his lawsuit and according to what I can tell, he will win this case and not the people suing him.

The first paragraph is baffling to say the least. The attorney lost a 2017 case is probably going to lose this one too. The first paragraph says:

On March 8, 2024, KrebsOnSecurity published a deep dive on the consumer data broker Radaris, showing how the original owners are two men in Massachusetts who operated multiple Russian language dating services and affiliate programs, in addition to a dizzying array of people-search websites. The subjects of that piece are threatening to sue KrebsOnSecurity for defamation unless the story is retracted. Meanwhile, their attorney has admitted that the person Radaris named as the CEO from its inception is a fabricated identity.

Here’s a guy who is saying that he knows that his client made up the name, but doesn’t appreciate the fact that his name has been identified in something that is completely shady. If you’re an attorney, your job is to prove your client is innocent of any crime, not to admit that your client made up a fake name and sue someone who knows how to do research and does it well.

Radaris has a less-than-stellar reputation when it comes to responding to consumers seeking to have their reports removed from its various people-search services. That poor reputation, combined with indications that the true founders of Radaris have gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal their stewardship of the company, was what prompted KrebsOnSecurity to investigate the origins of Radaris in the first place.

So good for you, Brian. This is what you do best.

While Krebs covered a story once to be true, it turned out the whole thing was made up. But you can’t blame the journalist for that, especially when they have sources they know and trust.

blog post In this case, removing the story completely was the right thing to do.

The article continues:

On April 18, KrebsOnSecurity received a certified letter (PDF) from Valentin “Val” Gurvits, an attorney with the Boston Law Group, stating that KrebsOnSecurity would face a withering defamation lawsuit unless the Radaris story was immediately retracted and an apology issued to the two brothers named in the story as co-founders.

That March story worked backwards from the email address used to register radaris.com, and charted an impressive array of data broker companies created over the past 15 years by Massachusetts residents Dmitry and Igor Lubarsky (also sometimes spelled Lybarsky or Lubarski). Dmitry goes by “Dan,” and Igor uses the name “Gary.”

So according to what I just gave you, these two people go by different names anyway.

Mr. Gurvits’ letter stated emphatically that my reporting was lazy, mean-spirited, and obviously intended to smear the reputation of his clients. By way of example, Mr. Gurvits said the Lubarskys were actually Ukrainian, and that the story painted his clients in a negative light by insinuating that they were somehow associated with Radaris and with vaguely nefarious elements in Russia.

I don’t remember reading that, but the brothers were Ukrainian, but I do know that the article seemed to be genuine to me, and like the one that got pulled, well researched. That’s how Brian works.

But more to the point, Mr. Gurvits said, neither of his clients were Gary Norden, and neither had ever held any leadership positions at Radaris, nor were they financial beneficiaries of the company in any way.

If that were the case, why would a well seasoned reporter write what they write in an article talking about a company who doesn’t do things legally? If I were asked to remove someone from my searchable web site, and there was a good reason for it, I don’t see why I should not comply with that request.

Even if I did, does the attorney realize that it lives in an archive somewhere on the Internet?

Here is more from this attorney.

“Neither of my clients is a founder of Radaris, and neither of my clients is the CEOs of Radaris,” Gurvits wrote. “Additionally, presently and going back at least the past 10 years, neither of my clients are (or were) officers or employees of Radaris. Indeed, neither of them even owns (or ever owned) any equity in Radaris. In intentional disregard of these facts, the Article implies that my clients are personally responsible for Radaris’ actions. Therefore, you intentionally caused all negative allegations in the Article made with respect to Radaris to be imputed against my clients personally.”

If this is the case, Mr. Attorney, why dit the article mention the various nicknames used based on research that was done to find out who owned the company who was not removing requests which should be done as part of your company responsibilities?

We took Mr. Gurvits’ word on the ethnicity of his clients, and adjusted the story to remove a single mention that they were Russian. We did so even though Dan Lubarsky’s own Facebook page said (until recently) that he was from Moscow, Russia.

I would have left the article alone, especially if someone indicated they were from some part of any country. That is what research provides. If the person talked about wasn’t from Moscow as an example, then why did he put that in to his facebook account which apparently is a public account and open for searching?

KrebsOnSecurity asked Mr. Gurvits to explain precisely which other details in the story were incorrect, and replied that we would be happy to update the story with a correction if they could demonstrate any errors of fact or omission.

The attorney didn’t say much more if I remember correctly.

The article continues:

Gurvits said he had no intention of doing anyone’s reporting for them, and that the Lubarskys were going to sue KrebsOnSecurity for defamation unless the story was retracted in full. KrebsOnSecurity replied that journalists often face challenges to things that they report, but it is more than rare for one who makes a challenge to take umbrage at being asked for supporting information.

On June 13, Mr. Gurvits sent another letter (PDF) that continued to claim KrebsOnSecurity was defaming his clients, only this time Gurvits said his clients would be satisfied if KrebsOnSecurity just removed their names from the story.

I suspect that this will be a winning case for Mr. Krebs, and the article goes on to cover the fake CEO of this company who just collects data and makes it available to anyone who wants it.

To read the entire reporting of the lawsuit he’s facing, KrebsOnSecurity Threatened with Defamation Lawsuit Over Fake Radaris CEO is the article.

Let me know what you think, and make it a great day.