Car Dealer Uses Court to Block Damning Video | Justice Ensues - Freedom of Speech Restored!

[flank]

Just let it play out in court rather than public opinion. We don't get to hear all sides of the story. At least court is official.

The OP must have written something defaming in nature for them to sue for such a large amount.

After an internet search, there is another side...

http://gatewaydashcam.com/

~~~~Response to the reposting of Cooney video:


In court, the temporary restraining order requiring Mr. Cooney to take down the dash cam video was dissolved. It was not my intent to infringe upon anyone’s right of free speech. My intent was to make sure that my company and employees are protected. Mr. Cooney published a heavily edited video accusing my team of overcharging and fraud.

All the work we did is well documented (and preapproved by Mr. Cooney), and we even gave Mr. Cooney a discount and a no charge rental car. We are confident that truth will prevail, but until then, we have to respond to Mr. Cooney’s posting.

I became aware of Mr. Cooney’s video on the evening of February 17th. While it mortified me, I immediately offered to meet with the poster personally and even said he could videotape our meeting. Mr. Cooney offered no response. At that point, I did not even know who the poster was because Mr. Cooney hid behind a fictitious name. We finally determined who he was, based on the service to his car (Jan 31st-Feb 4th), and we again asked to meet with Mr. Cooney. This time Mr. Cooney responded that he would not meet with me until he had filed complaints with Chevrolet, BBB, and the Attorney General.

All along, Mr. Cooney and his friends continued to distribute and comment on his video through every social media platform possible, including Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, blogs, etc. I again asked Mr. Cooney to meet, and again, no response.

Mr. Cooney’s failure to respond forced me into a corner, so we filed for a temporary restraining order to require Mr. Cooney to take down the video.

After Mr. Clooney was served with papers, we received a blocked call at the dealership threatening that if I did not call Mr. Cooney regarding the defamation lawsuit against Mr. Cooney, that someone was going to visit my house. Because we were unaware of anyone else having knowledge of our defamation lawsuit at that time, we assumed the call was from Mr. Cooney or someone associated with him. The police kindly stepped up patrols to protect my family; I will owe them forever for that.

After Mr. Clooney was served papers, and threats were made against my family, he sent four email requests to meet in a "neutral" location. But while Mr. Cooney was requesting to meet, he was also increasing his efforts to distribute the video. At this point, I didn’t respond to Mr. Cooney’s request to meet, but it wasn’t because of his additional video promotions. Rather I didn’t respond because of the personal threat. Too many people have gotten hurt over matters smaller than this, and frankly I enjoy my life, and love my family and my business team.

On Monday morning, February 24th, the judge ordered Mr. Cooney to take down the video. The judge also asked us to be prepared for a preliminary injunction hearing on Friday, February 28th. I again reached out to Mr. Cooney to try and settle the matter. Mr. Cooney said that he needed a reasonable amount of time to review before responding, but he didn’t follow through with a response.

Mr. Cooney’s attorney filed a motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order based on his claim of free speech. What we learned is that Mr. Cooney has the right to say whatever he wants until it is proven in trial that it is a lie. We look forward to proving the truth in court.

In our business there are certainly many potential "gotcha" issues as we service over 80 vehicles a day, but as our history shows, we always do the right thing. Even if it were to cost us a small fortune, we solve problems and care for our customers.

 

[flank]

And the obligatory response from the OP...More drama....Just sue each other and get it over with.

----------------------------
Gateway Dash Cam 2 days ago (edited) via youtube comments

Jim Butler Chevrolet has responded to the video, my comments and your comments about the video with litigation, a video spoof of my video and a website with a URL that resembles the name of my YouTube channel. In addition, on the page featuring the Jim Butler Chevrolet YouTube video, commenting was never enabled.

On the other hand, my YouTube channel has been wide open to comments since the first time it was posted and then again after the unconstitutional Temporary Restraining Order by Jim Butler Chevrolet was dissolved. In addition, I personally respond to public comment, even the negative ones.

There is only one party in the situation that has tried to hide the video and public commentary instead of agreeing to meet with me and coming to a fair and mutual resolution.

After I posted the video, Mr. Sowers offered to meet with me and review the unedited video. I thanked him for his response and I said;

“I’m willing to pay your standard labor rate ($129.95) for only the correct diagnosis and actual time of repair, rounded to the nearest 15 minute increment. I have Artie paid in full but I’m sure we can come to an agreement to make the service/repair transaction fair for both of us. I am currently in touch with Chevrolet customer care. We’re trying to set up a call to document the details and discuss next steps. I will contact you when I call was complete.”

Brad Sowers and I discussed meeting in communications through the YouTube comments. I told Mr. Sowers several times that all I wanted to do was speak with a neutral party, like Chevrolet Customer Care, to document the issue but Chevrolet customer care nor General Motors did not want touch the situation.

When General Motors absolutely refused to get involved, I informed Mr. Sowers that I was turning to the Missouri Attorney General and the BBB to document this transaction. I didn’t have a reason to trust Jim Butler Chevrolet so I felt that it was important that someone knew, for my protection, before I met with Mr. Sowers one-on-one behind closed doors.

Instead of going forward with the opportunity to meet, they filed a petition with the court and sent a process server to my home just five hours after I spoke to the Missouri Attorney General’s office and the Better Business Bureau. We were greeted at the door with a Civil Simmons. Because they served me at 5: 32 pm on Friday I was unable to get an attorney for the hearing Monday Morning.

Beginning Friday evening and continuing throughout the weekend, I contacted Mr. Sowers many times to set up that meeting because that third-party documentation was complete. He did not reply.

So, on Monday at 9:00 am, I was forced to represent myself. All I could was request a continuance because it was me versus a highly paid team of attorneys and Mr. Sowers. All I could think was "This is crazy, I was simply a customer... why am I here?"

They dragged me into the court, put an unconstitutional Temporary Restraining Order on me to remove the video (not to mention that the Temporary Restraining Order is public record so anyone could assume it is for something crazy) and I lost my freedom of speech... and all I wanted was for them to fix my car.

On Monday afternoon, I began removing all traces of my video and its comments, under duress and against my natural born right to free speech. I made the YouTube video private but I received a warning from Jim Butler Chevrolet's attorneys to delete the video. Out of excess caution and pure exhaustion of fighting to keep Jim Butler Chevrolet and their legal team from crushing me in accusation and litigation, I deleted the video effectively taking away my natural born right to free speech and the free speech of anyone who commented or “liked” comments on the YouTube page.

Moments later, I received an email with an attachment from Brad Sowers. The attachment was a letter from Jim Butler Chevrolet, on Jim Butler Chevrolet letterhead, that was strongly worded with threats of a preliminary injunction and a trial. In the letter, Mr. Sowers explained that he fully expected to recover a monetary award and punitive damages and he was confident that Jim Butler Chevrolet would prevail costing considerable time and money litigation.

His terms included signing away my right to free speech in this matter forever and paying attorneys fees totaling $8,517.00 (to a firm where Mr. Sowers wife is a partner.) incurred as a result of having to investigate prepare and file its petition, motion for temporary restraining order and other memorandum. An effort that proved to be unconstitutional.

Soon afterwards I retained an attorney and with the assistance of Paul Levy of the Public Citizen Litigation Group in Washington D.C., we filed written responses which ultimately dissolved the Temporary Restraining Order allowing me to repost the video.

Obviously, they were embarrassed and now Jim Butler Chevrolet is making ridiculous accusations. Someone associated with Jim Butler Chevrolet is now saying that they "can only assume" that I threatened Mr. Sowers because someone called the dealership anonymously and said they were going to visit his house. I can now add this on top of the frivolous lawsuit and their unconstitutional pursuit to strip me of my natural born right to free speech… all for being a loyal customer of Jim Butler Chevrolet.

I am a reasonable person and I have never threatened anyone. Everyone who knows me and my character would tell you the same thing. I handle situations like this with facts and documentation, not threats.

It’s absolutely amazing that this new accusation creates a convenient excuse for Jim Butler Chevrolet by now suddenly claiming that it was the reason they did not reply to my multiple request to come to a fair and mutual agreement prior to the hearing.

Then, just when I thought it couldn’t get any better, yesterday, while my attorney and Jim Butler Chevrolet’s attorney are exchanging messages about possibly settling this matter, apparently someone associated with Jim Butler Chevrolet, a business entity, decided it’s was a good idea to create a website falsely accusing me of criminal threats.

All the while, as they upset the community with this ridiculous backwards strategy to crush a customer, accuse the customer of the defamation that they are causing for themselves.

When I went out to have my vehicle repaired, I was only seeking an honest repair at a fair price. After I discovered the video I questioned the invoice. When I heard what YOU hear and see on the video, I posted it on YouTube because I felt that it was a matter of public concern.

I believe there is right and wrong and I believe owning up to your mistakes say a lot about ones character. I feel that I have been very reasonable but when Mr. Sowers escalated this to a frivolous law suit and an attack on my natural born right to free speech, I had to treat this as an even higher matter of public concern. Now we are even beyond that.

What reasonable person would pass on a fair and mutual agreement, to the tune of about $350, in exchange for a legal witch-hunt fueled by costly litigation, the unconstitutional blocking of my free speech, false accusations, poor public relations, poor customer relations and poor representation of its finer employees? All of which, with these new false accusations, has no chance of going away for a long, long time.

Where was the common sense management at Jim Butler Chevrolet? Where was the customer service they speak of? Where was Chevrolet customer care? Where was General Motors? Why would they allow dealerships to do this to a customer?
Where is the Attorney General? Where’s the media? Where was the local automotive community?

What are they doing to the 105 families that they care about? What are they doing to me, the customer that I thought they cared about? Local 777… Where were you? Are you going to allow your Brothers to suffer?

I am only a customer, just like you, who simply questioned an invoice. Could this happen to you too? Could this happen to your wife? Your sister? What would you do if this happened to your Mother?

Shame on you Jim Butler Chevrolet, I am embarrassed for your employees, I am embarrassed for the local automotive industry, I am embarrassed for Local 777 and I embarrassed for the Fenton business community.

SHAME.

 

[Grimm]

Never thought John Locke would drive a Chevy.

 

[flank]

The OP is getting ripped a new one on another forum...11 pages long.

http://garagejournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=239834

 

[GJHS]

The OP is getting ripped a new one on another forum...11 pages long.

http://garagejournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=239834

"Guys an #$%$#$#, he should learn how to work on his car instead of trying to be an undercover journalist."

Makes you appreciate the great people on this forum. Luckily no one has decide to sling s*** for unnecessary reasons

 

[jokiin]

Makes you appreciate the great people on this forum. Luckily no one has decide to sling s*** for unnecessary reasons

there's three sides to every story, your version, their version, and the truth, each sees things from their own perspective and maybe there's more detail from both sides that we're not aware of but regardless of that I think when you have a problem customer and you don't sort things out things quickly get out of hand and it becomes a far bigger problem than it ever deserved to be

 

[Jazzist]

+1 jokiin. Whatever the truth is this is bigger than it should have been and it must be doing the garage a lot more harm than just saying sorry there must have been some kind of admin error and giving the guy a partial refund, crazy on everyone's part but especially the garage's who could have nipped it in the bud (assuming the OP was up for just getting a few hundred dollars back and calling it quits). Doubt they will get any damages from him so they are the big losers here by trying to be big bullies and the OP has lost several hundred dollars -who's the winner here? What's the point in fighting over this? It's childish and petty.

 

[GJHS]

there's three sides to every story, your version, their version, and the truth, each sees things from their own perspective and maybe there's more detail from both sides that we're not aware of but regardless of that I think when you have a problem customer and you don't sort things out things quickly get out of hand and it becomes a far bigger problem than it ever deserved to be

Exactly and now to put it out there on the internet it gets more convoluted as people either agree or disagree. Worse is when people get emotionally attached to one side and the fight begins. They essentially make the fight their own and it gets nasty.

Makes me think about lyrics from John Mayer's "Waiting on the World to Change"
And when you trust your television
What you get is what you got
Cause when they own the information, oh
They can bend it all they want

 

[flank]

crazy on everyone's part but especially the garage's who could have nipped it in the bud (assuming the OP was up for just getting a few hundred dollars back and calling it quits).

Sounds like the OP didn't give the stealership a chance to address the concern and instead went to the interwebs to shame the place. Instead it backfired.

What I don't like in the interweb age is the digital vigilantism. The OP has been trying to stir things up everywhere online including on here.

 

[kamkar]

This guy was Lucky he isent a Dane, the dealer would proberly have used the same time if not more, and the parts will be a lot more expensive here.
And if you go to the wong dealer he will charge you around 185 dollars a hour. ( not that the "right" shop would charge a lot less )

And its not the problem that the car is a US car, parts for a Volvo witch are made just over the border to the East will more or less be just as expensive as Chevy parts.

I am pretty sure this in a Danish dealership would set you back 1000 dollars, and then you are allso expected to be happy and return the next time your car break Down.

 

[Peter Wilson]

He was charged $66.06 for this door lock. I don't know what he is crying bloody murder about.

Here are his charges,
$334.62 Tire Pressure Monitor Module replacement
$66.06 Key Fob/Receiver
$267.70 Air Bag
$0 Multipoint Inspection
$0 Car Rental
-$120 discount
--------
$553.61

These are charges I would expect from a dealership. What is your gripe? That they scared you into removing your video or the cost? Seems like you are angry over the video and are not making a claim about the charges with the lawyer?

1pm start into the garage
3pm finish in car park
Thats 2 hours.

The Air bag took 2.93 hours or 2.63 hours according to invoice but 2 hours according to the person on the phone.
The tyre sensors took 3 hours according to the person on the phone.
total of 5:30 taken.
Now that's not possible.

I am a Mechanic. Programming key-fobs on the Vauxhall / Chevrolet / GM cars using the Tech 2 system takes around 15 minutes maximum. its a simple case of connecting the Tech 2 diagnostics to the car and choosing immobiliser then program keys. you then press unlock on the first fob then the second fob. That's it done.

The air bag fault light was on after a previous visit to the dealership, the technician admits on video that someone had accidentally put the fuse into the wrong slot on the fuse box. He also sortof admits that it may have been him as he should have spotted this before. This took him from 13:37 to 13:42 that's 5 minutes and no parts.

The replacement RCDLR took from 13:42 until 14:12 that's 30 minutes not 2 hours 30 minutes

The reprogramming of the key-fobs and the wheel sensors took around 15 minutes

13:44 left the garage 14:39 back into the garage. so a near 1 hour test drive. then 14:53 back out. so 15 ish mins sitting to check diagnostics.

Now It would have taken me a short while to find the air bags fault as the first thing on the "list" is to check the fuse. the RCDLR is a common fault. the key-fobs are linked to the RCDLR as are the Tyre pressure monitors. so as soon as they knew the RCDLR was not talking to the Tech 2 but the radio receiver was talking and they both share the power connection then its simple replace the RCDLR

Now the air-bags should not have been charged for as it was only there after its service and it was because someone put the fuse into the wrong slot. He was charged $267.70 for the air-bag.

The replacement RCDLR was $334.62 installed. now installation includes re-programming the tyre monitors and the key-fobs. however he was charged an additional $66.06 for the RCDLR.

Yes they gave him a discount.

The RCDLR costs around $60 from the dealers. even totalling up the 30 minutes it took to install and the 15 minutes it took to re-program the key-fobs and the tyre monitors at £125 per hour it would still only be around $185 plus tax. As well as that the fault with the RCDLR is a manufacture fault and has in most cases been covered by the recall issued by Chevrolet in 2013 and a software update was issued in 2008-9.

So how much do you think the bill should have been?

$0.00 no charge as air-bag was dealers fault for inserting fuse and creating an open circuit. RCDLR covered with Recall.
$185 as RCDLR needed changing due to flat battery and jump start.
$310 for 2 hours labour at $125 per hour and $60 for the RCDLR
$602.32 for both excluding the reprogramming as that needs to be done as part of the RCDLR replacement. and they think 2 hours labour should have been 5 including the 1 hour drive.
$668.38 Because after complaining he deserves no discount
$553.61 with his discount, made up of $71.75 parts and $602.32 labour but a discount coupon of $120.46

They wanted to charge the 2 Hours labour including a 1 hour test drive at $602.32 so that is $301.16 per hour.

Personally if I thought I could get away with it I still wouldn't charge that much. I get around £30 per hour for similar fault finding. If I could charge £150 per hour I would only have to do one hours work per week to make enough to live on.

Additional Note to Flank.
If you read the invoice you will note that no locks were changed and no GM multi point inspection was carried out. The multi point inspection would have shown them checking the wipers the oil water brake fluid filters, and all the tyres brakes brake lines and basically everything on a "full Service". if he got a hire car free I think considering the car was covered under a recall for the Module and that the air bag was the dealers fault he deserved at least that.

 

[Peter Wilson]

Just in case you are interested this is the recall from Chevy.
"#08-03-16-001B: Key Fobs Inoperative, TPM System Not Reading Correctly - Dashes on Al Four Tire Readings, DTCs C0775, C0569, B3105 Set, Unable to Program TPM Sensors (Reprogram RCDLR) - (Jul 31, 2008)


Subject: Key Fobs Inoperative, TPM System Not Reading Correctly - Dashes On All Four Tire Readings, DTCs C0775, C0569, B3105 Set, Unable to Program TPM Sensors (Reprogram RCDLR)


Models: 2008 Chevrolet Cobalt, HHR, Malibu

2008 Pontiac G5, G6, Solstice

2008 Saturn AURA, SKY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This bulletin is being revised to update the Important statement to reflect the new direction to no longer contact TCSC. Please discard Corporate Bulletin Number 08-03-16-001A (Section 03 - Suspension).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Condition
Some customers may comment that the key fobs are inoperative or that the TPM system is showing dashes as the reading for all four tires.

Technicians may find DTCs C0775, C0569 and B3105 set simultaneously in the RCDLR module.

In addition, the technicians may find Tire Pressure Monitoring sensors are unable to be programmed to the vehicle by adding or releasing pressure to the tire while the vehicles in the TPM learn mode.

Cause
These conditions may be caused by the following:

• The RCDLR may lose its transmitter and tire pressure monitoring data from its memory if a low voltage condition occurs on the vehicle.

• The ability for TPM learning by adding or releasing pressure to the tire has been disabled in the RCDLR.

Correction
Reprogram the RCDLR with an updated software calibration to address both issues listed above. This new service calibration is available on TIS2WEB using Service Programming System (SPS). As always, make sure your Tech 2® is updated with the latest software.

Important: If the Tech 2® could not establish communication with the RCDLR AND the programming event ended with error, attempt to reprogram in Service Programming System (SPS) by selecting "Remote Control Door Lock Receiver (TSB 08-03-16-001) with E4399 error -- Pass Thru Only".

Once the RCDLR module has been reflashed with the latest software and calibrations, the following may also be necessary:

• Relearn all keyless entry transmitters.

• Reconfigure the tire pressure placards and the tire type.

• Relearn the tire pressure sensors.

Refer to SI for the procedures to relearn transmitters, placard and tire type configuration and tire pressure sensor learn."

The important part is this.
Correction
Reprogram the RCDLR with an updated software calibration to address both issues listed above. This new service calibration is available on TIS2WEB using Service Programming System (SPS). As always, make sure your Tech 2® is updated with the latest software.

Important: If the Tech 2® could not establish communication with the RCDLR AND the programming event ended with error, attempt to reprogram in Service Programming System (SPS) by selecting "Remote Control Door Lock Receiver (TSB 08-03-16-001) with E4399 error -- Pass Thru Only".

Now this states the re flash can be done with the Tech 2 system by using the pass through function and the module does not need to be replaced.

 

[Xybone]

 

[flank]

If I could charge £150 per hour I would only have to do one hours work per week to make enough to live on.

You would only need to change a few car bulbs a month here to survive.

 

[Peter Wilson]

Holy poo

 

[Peter Wilson]

I have not had to use it to be honest but the basics are you connect the full tech 2 to the car via the ecu and then put the car into a mode that allows direct flashing of all chips. Bit like when your mobile crashes and you need to put it into program mode then flash the phone with the latest firmware. As I say don't have many Chevy cars in the uk. But the information is available on the Chevy recalls page. Just search for the make and model of your car and the module and add recall. It should come up in the list in google it's about half way down plenty of posts on the Chevy owners forums.

 

[DashCamMan]

Seems like this story is getting more popular.

http://jalopnik.com/dealership-sues-long-time-customer-for-25-000-over-das-1557675732
http://www.stltoday.com/business/lo...cle_fc09baca-c58b-5200-be93-7281be5d13b8.html

 

[CTSVOWNER]

Chevrolet dealer sues customer over YouTube video

Hidden camera leads to dispute over time spent on vehicle repair.

(4/8/2014)

DealersEdge Headlines

This is not your typical customer complaint involving flat rate time even though the customer says the time spent on a repair was less than what the dealership charged and posts a video online telling his side of the story. The dealer says the video is misleading, tries to get the customer to take it down and ends up taking the customer to court. We are with the dealer on this one. See what you think.

As ABC News and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported, customer Dwayne Cooney brought his 2007 Chevrolet Malibu to the Chevy dealer in Fenton, Missouri, to fix malfunctioning airbag and tire sensor warning lights and a problem with the key fob. The customer agreed to pay for up to two hours of diagnostic time.

Mr. Cooney apparently has dashboard video cameras installed in his vehicles and they run all the time. The camera in the Malibu recorded some of the technician discussion about his repairs. The problem ultimately turned out to be a fuse that was installed in the wrong spot but it took a long time to figure that out since there were no diagnostic codes that indicated the malfunction showed up.

Mr. Cooney posted the video on YouTube claiming that he was charged 5.5 hours of labor for a job that took only 45 minutes. But the video doesn't tell the whole story. It shows only a portion of the time spent on the job, which in fact was performed over two days. Mr. Cooney had been contacted and authorized the additional diagnostic time and was given a free rental vehicle to use. So dealership personnel were surprised when the video appeared.

"We were shocked when this video showed up online and he refused to acknowledge the prior three hours of work in his 17 minutes," said the dealership's general manager. "As a small family-run business, we've got to protect ourselves. This is part of the Internet world. People can say whatever they want until proven false in the court of law."

When the customer refused to take down the video, the dealership is suing for more than $25,000 in damages claiming defamation.

"The task was complex because no diagnostic codes were revealed by the GM tech equipment," the court filing said. Technicians finally made the necessary repairs and fixed the issues, tallying more than five hours of work on the vehicle, the complaint said - though Mr. Cooney was charged for only 4.5 hours.

Computer records of the tech's time support the dealership's claims. Dealership representatives tried to meet with Mr. Cooney "many times" to no avail. The dealership wants an injunction to remove the video.

Apparently the customer's homeowner’s insurance company is paying for a lawyer to fight the injunction request.

In the meantime, the dealership has created its own website, Gatewaydashcam.com, with an open letter to customers explaining its side of the story.




Note: the first words they use are "Hidden Camera" Like they feel there was intent to expose any possible wrong doing. (in my opinion a "hidden camera" is something that was tucked in a out of the way place)
The owner of the car only looked at it after the mess. I don't fully agree with either side and not knowing the full story from both sides leaves the general public to speculate too much.


Dave