Mobile Device Company (MDC) discovers that defamatory statements about its policies and products are being posted in an online forum. NuView Inc., the Internet service provider whose users are posting the messages, refuses to disclose the identity of the person or persons responsible. MDC should:

a. bring a suit against "John Doe" and use the authority of the court to obtain the identity from NuView.
b. bring a suit against NuView for publishing the statements.
c. counter the statements with its own posts in an effort to enhance the company's goodwill.
d. post defamatory statements about NuView and its users.

Option A. MDC should bring a lawsuit against "John Doe" and use the authority of the court to obtain the identity from NuView.

Explanation:

A statement is considered defamatory if it tends to harm the reputation of a person or company such that it lowers that person or company in the eyes of the community or deters third persons from dealing with the person or company.

This would include statements that expose the subject to hatred, ridicule or contempt or reflect unfavorably on the personal morality or integrity.

In this case of defamatory statements about MDC, MDC should first find out if the statements are actionable or not under law, then file a lawsuit against "John Doe" (an anonymous party, typically the plaintiff, in a legal action). If it is, NuView will be made to give the identity of the anonymous poster through the authority of the court.

Therefore, the option that best suits the question is option A. MDC SHOULD BRING A LAWSUIT AGAINST "JOHN DOE" AND USE THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT TO OBTAIN THE IDENTITY FROM NuView.

commercial banking

provide online payment services

provide online banking

asset management firms

invest in people's funds in securities

accept tax return refunds