3 days ago, a redditor pointed out that in a bathroom in the Iulius mall, Cluj-Napoca, there was the advertisement above, which in my opinion is beyond criticism and takes advantage of patients’ anxieties about their appearance in order to convince them to go for cosmetic surgery.

When I checked the Meta Ad Library (that is, the library with ads on Facebook / Instagram), I saw that the same clinic did:

  • Raffle for cosmetic surgery "Bum Filler"in which if you enter NOW you have a chance to win such an operation. I don’t think people think too far when they sign up because they don’t think they’ll win, and when they win they’re afraid of losing "Award" I think there is a high risk of accepting something even if it was not indicated or something that he would have chosen in another case.
  • It has Black Friday promotions, in which the public is in a hurry to do cosmetic surgery under the risk of passing the deadline.
  • It is difficult to identify the identity of the entity – on the website it is declared a UK company, on the Meta ads it would be a "Andriesa George" declared as beneficiary and payer (so the beneficiary is not a company from RO or UK, he declared falsely).

The whole strategy of this clinic is suspect, and I support that. Today, I find out that besides Andriesa George (the one who has the campaigns on Meta), The Botox Shop London Ltd (the one with the website drvlondonclinic.ro) is another 4-year-old company without any income (only expenses and debts) from Romania, respectively "VASILAS AESTHETICS S.R.L".

Of course, when you see suspicious behavior affecting some victims, a normal person notifies the public authorities, which I did (you have the petitions on the link below).

Apparently, the owner of the company got angry, and paid a lawyer to threaten to sue me, of course, in a SLAPP attempt, that is, to scare me.

I will not delete my statements in any way, and I strongly support what I have stated before, but it is very good that it is outlined who is actually behind this company – that is, a suspicious chain of companies, in which one pays a lawyer, in which another has the website and a natural person takes the ads.

What they do by trying to scare me with a "notification" the template is to try to censor something for which they have not even brought clarifications through notification, a suspicious approach for someone who is right.

Normally, a lawyer would have mentioned what these were "false, derogatory and deeply damaging statements" to the address of the clinic and the staff. Instead, they reduced themselves to saying that their statements are prejudicial, and that I am "denigrates the commercial entity and its staff" by the fact that I have opinions.

Moreover, my opinion as an individual would fit the presentation "as certain facts"without verification (in the context in which you have above and in the initial post the evidence for everything I said).

They also accused me of using them "the name", "sail"and "clinic images" without consent, without knowing that the law allows you to name a clinic when you talk about it, without knowing that you can photograph what is in the public space, obviously trying to undermine the message with as much legalization as possible to scare me.

You have in the images what they write, and if necessary we analyze the facts together in a comment on reddit or a subsequent edit to this message.

Initial post in which the practices of this group of companies were brought to the attention of the community: https://www.reddit.com/r/Romania/comments/1opyvgg/atroce_ce_altceva_se_mai_poate_spune/

The post through which I announced to the public that I notified the competent authorities in order to sanction the facts, of the nature of violating the code of ethics of the profession, the law on combating aggressive commercial practices (where you also have the notification sent to the authorities)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Romania/comments/1oqe6hf/comment/nnmj9kq/

What do you think, should I be sued? Or "barking dogs never bite"?

https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1os6xbl

Posted by incorporo

Share.

6 Comments

  1. pinkfattyturtle on

    Dacă prin absurd te dau în judecată, nici n-ai nevoie de avocat, că la cum arată notificarea asta, câștigi înainte să intri în instanță. Nu-i cazul să te stresezi.

  2. Bitter_Tradition_938 on

    Chiar daca esti dat in judecata (ceea ce ma indoiesc) vei castiga si daca nu te prezinti.

    Nu’sh unde a studiat doamna avocat, dar notificarea aia pare scrisa de un student de anul 1 care e mahmur, dar trebuie sa predea urgent o tema, asa ca da o cautare scurta pe net si baga un copy/paste.

  3. Ca sa priceapa lumea de ce in spatele limbajului juridic, nu exista nimic real, va explic pe rand, de la absurd la si mai absurd.

    **1. Dreptul la demnitate (art 72 c. civ)** este un drept in care subiect pasiv (adica persoana care are dreptul) este doar persoana fizica. Evident si din sectiunea in care rezida dreptul, adica “Respectul vieții private și al demnității persoanei umane”. **Societatea nu e persoana umana.**

    Oricum ai voie sa critici argumentat pe cine vrei tu. Nimeni nu isi poate invoca propria culpa in proces, ca ei nu stiau ca se fac de ras, etc. Si cred ca este cat se poate de clar din postari ca este temeinic sa critici astfel de reclame care pe langa ca sunt de toata jena, mai sunt si nelegale. Evident aici vor decide autoritatile, dar pana atunci eu am dreptul sa fac judecati de valoare, ca sunt om nu autoritate publica.

    2. Denumirea, sigla si imaginile clinicii (ma gandesc ca prin imagini se refera la poze de pe site, sau la reclame) nu sunt protejate nici de Legea 84/1998 (una e marca, alta e numele societatii), nici de GDPR cum afirma doamna avocat. Publicitatea pe care clinica o realizeaza in spatiul public uite ca si nici ea nu e protejata de GDPR.

    Societatile (PJ-urile) nu sunt protejate de GDPR, iar agentii acestuia ma gandesc ca si-au dat acordul sa fie pe site / prin reclame, altfel raspunderea pentru eventuala divulgare a datelor este a societatii, nu a mea.

    Marca lor din Regatul Unit nu are valabilitate in jurisdictia noastra si oricum nu ma opreste din a critica societatea, chiar si daca o identific cu marca. Surpriza, marca exista sa poti prin ea identifica un produs / serviciu comercial, inclusiv in sens negativ. Marca doar iti asigura exclusivitate asupra acestiea.

    3. Notificarea Facebook / Meta cu privire la “caracterul denigrator si nelegal al continutului postat” e la latitudinea lor si nu se va solda cu prea mult. Nici o eventuala chemare in judecata.

    4. In civil nu se da “hotărâre de condamnare”. Admiterea unor pretentii in civil este altceva.

    Oricum eu nu pot sa critic avocata ca face si ea hustle, cred ca ea e constienta ca individul e nesimtit si pana la urma banii sunt bun fungibil – nu conteaza de la cine vin 🙂