He Threatened to Sue Me If I Don't Delete The Video - My Response

The Legal Aftermath of Curtis Ray Threatening to Sue.

At BetterWealth, our mission is to unlock intentional living by increasing your wealth efficiency. Sometimes in this pursuit, we face unforeseen challenges. Recently, we found ourselves in the midst of such a challenge when we received a legal letter from a lawyer representing Curtis Ray, accusing us of defamation for content published on our YouTube channel.

The allegedly defamatory content was an interview we recently published. It involved an interview with industry expert Roccy DeFrancesco where we discussed various financial products including MPI (Maximum Premium Indexing), a strategy promoted by Curtis Ray. Following the publication of that interview, we received a letter that alleged statements made during the discussion were defamatory and damaging to Curtis Ray’s reputation, business, and professional relationships.

This situation has raised questions for us about content creation, the responsibility that comes with managing a brand, and the legal ramifications of discussing certain financial strategies or individuals in a public forum. We’ll walk you through the details of the legal accusations and the decisions we've made in response, with the hope that this will bolster your faith in our mission and integrity in our brand as a whole.

The Accusations from Curtis Ray’s Legal Team

The legal letter from Curtis Ray’s attorney centers on accusations of defamation.

Specifically, the letter argues that certain statements made during our interview with Roccy DeFrancesco met the legal definition for defamation per se. This type of defamation is considered so harmful to one’s reputation that damages are presumed without needing to prove financial loss or harm. According to the letter, the content of the video negatively impacts Curtis Ray’s business reputation, his standing in the insurance industry, and his professional credibility, particularly in relation to his involvement with MPI and other business ventures like Suncor.

Here are the key allegations laid out in the letter:

1. False Statements Damaging to Business

Curtis Ray’s legal team claims that the interview with Roccy DeFrancesco included false and misleading statements that questioned the legitimacy and effectiveness of the MPI strategy. These statements, according to the letter, were presented in a way that could damage Curtis Ray’s reputation as a professional in the financial services industry.

2. Impact on Professional Relationships

Another significant concern raised in the letter is the potential impact of these statements on Curtis Ray’s professional relationships, particularly with insurance companies and other partners. The letter suggested that the video may have violated compliance obligations we have with insurance companies, specifically rules that prohibit making disparaging or false statements about other products or businesses.

3. Defamation Per Se

The attorney’s letter asserts that the statements made in the interview fall under defamation per se, a legal concept that presumes harm to a person’s reputation without requiring proof of damages. The lawyer argued that our platform’s reach and the visibility of the video could lead to significant reputational harm, causing people to question Curtis Ray’s professional qualifications, trustworthiness, and business practices.

4. Request for Removal of the Video

The letter concluded with a request to take down the video, with the implication that failure to do so could lead to further legal action. The legal team suggested that, if the video remained online, Curtis Ray might pursue additional measures, such as notifying the insurance companies we work with about potential compliance violations or seeking damages in court.

A Closer Look at the Legal Accusations

While the letter makes several bold claims, it’s essential to break down these allegations to understand their implications. The core of the complaint is the allegation that statements made in the interview harmed Curtis Ray’s business and professional reputation. It’s important to clarify the context of the interview and the role we played in the discussion.

In the interview, we were primarily serving as a host and facilitator for a conversation about financial products and strategies, with Roccy DeFrancesco providing his expertise and commentary. Rocky has extensive experience in the insurance industry and has been vocal about his concerns regarding certain financial products, including MPI. Much of the commentary that Curtis Ray’s legal team took issue with came from Roccy, not from what Caleb said.

We understand the gravity of hosting discussions on potentially controversial topics. We’re responsible for the content published on our platform, even if we’re not the one making the statements. Curtis Ray’s lawyer appears to be arguing that by allowing these statements to be made in a public forum, we are complicit in any reputational damage that might result from the conversation.

The Risk of Defamation Per Se and Compliance Violations

Defamation Per Se

One of the most critical aspects of the letter is the claim of defamation per se. In most defamation cases, the plaintiff must prove that the false statement caused actual harm, such as financial loss, damage to reputation, or loss of business opportunities. However, defamation per se eliminates this requirement in certain types of cases, including those that involve attacks on a person’s professional competence.

The letter from Curtis Ray’s attorney alleges that the statements made in the interview fall under this category. Specifically, they argue that questioning the legitimacy of MPI and Curtis Ray’s role in promoting the strategy could harm his reputation as a financial professional. This would presumably lead to a loss of business or damaged relationships with clients and partners, though in a defamation per se case, Curtis Ray would not be required to prove these damages in court. Instead, the court would assume that harm had occurred due to the nature of the statements.

Compliance Violations

Another significant issue raised in the legal letter is the potential for compliance violations with the insurance companies we work with. In the financial and insurance industries, professionals are subject to strict rules regarding how they speak about competitors and their products. These rules are in place to prevent unfair trade practices and ensure that statements made in public forums are truthful, non-disparaging, and compliant with industry regulations.

Curtis Ray’s legal team suggested that the content of the video might have violated these compliance obligations by encouraging or allowing disparaging remarks about MPI. The concern here is not just about the legal concept of defamation, but also about potential regulatory consequences. If insurance companies determine that we’ve violated our compliance obligations, they could take action that affects our ability to work with them in the future.

This is a crucial point to consider, especially for content creators working in regulated industries. The responsibility extends beyond simply avoiding defamation; we must also ensure that we adhere to industry standards and compliance rules to maintain our professional standing.

Our Response to the Legal Threat

When we received this legal letter, we began considering our options. As a company who values transparency and ethical business practices, we wanted to respond in a way that reflects our commitment to those principles while protecting our platform and business. After consulting with our legal team, we identified three primary courses of action:

1. Take down the video

This would likely be the easiest option from a legal standpoint. By removing the video, we could de-escalate the situation and potentially avoid further legal complications.

2. Leave the video up and do nothing

This option would involve standing our ground and maintaining the video online. However, it comes with significant legal and financial risks, particularly if Curtis Ray’s legal team decides to pursue the matter in court.

3. Take down the video but document the process

The third option, which we've decided to pursue, involves taking the video down but creating a new video and blog post to explain the decision and share our perspective. By being transparent with our audience, we can maintain trust and credibility while minimizing the legal risks.

Ultimately, we’ve chosen to remove the video, not because we believe we did anything wrong, but because we don’t want to waste valuable time and resources fighting a legal battle that doesn’t align with the core mission of our business. Our goal is to inspire people to live intentionally, and getting caught up in a protracted legal dispute over one video doesn’t serve that purpose.

Moving Forward: What’s Next?

Looking ahead, we plan to continue creating content that serves our audience and aligns with our values.

We’ll be inviting Roccy DeFrancesco back for a follow-up video where we’ll discuss the facts without speculating or making statements that could be construed as defamatory. We’ll focus on the information available from reputable sources, such as documents from the Washington State Insurance Commissioner, and present that information in a clear, factual manner.

In the meantime, we want to thank our audience for their support and understanding as we navigate this situation. Legal challenges like this are the reality of taking a stand as consumer advocates for what we believe in, but also growing in managing our brand responsibly. Thank you for journeying with us.

If you're interested in following how this situation unfolds, subscribe to our newsletter.

Subscribe To Our Channel

To see more authentic videos about finance and how to truly live an intentional life, subscribe to our Youtube channel and click the bell to turn on the notifications and be alerted of our upcoming videos!

{{post-button}}