When Flipper Devices, Inc. faced a series of obstacles that threatened its business and online reputation, Buzko Krasnov acted to restore Flipper Devices’ business operations and protect the integrity of its brand. The following case studies illustrate potential legal challenges for growing companies and our solutions.
Case Study 1: PayPal – Recovering Client’s Frozen Funds
Flipper Devices faced a sudden suspension of its PayPal account, which held a balance of $1.3 million. These funds became inaccessible even though our clients had complied with PayPal’s requirements, mainly to furnish proof of delivery for several random orders of Flipper Devices' flagship product, the Flipper Zero device. Flipper Devices attempted to engage with PayPal’s customer support for over two months but received no response. This put Flipper Devices in financial straits as it had recently invested in and released the Flipper Zero device. Flipper Devices’ business operations were essentially paralyzed.
Buzko Krasnov acted to open lines of communication with PayPal’s legal team and sent a demand letter documenting how Flipper Devices had provided PayPal with proof of delivery for the specified orders before the stated deadline. The letter highlighted how PayPal's actions were damaging Flipper Devices by endangering the production of its new product and hampering its ability to compensate employees. This, in turn, could lead to penalties for nonperformance of contracts with suppliers and negatively impact the company's brand and goodwill with its customers. The letter informed PayPal that if Flipper Devices’ requests were ignored again, legal action to unfreeze its funds and recover damages would follow.
Buzko Krasnov contacted PayPal directly to confirm its receipt of the letter and afterwards requested frequent status updates on the release of the funds. Follow up emails and phone calls to PayPal informed it of our client’s rights to initiate arbitration proceedings. In response, PayPal released the $1.3 million held in Flipper Devices’ account.
Case Study 2: Libel – Safeguarding Client’s Reputation
Flipper Devices’ reputation and sales were threatened when false and damaging information regarding its Flipper Zero device, was posted on the social media pages of a police department. Flipper Devices urgently needed to have the false information removed and to educate the police department on Flipper Zero’s legality in order to avoid any future problems.
To address the libel issue, Buzko Krasnov issued a demand letter that cited the applicable libel statute and its relevance to the situation. It was made clear to the police department that, just because Flipper Devices was a company and not a person, it could still be the subject of libel. We explained that Flipper Devices’ business had been libeled as the false information in the posts could dissuade customers from purchasing the Flipper Zero device and have a negative impact on Flipper Devices’ reputation. The letter included links demonstrating that the FCC had fully tested and approved the Flipper Zero device. The letter concluded by stating that if the police department failed to respond or remove the false content from the posts within three days, Flipper Devices would initiate legal action against it.
Within hours of receiving the letter, the police department removed the false information from its social media pages.
Case Study 3: YouTube – Preserving Client’s Brand Identity
Flipper Devices encountered a significant problem when it unexpectedly lost administrative privileges over its YouTube channel – a main source for gaining and informing potential customers. Despite making repeated, good-faith requests to YouTube support to restore these privileges for the Flipper Zero Channel, YouTube remained completely unresponsive. This lack of guidance left Flipper Devices uncertain about its next steps, and unsure of what evidence or actions could prompt YouTube to restore administrative privileges to its channel.
With no clear path forward being communicated by YouTube, Buzko Krasnov had to appeal to reason and make a convincing argument for the restoration of Flipper Devices’ administrative privileges. In the demand letter sent to YouTube, we explained how Flipper Devices had used its YouTube channel to teach potential customers about its products and had over 60,000 subscribers and hundreds of thousands of views. We informed YouTube that all of the videos posted by Flipper Devices had been educational, aiming to assist customers in maximizing the utility of its products, such as instructional content on updating Flipper Zero devices.
Next, we showed YouTube that Flipper Devices owns the intellectual property rights for the Flipper Zero, citing to the Flipper Zero’s International Registration Number. We argued that without access to its YouTube channel, Flipper Devices was unable to utilize its intellectual property in the capacity to which the rightful owners should be entitled – specifically the right to use and benefit from its intellectual property.
We also catalogued all the previous requests Flipper Devices had made to YouTube, to demonstrate that Flipper Devices had made several attempts to amicably resolve the issue.
Despite the absence of any guidance on resolving the situation, YouTube, in response to the letter, reinstated Flipper Devices’ administrative control over the Flipper Zero channel.