When I first posted about the bogus court order compelling the removal of Matthew Chan's reviews of Mitul Patel from five web sites, I criticized Kudzu.com for removing the version of the review that was posted there without giving any notice to Chan, and called on that web site to reconsider its decision. I was informed last night that the company has reconsidered the removal, which it claims was for a terms of service violation which, in retrospect, the company has decided was not committed; hence the company has restored the review, which can now be seen here.
I commend and thank Kudzu for the restoration of my review. I am impressed with their response as they did not have any obligation to do so. I also commend and thank Kudzu for restoring ANOTHER FOUR consumer reviews that I did not see two weeks ago. It would appear that my review of Mitul Patel was not the only one taken down and they reconsidered the takedown of those reviews also.
It appears that someone complained to Kudzu to take down the other four reviews that have now re-appeared. It would be interesting to know if a similar illicitly-obtained court order was used in those instances.
And by the looks of the language used in those restored reviews of Mitul Patel, there does seem to be a similar pattern of complaints emerging. I can see why someone might not have wanted online visitors to see or read them. They use plain language and certainly speak for themselves.
Matthew Chan