Thanks Stephan, we all stand behind you and hope for a positive outcome! Do you know if the court documents are publicly available somewhere, so people can read for themselves exactly what DCS are alleging? Louis Rossman has done a follow up video if you haven't seen it yet which could be helpful for your case. All the very best mate, and thanks for stopping by and dropping a comment! 👍
No worries, I didn't know if those sorts of documents were usually publicly accessible somewhere, had a bit of a look but couldn't find them so thanks for confirming. Please do let the RUclips community know if you decide to share them so we can see what they're arguing. Cheers mate and my very best wishes!
Yes Mike I think a lot of people find their response a bit misplaced, and if all is as it seems (which it may not be) I suspect your assessment will be pretty right!
Yup, I've heard the phrase "any publicity is good publicity" but I'm not sure that applies here! This is literally all I know about DCS, so why would I go and deeply research if there's another side when I can just choose another company?
Too right! DCS even fraudulently (IMO) downgraded their battery warranty during this fiasco, but were found out using archived web pages! So that affects anyone who purchased a battery from them as well.
Too right, no matter how apparently “good” the product might be if they feel the need to go to court there isn’t really any reason to believe a single word being said. The sad part is that their legal counsel really should have made it clear to them that this is as the case, win or lose no one considering buying the product has even the slightest reason to believe a single word of the online reviews of the product.
Thank you for posting this video. Stefan needs all the support he can get. Was surprised you’ve never heard of him before TBH. He’s been doing this for a while.
Yes i think the whole youtube community will be watching this very closely. I find DCS's action in commencibg legal proceedings reprehensible and hope the backlash teaches them a lesson - financially!
Cheers Allan, yes I think many will be very interested in how this pans out, hopefully in favour of free speech! It will be interesting to see if DCS ends up regretting this approach, I guess time will tell.
For what it’s worth , I had an experience with this mob under their previous na e so I’m glad that people are speaking their minds. All power to Stephan for fighting for the truth. We are all behind you.
Clearly DCS expected a sweetheart review for a free product, and are pissed when they got an honest review. The solution is simple. Vote with your feet and boycott this company . Show them that this kind of behavior won't be tolerated.
Succinctly put James! Yeah honest reviews sometimes hurt! It's why I privately buy almost all the products I review, no-one has any expectations then. I certainly hope this case sends a message to other companies against considering similar action.
There's something quite wrong (with the AU law) with a creator being responsible for random comments from the Internet. Really do hope he wins the case - I don't think DCS has a foot to stand on.
Yeah it depends on what they're complaining about. Everything I've seen so far indicates that it's the review he posted that's at issue, as opposed to comments others have made regarding that review. The original review has commented turned off at the moment
Yup, I've heard the phrase "any publicity is good publicity" but I'm not sure that applies here! This is literally all I know about DCS, so why would I go and deeply research if there's another side when I can just choose another company?
Very true. I guess it depends on what exactly they're alleging he did wrong, but it's also probably a lot easier to track down and take action against a local like Stephan who they've already got full name and address for as a result of sending him the free batteries, than anonymous Amazon reviewers who might be outside Australia's legal jurisdiction!
Litigation is a dangerous path in my view. Companies which take this route are facing adverse publicity by the very nature of this internet connected environment and people might become wary of buying their products. The better path is for the company to work with the reviewer to solve any problems!!
That is certainly a risk Paul; prior to this I knew nothing of DCS, and now this is the only piece of information I know about them. It may be entirely unrepresentative of how the company usually works, but it's all I know about them. I suspect the same might be true for others. I've seen several references to the 'Streisand Effect' in relation to this situation, I'd never heard of it before but it's exactly what you're saying!
Not sure about other places, but in the USA, anyone can sue anyone, but that doesn't mean anything. If you get sued and win, the one doing the lawsuit can be made to pay the court costs and any legal fees.
You're right simply bringing a lawsuit doesn't prove anything, although to take that action would usually mean the plaintiff thinks they have a solid case to argue (unless they're just trying to scare the other party into taking it down). But I think just the idea to sue someone over a review is outrageous to many.
I'm just a simple farmer but if I was that company I would replace the batteries and make good the relationship instead of sueing some guy. The world has gone to $h1t.
You've got that right! If they lose I expect they'll shut down and reopen under another brand name and it'll all start over! 🙄 Someone already said here they dealt with this company under an older company name and had similar experiences.
Any independent reviewer, whether on RUclips or any other platform, would do well to draft an agreement to hand to any “promotional donor” which prevents such action subsequent to publishing of test or review results. SIMPLEZ. If the promoter fears bad reviews to the point of subsequent litigation, as in the mentioned case, they’ll most likely not sign. No signature, no review/publicity for the product.
@@TheMusingGreg Deep cycle battery is for accessories , such as bilge pump , lighting , radio etc ... boats have a seperate engine start battery ..Maximum discharge rate is 100 amps , starter will easily draw as much as 350 amps .....
@@TheMusingGreg Apparently the "engineers" at dcs have confused the cell ratings ...Usually they have one rating that states the maximum current before it bursts into flames and another that states the maximum current before permanent cell damage ...So you can start your car without it exploding , but not very many times ...
He is using a LITHIUM battery in a car as a replacement for a LEAD ACID starter battery. Car alternators push 14.4 volts all the time. While lead acid loves this, it utterly destroys lithium. You cannot put a lithium battery into a car in place of lead acid unless you also have some kind of appropriate charge control that manages lithium safely and economically. I know some modern cars that have heated seats and such, and are already using deep cycle lead acid, but I do not know if the technology is in place to manage the alternator charge to lithium, so red flags go up and I wonder if that comes into play with this review. I would have to watch it. I do believe the manufacturer is responsible for educating the consumer to employ these batteries properly.
As a general principle you may be right, but I believe DCS stated that these batteries were suitable for under bonnet use. As such, under bonnet batteries would have to have controls built in to handle that sort of voltage and current. If they didn't, then it comes back to the manufacturer providing wrong information about what the batteries can really do.
@@TheMusingGreg I agree. Doing a little research though, it seems using lithium as a starter battery is even more problematic than even I had thought. Apparently it is hard on the battery as well as the alternator and the flow of power for the operating internal combustion engine. There may be some alterations possible, but it is pretty much considered a "not worth it, do at your own risk" thing to do. It is advised to keep your lithium battery more or less isolated from the lead acid starter battery.
@@OWK000 Interesting; there are a few companies now promoting lithium batteries as being rated safe for under bonnet use. I wonder if they're meaning as a cranking battery, or just under bonnet storage of an auxiliary battery?
I think you're far from alone there mate! With so many brands to choose from out there, this is all many people will ever know about that DCS which surely can't work in their favour!
@@TheMusingGreg it can't work in my favor. I think it can. I already boycotted. Most products who does all the chemicals they put in the food. And how customer service works. More people just stop buying products. They'll start listening
If your legal system is worth its salt then, he has the video evidence to prove that his claims are true, therefore no deformation, ergo thrown out of court.
Yep that logic certainly makes sense. It will be interesting to hear the outcome, and particularly to understand why DCS felt litigation was the best approach to resolving the issue.
I suspect if DCS win, future review channels will either say "great product" or "I reviewed this product and am not prepared to comment on its quality" and we will all need to read between the lines.
Deep Cycle Systems have really stuffed up, big time. Stephan is a great guy and doesn’t deserve this at all. So they send you a product for an honest review, and they do this. 😡
It doesn't seem a wise approach that's for sure, especially given how much negative publicity it's generating for them. That said there are always two sides to the story and so far we've only heard Stephan's, so it would be very interesting to understand DCS' side of things.
I suppose one must ask how Australian litigation law works? Are there any anti-SLAPP laws in place? "Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation" or "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" are something that most U.S. states have laws against, but not all. Businesses would file lawsuits, not caring whether winning was possible, just to tie up the victim's time and finances defending against it, as an intimidation and silencing move.
It appears only the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has anti-SLAPP laws in place, but this case is being pursued in the State of Queensland which appears to have none. So they could be doing that; although if that was the strategy the amount of negative publicity would suggest it's backfired spectacularly on them.
@@TheMusingGreg I'd definitely get the media reporting on this case and on the lack of Anti-SLAPP protection that leads to this kind of corporate behavior.
@@davepowder4020 Good idea, I've reported it to the A Current Affair program which covers stories like this here in Australia. Will be interesting to see if they pick it up!
Yeah I can't speak for Stephan but maybe there's more to it than that. There are people who have been right, but fancy lawyers have managed to twist an outcome against them
Can you not just pull the legal details of the lawsuit and see the part that they claim is the problem. I would think this is pretty settled law. And it may just be one or two sentences that are the concern. If you get those and post them I'm sure you get a clear understanding of what the chances of them winning..
I actually went looking for about 10 minutes to see if this was public information to find exactly what their beef was. But having had no involvement in this I wasn't really sure where to look. I found an outline of the different cases in the Queensland district court site, but none of the detailed documents Stephan has which would have answered that question. If anyone happens to know where to find those documents please post them.
@@TheMusingGreg The case number for the lawsuit is Proceeding Number 1169 of 24, filed in the District Court of Queensland hope it helps. You can search in Fedcourt website should be open for all to see.
Thank you Greg, for highlighting the issue; it is indeed much bigger than myself. Unfortunately, I can't say much more at this stage.
Thanks Stephan, we all stand behind you and hope for a positive outcome! Do you know if the court documents are publicly available somewhere, so people can read for themselves exactly what DCS are alleging? Louis Rossman has done a follow up video if you haven't seen it yet which could be helpful for your case.
All the very best mate, and thanks for stopping by and dropping a comment! 👍
@@TheMusingGreg At this stage, I have only made them available to other Legal Professionals, but that may change later on.
No worries, I didn't know if those sorts of documents were usually publicly accessible somewhere, had a bit of a look but couldn't find them so thanks for confirming. Please do let the RUclips community know if you decide to share them so we can see what they're arguing.
Cheers mate and my very best wishes!
@@TheMusingGreg wont share publicly but you can email me and happy to provide
This has struck a nerve with many people. DCS have pissed lots of people off. They deserve the backlash they’ll get.
Yes Mike I think a lot of people find their response a bit misplaced, and if all is as it seems (which it may not be) I suspect your assessment will be pretty right!
DCS have shot themselves in the foot - almost 2 million viewers have seen this over a number of channels.
This gives a better reason NOT TO BUY something from that company than any negative review could.
Yup, I've heard the phrase "any publicity is good publicity" but I'm not sure that applies here! This is literally all I know about DCS, so why would I go and deeply research if there's another side when I can just choose another company?
Too right! DCS even fraudulently (IMO) downgraded their battery warranty during this fiasco, but were found out using archived web pages! So that affects anyone who purchased a battery from them as well.
Hey Greg, thanks for covering this, as it is a very important issue, and thanks for the shout-out. All the best.
Cheers John, appreciate you taking the time to bring this issue to light too! 👍 Take care
Too right, no matter how apparently “good” the product might be if they feel the need to go to court there isn’t really any reason to believe a single word being said.
The sad part is that their legal counsel really should have made it clear to them that this is as the case, win or lose no one considering buying the product has even the slightest reason to believe a single word of the online reviews of the product.
Thank you for posting this video. Stefan needs all the support he can get. Was surprised you’ve never heard of him before TBH. He’s been doing this for a while.
Thanks Roger, yes I was surprised I haven't seen his content yet too. Hopefully he gets plenty of support!
Yes i think the whole youtube community will be watching this very closely.
I find DCS's action in commencibg legal proceedings reprehensible and hope the backlash teaches them a lesson - financially!
Cheers Allan, yes I think many will be very interested in how this pans out, hopefully in favour of free speech! It will be interesting to see if DCS ends up regretting this approach, I guess time will tell.
For what it’s worth , I had an experience with this mob under their previous na e so I’m glad that people are speaking their minds. All power to Stephan for fighting for the truth. We are all behind you.
Thanks for sharing your personal experiences Peter, it's helpful to understand given I'd never heard of either party.
@peterj5751 can you remember the prior name of the company? I'd be interested to look them up.
@@TheMusingGreg I’m sorry but I can’t. All record online seems to have been removed.
@@peterj5751 No worries thanks anyway. The removal of all past data in itself is curious...
Clearly DCS expected a sweetheart review for a free product, and are pissed when they got an honest review. The solution is simple. Vote with your feet and boycott this company . Show them that this kind of behavior won't be tolerated.
Succinctly put James! Yeah honest reviews sometimes hurt! It's why I privately buy almost all the products I review, no-one has any expectations then. I certainly hope this case sends a message to other companies against considering similar action.
There's something quite wrong (with the AU law) with a creator being responsible for random comments from the Internet. Really do hope he wins the case - I don't think DCS has a foot to stand on.
Yeah it depends on what they're complaining about. Everything I've seen so far indicates that it's the review he posted that's at issue, as opposed to comments others have made regarding that review. The original review has commented turned off at the moment
Good way to hose a company's reputation...
Yup, I've heard the phrase "any publicity is good publicity" but I'm not sure that applies here! This is literally all I know about DCS, so why would I go and deeply research if there's another side when I can just choose another company?
What about all the product reviews on Amazon? lol..this will and should be thrown out in court. In the USA opinions are protected free speech.
Very true. I guess it depends on what exactly they're alleging he did wrong, but it's also probably a lot easier to track down and take action against a local like Stephan who they've already got full name and address for as a result of sending him the free batteries, than anonymous Amazon reviewers who might be outside Australia's legal jurisdiction!
Litigation is a dangerous path in my view. Companies which take this route are facing adverse publicity by the very nature of this internet connected environment and people might become wary of buying their products. The better path is for the company to work with the reviewer to solve any problems!!
That is certainly a risk Paul; prior to this I knew nothing of DCS, and now this is the only piece of information I know about them. It may be entirely unrepresentative of how the company usually works, but it's all I know about them. I suspect the same might be true for others. I've seen several references to the 'Streisand Effect' in relation to this situation, I'd never heard of it before but it's exactly what you're saying!
The Barbarra Streisand effect,
We stand behind Stefan. Thanks for showing this Greg.
Thanks for your support Hank, please share it on your socials to help Stefan!
Not sure about other places, but in the USA, anyone can sue anyone, but that doesn't mean anything. If you get sued and win, the one doing the lawsuit can be made to pay the court costs and any legal fees.
You're right simply bringing a lawsuit doesn't prove anything, although to take that action would usually mean the plaintiff thinks they have a solid case to argue (unless they're just trying to scare the other party into taking it down). But I think just the idea to sue someone over a review is outrageous to many.
I'm just a simple farmer but if I was that company I would replace the batteries and make good the relationship instead of sueing some guy. The world has gone to $h1t.
I completely agree, seems very bad form from the information we know so far.
@@TheMusingGreg I wish you and the other guy good health and prosperity.
The company shouldn't be selling shitty products to the public! They should look at it in a positive way as to improve their product!
That's certainly what companies I've dealt with have done, including Redarc and Hard Korr. And customers see that and know they listen
Its going to bring ALOT of bad press down on the battery company.
You've got that right! If they lose I expect they'll shut down and reopen under another brand name and it'll all start over! 🙄 Someone already said here they dealt with this company under an older company name and had similar experiences.
Surely, win or lose the court case they stand the risk of negative publicity either way?
Seems a crazy move to me.
Yep I sure think so! More people probably know about DCS now than they ever did before, and this is all they know!
Wow!!! Thx for sharing.
No worries, please share it on at your end; the more people who know, the better everyone's chances of keeping the unbiased information flowing!
Any independent reviewer, whether on RUclips or any other platform, would do well to draft an agreement to hand to any “promotional donor” which prevents such action subsequent to publishing of test or review results. SIMPLEZ.
If the promoter fears bad reviews to the point of subsequent litigation, as in the mentioned case, they’ll most likely not sign. No signature, no review/publicity for the product.
Yeah that's not a bad idea. Shame it should even have to be a consideration though!
Trying to use deep-cycle batteries for engine start never works out well ....
But if the manufacturer says they can handle it they should be able to...
@@TheMusingGreg Deep cycle battery is for accessories , such as bilge pump , lighting , radio etc ... boats have a seperate engine start battery ..Maximum discharge rate is 100 amps , starter will easily draw as much as 350 amps .....
Yeah I get that, but if the manufacturer says they can handle it then it's their problem if it doesn't
@@TheMusingGreg Apparently the "engineers" at dcs have confused the cell ratings ...Usually they have one rating that states the maximum current before it bursts into flames and another that states the maximum current before permanent cell damage ...So you can start your car without it exploding , but not very many times ...
He is using a LITHIUM battery in a car as a replacement for a LEAD ACID starter battery. Car alternators push 14.4 volts all the time. While lead acid loves this, it utterly destroys lithium. You cannot put a lithium battery into a car in place of lead acid unless you also have some kind of appropriate charge control that manages lithium safely and economically. I know some modern cars that have heated seats and such, and are already using deep cycle lead acid, but I do not know if the technology is in place to manage the alternator charge to lithium, so red flags go up and I wonder if that comes into play with this review. I would have to watch it. I do believe the manufacturer is responsible for educating the consumer to employ these batteries properly.
As a general principle you may be right, but I believe DCS stated that these batteries were suitable for under bonnet use. As such, under bonnet batteries would have to have controls built in to handle that sort of voltage and current. If they didn't, then it comes back to the manufacturer providing wrong information about what the batteries can really do.
@@TheMusingGreg I agree. Doing a little research though, it seems using lithium as a starter battery is even more problematic than even I had thought. Apparently it is hard on the battery as well as the alternator and the flow of power for the operating internal combustion engine. There may be some alterations possible, but it is pretty much considered a "not worth it, do at your own risk" thing to do. It is advised to keep your lithium battery more or less isolated from the lead acid starter battery.
@@OWK000 Interesting; there are a few companies now promoting lithium batteries as being rated safe for under bonnet use. I wonder if they're meaning as a cranking battery, or just under bonnet storage of an auxiliary battery?
just by that alone i will never buy there product thats 1 custumer they lost
I think you're far from alone there mate! With so many brands to choose from out there, this is all many people will ever know about that DCS which surely can't work in their favour!
@@TheMusingGreg it can't work in my favor. I think it can. I already boycotted. Most products who does all the chemicals they put in the food. And how customer service works. More people just stop buying products. They'll start listening
Yeah that's what I meant, it works for you but won't work in DCS' favour for exactly the reasons you mentioned. 👍
If your legal system is worth its salt then, he has the video evidence to prove that his claims are true, therefore no deformation, ergo thrown out of court.
Yep that logic certainly makes sense. It will be interesting to hear the outcome, and particularly to understand why DCS felt litigation was the best approach to resolving the issue.
I suspect if DCS win, future review channels will either say "great product" or "I reviewed this product and am not prepared to comment on its quality" and we will all need to read between the lines.
Ha yep you're probably right, and that would be a sad day!
Deep Cycle Systems have really stuffed up, big time. Stephan is a great guy and doesn’t deserve this at all. So they send you a product for an honest review, and they do this. 😡
It doesn't seem a wise approach that's for sure, especially given how much negative publicity it's generating for them. That said there are always two sides to the story and so far we've only heard Stephan's, so it would be very interesting to understand DCS' side of things.
I suppose one must ask how Australian litigation law works? Are there any anti-SLAPP laws in place? "Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation" or "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" are something that most U.S. states have laws against, but not all. Businesses would file lawsuits, not caring whether winning was possible, just to tie up the victim's time and finances defending against it, as an intimidation and silencing move.
It appears only the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has anti-SLAPP laws in place, but this case is being pursued in the State of Queensland which appears to have none. So they could be doing that; although if that was the strategy the amount of negative publicity would suggest it's backfired spectacularly on them.
@@TheMusingGreg I'd definitely get the media reporting on this case and on the lack of Anti-SLAPP protection that leads to this kind of corporate behavior.
@@davepowder4020 Good idea, I've reported it to the A Current Affair program which covers stories like this here in Australia. Will be interesting to see if they pick it up!
@@TheMusingGreg It's definitely a good step when it comes to protecting everyday people from powerful corporations and other wealthy entities.
All anyone has to do is prove their findings, if you can't do that you shouldn't be writing the review...
Yeah it looks like he's done that, and the trouble seems to have started after he published his findings.
@@TheMusingGreg I wouldn't even get a solicitor involved. If he can prove he's right why worry...
Yeah I can't speak for Stephan but maybe there's more to it than that. There are people who have been right, but fancy lawyers have managed to twist an outcome against them
Yep and that's why it's so important that we all help Stephan out here, as this case really is for all of us
Can you not just pull the legal details of the lawsuit and see the part that they claim is the problem. I would think this is pretty settled law. And it may just be one or two sentences that are the concern. If you get those and post them I'm sure you get a clear understanding of what the chances of them winning..
I actually went looking for about 10 minutes to see if this was public information to find exactly what their beef was. But having had no involvement in this I wasn't really sure where to look. I found an outline of the different cases in the Queensland district court site, but none of the detailed documents Stephan has which would have answered that question. If anyone happens to know where to find those documents please post them.
@@TheMusingGreg The case number for the lawsuit is Proceeding Number 1169 of 24, filed in the District Court of Queensland hope it helps. You can search in Fedcourt website should be open for all to see.
"Here's my opinion "
How dare you!!!
I think you speak for many of us there Paul! 👍👍