alert Why You Can't Trust GoDaddy Brokers

[jberryhill]

It is important to understand that GoDaddy brokers are not working for you.

I'm currently defending a UDRP which, although it will be an easy win for the domain registrant, would have been completely unnecessary if GoDaddy was honest with its own customer.

In the course of fielding an inquiry to buy a domain name, GoDaddy broker John Campanaro received this email:

The "buyer" was claiming to have a trademark and threatening legal action.

Now, in the course of this negotiation, the parties ended up being extremely close. The margin between the final offer of the "buyer" and the domain registrant was around $1000.

Had GoDaddy's customer realized that the "buyer" was now claiming to have a trademark and threatening legal action, that would have given GoDaddy's customer an opportunity to consider whether to lower their offer simply to avoid a frivolous legal dispute, or at least to have some warning that GoDaddy knew what the "buyer" was going to do next.

So, what did GoDaddy broker John Campanaro do next?

He lied:

If you were formerly a Uniregistry customer and have been moved to GoDaddy, you need to understand that some very basic principles of customer service did not survive that transfer.

GoDaddy will withhold information from you, and will not tell you if the other side in a negotiation is making legal threats, so that you can make a rational and informed decision. Instead, they will drive you right over the cliff and even, as happened in the longer course of this negotiation, make up stuff, attribute it to you, and then it will turn up in a UDRP or other legal dispute filed against you.

GoDaddy will dig a hole and push you right in.

 

[DN_Hunter]

On the other hand, this tactic could be used by a broker in a nefarious manner (even if there was not an actual claim) to try and compel an owner to sell the domain, under duress.

This actually happened to me. The GoDaddy broker told me the buyer made their last offer, and the buyer also threatened legal action otherwise. In the end I accepted their "final offer" -- now I am wondering if the GoDaddy broker was lying to me in order to close the deal...

 

[J.R.]

I know of one other prominent domainer with that policy, and I agree it is a good one. There are a lot of "brokers" attempting to front run deals. In the last two months, I have had two clients waste a lot of time in negotiations and drafting agreements on $xxx,xxx deals, which evaporated when it came time to close.

Could you explain what you mean in regards to front-running in the examples you mention?

Was it front-running like the version Lumis broker was doing in the Kosmos.com case you won or another verison?

When caught in the act, some of these unregulated brokers are quick to escape accountability; can't be trusted.

The #principalsonly standard is a good one indeed.

 

[J.R.]

My guess is these brokers work in a cut throat/toxic environment where they are actively encouraged to do whatever it takes to get the sale. I think it would probably by a bit unfair to throw all the shade at the individual broker when it's probably the result of a broken system in general at GD.

This kind of stuff happens all the time in real estate and probably anything else you can think of that uses brokers.

Not saying its acceptable but to think this shit isn't happening everywhere would be naive.

Doesn't work like that.

Its totally fair to hold the broker accountable for his actions.

When you are fraudulent, you don't get to say, "but they are fraudulent too."

What sort of low quality and deceptive behavior are you trying to condone?

 

[CDM]

How did the contact with the "Buyer" initially come about? Through a domain lander, or through GoDaddy's paid broker service?

I'll wager it was through GD buy service, the broker in referring to the buyer as "my client" and the fact the buyer is paying commission indicates this, as well as the last referenced email wherein the broker says, "I would like to note that if you did post the domain for sale..." which appears to infer that this is a domain that was not actively listed for sale but one in which the buyer approached trying to acquire through use of GD buy service. If that is the case, then it also appears the broker was not being wholly transparent about the commission rate of listing a domain for sale being 25% since that only applies for domains sold through GD which are not using GD name servers. Thus it appears to me the broker quoted 25% since it aligned with the price of commission to claim that the seller would be at a net even to sell this domain at the same price in the future as part of a negotiation tactic (against the seller) to try to turn the screws. That is my interpretation at least.

 

[WillW]

This is scary. Trusting that the GD brokers would have my best interest in mind has been my biggest concern with Afternic 2.0.There's not a lot of transparency, if any with the leads unless you message them directly. There are some really good GD brokers that I've interacted with but in general it feels like GD is the brokers biggest interest and the seller sometimes comes second, depending on the broker.

 

[Peter45]

There should certainly be some type of policy that covers this situation

Isn't that policy called brokerage contract?

 

[CDM]

Also, LOL at being the size company to have a "C-Suite team" and evidently a counsel on retainer and balking at paying an extra $1k for a domain they initiated the inquiry on, only to then initiate and subsequently lose an open shut UDRP for not exercising their tm right prior to making a purchase offer demonstrating bad faith.

Reverse domain name hijacking (“RDNH”) is defined as bad faith use of ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution (“UDRP”) policies and procedures with an intent to coerce a domain name owner to transfer the domain name.

Think they will be able to come back to the table after this debacle and still buy the domain for the $6k asking price? If that were my domain, I know the answer ... No Soup For You Today!!

 

[Peter45]

This unethical action on the part of the broker has already cost the seller at least $5K in legal fees.

I don't understand, are those J. Berryhill's minimum fees?

(If that's an inappropriate question, no need to answer.)

 

[DNabc]

I lost close to 6-figures in deals on which Godaddy brokers, at the old Uniregistry platform, messed up badly.
On one he sent an invoice with the wrong value (ignoring my messages) just to retract after seeing the mistake (buyer was furious and never replied again), many leads were ignored / no follow up, on some I never even got an email saying I had high value lead (it was being "investigated", but I never received an explanation).

 

[jberryhill]

they could be fabricating stories about talking to you, quoting you as having said things, and creating legal evidence to be used against you later. Meanwhile, you know nothing about any of it.

That's absolutely correct.

I'm going to slog through this in detail, because I think it is important for the domain community to know what damage someone like John Campanaro of GoDaddy brokerage can do.

I'm going to put my commentary in a different color, so you can clearly see the emails in the chain.

Campanaro first approached the registrant with a $400 offer in September 2022:

--------

-----------

-----------

So far, so good, the $400 was not worth considering. Next, in early October 2022:

---------

----------------

Campanaro then lies to the buyer about the offer made to the GoDaddy registrant customer:

-------

Some time passes, with non-substantive reminders, until:

--------

----------

At this point, the domain registrant does mention the "five figure range". Campanaro goes back to the buyer and suggests $10,000, consistent with the low end of "five figure range":

--------------

The October 2022 round ends at this point.

Several months later, in early March, the buyer is interested again:

And, since GoDaddy's Brokerage CRM system is designed to make the brokers look unprofessional, Campanaro again contacts the GoDaddy customer as if he has suffered from a bout of amnesia with an offer of $3000:

-------------------

The offer is increased to $5000:

------------

The domain registrant counters at $7500

-------

Here is where it gets pretty interesting. Campanaro goes back to the buyer and lies about where the negotiation has been. By the way, in Arizona, one hour is ten minutes:

--------

The complainant responds with a full-throated legal threat. In point of fact, GoDaddy's customer has had the domain name since 2006. GoDaddy knows this. The trademark claimant was formed in April 2022, and filed their still-unexamined registration application in September 2022, just after starting the domain negotiations:

----------

Now, all of you who are interested in broker ethics, notice that the buyer said, "Would you please inform the domain holder" about their frivolous legal claim.

What did Campanaro do with this specific instruction from his "client"?

Well....

---------------

So, Campanaro knew they were making repeated legal threats. Campanaro was specifically asked by the buyer to inform the registrant of the legal threats. Campanaro did not convey that information, and he did not tell the buyer that he did not convey that information.

Also, Campanaro lied about the opening offer of $25,000 to the buyer.

The buyer did not know Campanaro was lying. The buyer did not know Campanaro failed to inform the buyer of the legal claim as requested.

So, what do you suppose the buyer claimed in their UDRP complaint?

And THAT is what GoDaddy Brokerage will do to you.

 

[branding]

I don't understand, are those J. Berryhill's minimum fees?

(If that's an inappropriate question, no need to answer.)

Not sure what he charges. He's the best at what he does and (unlike some lawyers) I 100% trust him.

5K seems reasonable defending a decent name. Not sure how it works in the US but I have legal insurance covering matters like this.

 

[bmugford]

That's absolutely correct.

I'm going to slog through this in detail, because I think it is important for the domain community to know what damage a liar like John Campanaro of GoDaddy brokerage can do.

I'm going to put my commentary in a different color, so you can clearly see the emails in the chain.

Campanaro first approached the registrant with a $400 offer in September 2022:

--------
Show attachment 237842
-----------

Show attachment 237843
-----------

So far, so good, the $400 was not worth considering. Next, in early October 2022:

---------
Show attachment 237844
----------------

Campanaro then lies to the buyer about the offer made to the GoDaddy registrant customer:

Show attachment 237846

-------

Some time passes, with non-substantive reminders, until:

--------

Show attachment 237845
----------

At this point, the domain registrant does mention the "five figure range". Campanaro goes back to the buyer and suggests $10,000, consistent with the low end of "five figure range":

Show attachment 237847


--------------

The October 2022 round ends at this point.

Several months later, in early March, the buyer is interested again:

Show attachment 237848

And, since GoDaddy's Brokerage CRM system is apparently made of crap designed to make the brokers look unprofessional, Campanaro again contacts the GoDaddy customer as if he has suffered from a bout of amnesia with an offer of $3000:

Show attachment 237849

-------------------

The offer is increased to $5000:


Show attachment 237850

------------

The domain registrant counters at $7500

Show attachment 237851

-------

Here is where it gets pretty interesting. Campanaro goes back to the buyer and lies about where the negotiation has been. By the way, in Arizona, one hour is ten minutes:

Show attachment 237852
--------

The complainant responds with a full-throated legal threat. In point of fact, GoDaddy's customer has had the domain name since 2006. GoDaddy knows this. The trademark claimant was formed in April 2022, and filed their still-unexamined registration application in September 2022, just after starting the domain negotiations:

Show attachment 237853
----------

Now, all of you who are interested in broker ethics, notice that the buyer said, "Would you please inform the domain holder" about their frivolous legal claim.

What did Campanaro do with this specific instruction from his "client"?

Well....
Show attachment 237856


---------------

So, Campanaro knew they were making repeated legal threats. Campanaro was specifically asked by the buyer to inform the registrant of the legal threats. Campanaro did not convey that information, and he did not tell the buyer that he did not convey that information.

Also, Campanaro lied about the opening offer of $25,000 to the buyer.

The buyer did not know Campanaro was lying. The buyer did not know Campanaro failed to inform the buyer of the legal claim as requested.

So, what do you suppose they buyer claimed in their UDRP complaint?

Show attachment 237857


And THAT is what GoDaddy Brokerage will do to you.

Thanks for taking the time to put this together.

I think the broker acted unprofessionally, to say the least.

Many things were said that were misleading or simply untrue.

The fact that the broker's false statement was used in the UDRP filing is really icing on the cake.

Brad

 

[Samer]

Not sure what he charges. He's the best at what he does and (unlike some lawyers) I 100% trust him.

5K seems reasonable defending a decent name. Not sure how it works in the US but I have legal insurance covering matters like this.

@jberryhill’s best at what he does and I 100% trust him.
I just can’t afford him, if i God forbid, ever need him.

Remember my name, @jberryhill!

Samer

 

[tonyk2000]

Hope John will win this one. As far as I remember, there were UDRP cases where the Compainant(s) made offers (above so-called "out of pocket" costs) before starting UDRP, and this fact was successfully used against Complainant(s), as they did not sincerely beleive that their mark was infridged or something...

 

[J.R.]

I don't understand, are those J. Berryhill's minimum fees?

(If that's an inappropriate question, no need to answer.)

Mr. Berryhill is one of the top in his field.

He doesn't need to disclose his fee publicly.

Many of his peers charge between $3K-$5K for a UDRP defense, depending on the facts of the case.
Could be closer to $10K for a complainant.

UDRP defenses are expensive; which is why registrants hike the purchase price immediately after a successful defense.

Which is another reason the GoDaddy Broker has created a mess.
The complainant paid up to $10K to attempt a hijacking but was unwilling to pay $7,500 asking price.

Yet, complainant will lose UDRP, be (-$10K) in the hole and still no closer to owning the domain in question.
Dumb unethical broker, and naïve complainant - costly for all parties involved.

 

[bmugford]

Hope John will win this one. As far as I remember, there were UDRP cases where the Compainant(s) made offers (above so-called "out of pocket" costs) before starting UDRP, and this fact was successfully used against Complainant(s), as they did not sincerely beleive that their mark was infridged or something...

This seems like the classic "Plan B" filing.

They make no initial mention of a TM. Only after the other party does not agree to a price, then do they bring up the TM threat.

The funny thing is even the potential buyer admitted their offer "was well in excess of any out of pocket costs".

It is apparently only a TM issue over $5K, some arbitrary number they have decided on.

That doesn't make much sense.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

Businesses: Do Not Abuse the UDRP as Your “Plan B” for Acquiring a Domain Name – With John Berryhill
​

If you think you can file a UDRP case to get control of a domain name after failing to negotiate the acquisition, think again.

The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) was put in place to streamline the process to resolve disputes between trademark holders and domain name registrants where the registration was clearly abusive, predatory and ill motivated.

Unless you can prove the three UDRP criteria, you may be labeled a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker by an international legal panel, face public documentation of the finding, and be exposed to potential legal action.

https://www.domainsherpa.com/john-berryhill-udrp-interview/

 

[Future Sensors]

Not only was this GoDaddy broker John Campanaro lying to both parties, he was also living in his own fantasy brokerage world, and was apparently so naive that he didn't realize that all his emails would be meticulously documented during the UDRP process.

 

[WingShot]

Brushing aside the failed fiduciary duty by the broker, according to the Complainant's logic, it's not ok for the Respondent to ask $7,500 - $25,000 for this domain because it exceeds out of pocket costs.

However, it is ok for the Respondent to accept $5,000 because it exceeds out of pocket costs. Thus, this argument really isn't about out of pocket costs. Paragraphs 38-40 are about accepting a valuation the Complainant agrees with rather than bad faith.

So, what do you suppose the buyer claimed in their UDRP complaint?

Show attachment 237857

 

[karmaco]

I never could understand involving a broker in anything that isn’t a high figure situation. You can’t trust them and they are NOT working on your behalf. This is one scenario. Imagine all the others we don’t know about.

The minimum that can be gleaned from this story is brokers at GoDaddy can and do lie. Handle your own leads.

 

[jberryhill]

This seems like the classic "Plan B" filing.

It's a bad one. The registrant acquired the domain name in 2006 and the complainant didn't exist until 2022, so the overwhelming majority of UDRP panelists would decide there was no bad faith. At a minimum.

What is irritating is that it didn't need to happen in the first place.

Had the domain registrant been made aware of the TM threat, it would have been a lot simpler to explain to the buyer why that dog wouldn't hunt. The person corresponding as the buyer was an IT guy, who obviously knew nothing about trademarks, and he could have at least been prompted to go find a clue, or provided with enough uncertainty that paying another $1500 would have been a lot easier for them.

Brushing aside the failed fiduciary duty by the broker, according to the Complainant's logic, it's not ok for the Respondent to ask $7,500 - $25,000 for this domain because it exceeds out of pocket costs.

However, it is ok for the Respondent to accept $5,000 because it exceeds out of pocket costs. Thus, this argument really isn't about out of pocket costs. Paragraphs 38-40 are about accepting a valuation the Complainant agrees with rather than bad faith.

Yes, that is the classic Plan B UDRP complaint in a nutshell. There are a gajillion cases on it:

CAMPER, S.L. v. Detlev Kasten
Case No. D2005-0056 <camper.com>
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-0056.html

The matter can be approached another way. What would the Complainant have done if the Respondent had accepted the Complainant’s offer of €3,000 for the Domain Name? Would the Complainant have sought to use the Respondent’s acceptance as an indication of bad faith registration and use? If €3,000 was a proper offer to make to the Respondent, why was €45,000 not a proper riposte from the Respondent? Where would it have been appropriate to draw the line?

In the Panel’s view, there is no sensible line that can be drawn. In the circumstances of this case, the mere pricing of the Domain Name at a very high level cannot in itself indicate bad faith at the time of registration.

The idiots that file these things act as if what they offered is "the good faith price", whereas any counteroffer is the "bad faith price", and the UDRP panel is supposed to be a price arbitration board.

The UDRP case is more of an unfortunate nuisance here than a real threat, but it did not have to go this way, and would not have gone this way if GoDaddy didn't drive their own customers - both sides here - over a cliff.

 

[CDM]

Wow, thank you for sharing John. This is very eye opening, extremely appreciated, and very beneficial for us domainers to have some transparency into such a negotiation. The amount and level of fabrications spun up by the broker is shocking to say the least.

I noted in Campanaro's email sig his title of "Senior" domain broker and it's not reassuring of GoDaddy that there was insufficient oversight, checks, or lack of training to allow him to advance to a Senior level in the company with such a blatant lack of ethics, as one can only assume this wasn't the first time for such fabrications, but rather that they finally caught up to him.

On that note, if he has a conscience at all which I hope he does, I'm sure this is coming as a heavy life lesson and I hope he is able to humble himself and take the tough medicine of facing the repercussions of his actions on others as well as himself, and take it as an opportunity to rectify whatever it is in his life that lead him to feel the need to engage in such deceit.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive

 

[Future Sensors]

On that note, if he has a conscience at all which I hope he does, I'm sure this is coming as a heavy life lesson and I hope he is able to humble himself and take the tough medicine of facing the repercussions of his actions on others as well as himself, and take it as an opportunity to rectify whatever it is in his life that lead him to feel the need to engage in such deceit.

Perhaps the hardest lesson for him is that he now takes center stage in this UDRP. It's like being on the front page of the newspaper.

 

[jberryhill]

I think the broker acted unprofessionally, to say the least.

Another thing worth considering here is that GoDaddy is the registrar for the domain name. When the buyer started claiming it was an abusive registration, then it should have been converted to an abuse complaint. At least in THAT situation, GoDaddy would have told the registrant that they'd received one.

 

[biggie]

This industry definitely needs a serious competitor to root out godaddy's tyranny and monopoly!

Hi

the problem with that is:

some of those that start competing, end up selling out to godaddy.

like unireg, dan, smartname and even dn academy.

imo....