About Us:

We apologize but in order to stay neutral we do not accept advertisers.
This site provides a gathering of information obtained from areas that are available to the general public. We also display information provided in a feedback form from consumer experience, investigations and reports on lighting dealers nationwide via public web forums and our feedback forms.
This site was created as a consumer awareness site, specifically related to lighting for many reasons. One of which is that lighting is part of everyone's life. People don't realize it or even think about it but Lighting is everywhere. For example, last year over 650 million bulbs were sold! That's just bulbs. What this means is that we must be careful of, for health, safety and financial reasons, who and where we buy our lights from. This is where this site can be helpful. Rather than you taking the time to research each lighting dealer, we have gathered the information for you and will continue to expand on it. THIS ALLOWS YOU TO MAKE A MORE EDUCATED DECISION ON WHO TO BUY YOUR LIGHTING FIXTURES FROM. We can only do this with your help by your continued feedback and reports on your experience.

This site is complied from information gathered from the public, public web forums, contractors, architects and other professionals. Reporters target Lighting dealers that aggressively advertise on the Internet, A.K.A. "High Profile" Lighting Dealers. We are not responsible for its accuracy and content. Please report any errors here.
Additionally, we want to note that this is purely for information purposes and in no way is our intent to dissuade you from buying from dealers listed here with negative reports or to lead you to purchase from any certain dealers. This is a gathering of information from various public sources and feedback. The information gathered into this one site from public forums is strictly to help inform the consumer on information that any consumer can gather on their own, yet this site has gathered what it can find in public forums for the consumer, thus hopefully making it easier and faster to make a decision on who to buy lighting from.
However, we highly suggest you confirm many things on your own for your own peace of mind before you buy from any lighting dealer!
For example, if you see that there is a dealer noted here with an "F" rating from the BBB, then simply go to the BBB website and check that dealer out for yourself. After doing this, you should also visit ripoffreport.com and in their search field, put in the name of the lighting dealer you want to buy from and you will see if others have had bad experiences before you buy. Not responsible for any ommisions, mistakes, typos, errors, etc.

The CDA provides that when a user writes and posts material on a website such as ours, the site itself cannot, in most cases, be held legally responsible for the posted material. Specifically, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) states, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Because the reports/feedback here are authored by users of the site, we cannot be legally regarded as the "publisher or speaker" of the reports contained here, and hence we are not liable for reports even if they contain false or inaccurate information.
Why...Simple: Websites cannot police the accuracy of the massive volume of information which their users may post. If a disgruntled person(s) were permitted to hold a website liable for information that the site did not create, this would stifle free speech as fewer and fewer sites would be willing to permit users to post anything at all. See generally Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing, "Making interactive computer services and their users liable for the speech of third parties would severely restrict the information available on the Internet. Section 230 [of the CDA] therefore sought to prevent lawsuits from shutting down websites and other services on the Internet.")
Each lower federal district court and federal appellate court that has construed the CDA has held that websites like ours are immune from virtually every type of civil liability should the site has been sued based on information posted by a third party. See Doe v. America Online, Inc., 783 So.2d 1010 (Fl. 2001); Green v. America Online, 318 F.3d 465, 470 (3rd Cir. 2003) (noting that the CDA, "‘precludes courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher's role,' and therefore bars ‘lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions - such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone, or alter content.'"); Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003); Schneider v. Amazon.com, Inc., 31 P.3d 37 (Wash.App. 2001); Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2003); Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997); Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D. D.C. 1998).
Main article: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was not part of the original Senate legislation, but was added in conference with the House, where it had been separately introduced by Representatives Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) as the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act and passed by a near-unanimous vote on the floor. It added protection for online service providers and users from action against them for the actions of others, stating in part that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". Effectively, this section immunizes ISPs and other service providers from torts committed by users over their systems, unless the provider fails to take action after actual notice or is itself involved in the process of creation or development of the content[1]. As a result of the Seigenthaler incident, and other incidents where individuals have been allegedly libeled by anonymous or judgment-proof parties, this section of the Act has come under fire, with numerous calls for revisions to the Act to restore service provider liability in some cases.[citation needed]

Through the Good Samaritan provision, this section also protects ISPs from liability for restricting access to certain material or giving others the technical means to restrict access to that material.
See also::* OCILLA portion of the DMCA, which contingently protects online service providers from liability for copyright infringement