Duty of the Court with respect to Lawsuits over Product Reviews

Article: Woman sued for defamation after leaving bad Yelp review:

There's no difference in threshold requirements for defamation between Journalism and a private consumer.

Here's an example (example ONLY, people!) of two statements, one of which might past legal muster as defamation and one of which is not defamation at all, but merely opinion:

Defamation: The gentleman on the right (Dan) who says "there is, intentionally, a high threshold for journalists, for we in the media. On Yelp!, I don't know if you have exactly the same protections," is an idiot who knows nothing about the law.

Opinion (not defamation): The gentleman on the right (Dan) who says "there is, intentionally, a high threshold for journalists, for we in the media. On Yelp!, I don't know if you have exactly the same protections," doesn't appear to be as well-versed in the law as he may believe himself to be.

Both statements say the same thing... ALMOST. Both statements question the validity of Dan's statement. The difference is that the first statement personally attacks Dan himself, while the second statement merely questions whether or not Dan is correct. The first statement meets defamation requirements, whereas the second statement is an opinion.

Similarly, if a Yelp! review states OPINION i.e. that the product is poorly-made, or the service was deplorable, that's someone's OPINION, and people in the United States of America are protected under state, federal,and ultimately Constitutional laws with respect to freedom of speech, including offering negative product and service reviews on Yelp!

Dan is right in that "as long as they're deserved" and key: "as long as you're not just making things up, there's not a case for anyone to come after you."

What I didn't hear any of them ask is, "How could a judge possibly allow for such a ridiculously frivolous lawsuit in the first place?" It's the court's JOB to protect the people, including from frivolous lawsuits. The average American does NOT have the funds to mount a legal defense every time some thin-skinned Yelp! business gets flamed because of bad products or services. It is the DUTY of the court to review the customer's statement and determine if there are any grounds for the business' claim of defamation. When a court tosses every such claim into the legal system, they are in DERELICTION of duty and have HARMED the citizen.

At that point in time, the court opens themselves and/or the municipality up to lawsuit for having harmed the citizen by allowing frivolous claims to proceed and draining the citizens' funds.

This is why I like Dan's suggestion about the woman "counter-suing the guy for putting her through this whole mess." No one who leaves a product review, deserved or not, should EVER be drug through the legal muck and mire designed to separate honest, hard-working people from their money.

For that matter, she should also sue the judge who allowed the frivolous lawsuit to proceed, or at least the municipality that appointed or elected the judge. No municipality should EVER tolerate judges who're incapable of accurately applying the law. Reviews are OPINIONS. Positive or negative, they are, by nature, about the product or service.

Do you agree or disagree? If so, why or why not?

"NEW YORK (WCBS/CNN) - Have a bad experience with a business? You may post a bad review online."

"Millions of people do it but one New York woman is facing a $1 million lawsuit over her reviews."

"Experts advise keeping online comments specific and warn against making broad generalizations."

"Despite the headache her reviews have caused, Levine said she doesn't regret writing them and plans to continue fighting the case."

http://www.nbc12.com/story/38305415/woman-sued-for-1-million-over-bad-yelp-review

Grapeshot said:

"NEW YORK (WCBS/CNN) - Have a bad experience with a business? You may post a bad review online."

"Millions of people do it but one New York woman is facing a $1 million lawsuit over her reviews."

Click to expand...

Businesses who sue their customers over a bad review when they have the usual spread of other reviews are proving themselves incapable of proper customer support, no matter how scathing or inaccurate the review.

Indeed, it was one of my papers in my management science masters, investigating gross sales before and after a business sued a customer for a bad review. I used quarterly sales, adjusted for inflation into constant dollars, as well as seasonal variations, and compared natural log slopes of gross sales for one, two, and three years prior as well as the same number of years afterward.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that suing a customer for a bad review is just about the dumbest thing a company can do. Even in the rare event they win the lawsuit, they lose more in disappearing sales.

Good link. Thanks.

Judges are in the business of protecting their business.

The court should have tossed the lawsuit.

Since9 - how do you tell those two lines apart? They are exactly the same !

"there is, intentionally, a high threshold for journalists, for we in the media. On Yelp!, I don't know if you have exactly the same protections,"
"there is, intentionally, a high threshold for journalists, for we in the media. On Yelp!, I don't know if you have exactly the same protections,"

Click to expand...

CJ4wd said:

Since9 - how do you tell those two lines apart? They are exactly the same !

Click to expand...

The part to pay attention to are the phrases following the statements. The speaker is not Dan; he is the person being referred to as 1) "an idiot who knows nothing about the law." and 2) " doesn't appear to be as well-versed in the law as he may believe himself to be."

The rest of the post explains this.

CJ4wd said:

Since9 - how do you tell those two lines apart? They are exactly the same !

Click to expand...

The quotes are the same. The context is not. You took the quotes out of context. Try reading it in its entirety, thereby preserving the context:

since9 said:

There's no difference in threshold requirements for defamation between Journalism and a private consumer.

Here's an example (example ONLY, people!) of two statements, one of which might past legal muster as defamation and one of which is not defamation at all, but merely opinion:

Defamation: The gentleman on the right (Dan) who says "there is, intentionally, a high threshold for journalists, for we in the media. On Yelp!, I don't know if you have exactly the same protections," is an idiot who knows nothing about the law.

Opinion (not defamation): The gentleman on the right (Dan) who says "there is, intentionally, a high threshold for journalists, for we in the media. On Yelp!, I don't know if you have exactly the same protections," doesn't appear to be as well-versed in the law as he may believe himself to be.

Both statements say the same thing... ALMOST. Both statements question the validity of Dan's statement. The difference is that the first statement personally attacks Dan himself, while the second statement merely questions whether or not Dan is correct. The first statement meets defamation requirements, whereas the second statement is an opinion.

Click to expand...

So what was the woman's exact wording in her review? It's not in the OP, and even clicking the link just takes me to a page that's taking way too long to load.

A manufacturer of M14 parts and rifles sued a member of a forum for things he said publicly. They lost a LOT of customers over that one.

A dental office I went to ONCE (and never returned) had a "I will not leave a bad review on social media" contract as part of the paperwork. If I did reviews, I had already formulated what I would say; something along the lines of: "My mother told me if I couldn't say something nice, to not say anything at all."

MAC702 said:

A dental office I went to ONCE (and never returned) had a "I will not leave a bad review on social media" contract as part of the paperwork.

Click to expand...

I've been known to line out such clauses and initial them before pointing it out and asking for a copy. If they follow through with providing the service, then that's legal fulfillment of the modified contract. If they refuse, then I thank then, walk away, modified contract in hand, and find another provider.

One such business attempted to charge me for the office visit. I pointed out in a polite letter that they failed to notify me of their draconian contract prior to the appointment, and when I did learn about it, indicating my dissent, and proposing an alternative (the deleted clause) and they balked, it was they who refused the terms of the contract.

They capitulated.

If I did reviews, I had already formulated what I would say; something along the lines of: "My mother told me if I couldn't say something nice, to not say anything at all."

Click to expand...

While that's a wonderful sentiment while in polite company, the realities of today's modern world afford everyone the benefit of a plethora of product and service reviews. Honest and non-paranoid businesses welcome the opportunity to shine.