Be Careful in Your Online Reviews

[You Are Guilty]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? VA for now, but probably spreading to the other states soon...

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/01/07/276143.htm

Executive Summary: Consumers Posting Negative Reviews Could Face Legal Issues
"The Virginia dispute started when homeowner Jane Perez posted negative comments about Washington, D.C.-area contractor Christopher Dietz to Yelp and Angie’s List in the fall of 2012. Perez’s comments accused the contractor of stealing her jewelry and charging her for work that was never done, according to a lawsuit filed by Dietz accusing Perez of defamation."

Turning into quite the exciting dispute. Certainly not going to apply to everyone who posts a review, but some important lessons to be learned here.

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? VA for now, but probably spreading to the other states soon...

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/01/07/276143.htm

Executive Summary: Consumers Posting Negative Reviews Could Face Legal Issues
"The Virginia dispute started when homeowner Jane Perez posted negative comments about Washington, D.C.-area contractor Christopher Dietz to Yelp and Angie’s List in the fall of 2012. Perez’s comments accused the contractor of stealing her jewelry and charging her for work that was never done, according to a lawsuit filed by Dietz accusing Perez of defamation."

Turning into quite the exciting dispute. Certainly not going to apply to everyone who posts a review, but some important lessons to be learned here.

Giving one's opinion is much different than accusations of criminal activity.

(I have not read the article)

 

[You Are Guilty]

No argument there, and that's admittedly not exactly breaking news (to most people). This case is more interesting from a procedural aspect (see, http://www.citizen.org/documents/PetitionforReview2.pdf if you really care).

Its more an opportunity to show people here that yes, you absolutely can be sued for defamation for things you put on the internet. (Why that seems to be such a alien concept, I'll never know).


[edit]
And on further thought, here is a link to the rest of the case docs - someone besides me might find them amusing.
http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/getlinkforcase.cfm?cID=794

 

[FlyingRon]

So, what else is new?

This isn't the first time someone has been sued over something they put on the internet. It won't be the last. The problem is prevailing. It's hard enough in just random statements, when coupled with something like Angie's List, it is even harder. You have to show that the reviewer made an INTENTIONALLY FALSE statement with malice to cause damage to the reviewee. Further, opinions aren't actionable either.

I've twice been "threatened" with lawsuits over things I've said. Threatening is a whole lot different than filing a lawsuit and that is a whole lot different from prevailing in one.

If I say Joe's Roofing did a terrible job and my roof leaks a month after they finished it and they won't come back, that is not really actionable. "Terrible job" is my opinion and "roof leaks" (if true) is just a statement of fact.

 

[You Are Guilty]

I'm too lazy to look for it, but there was a post here in the recent past on this issue which is what triggered this.

 

[quincy]

From the Insurance Journal link you provided, Public Citizen attorney Paul Alan Levy was quoted as saying that "The decision confirms the importance of not shutting down public discussion on the Internet just because someone doesn't like what's being talked about," and I generally agree with that statement (assuming the discussion content doesn't violate a law). That said, having recently been involved in a online debate about the law with an idiot, I am now re-thinking this whole concept of free speech.

There was a thread started by blueturnaround not too long ago that you may remember, YAG, although I am not sure this is the one you were thinking of. blueturnaround was the fellow who thought he was overbilled by his attorney so he sued his attorney for the return of a nonrefundable retainer and then posted negative (defamatory) reviews about the attorney on YELP and a couple of other review sites. The attorney sued him for defamation. If you remember the details and want to check out the lawsuit, the court documents make for an interesting read (perhaps not to blueturnaround, though ).

There is a good site for anyone wanting to learn about the legal risks of posting online BEFORE posting online - see http://www.kcnn.org and search out the "Legal Risks" module.