Passanger posted in my Comment "Hes a creep"

[ajkroy]

How is this any different than seller reviews online? Except for the fact that you aren't getting into the seller's car alone?

 

[HighwayMan]

Why do you think you can sue Lyft for a comment a passenger made about you?

 

[quincy]

Why do you think you can sue Lyft for a comment a passenger made about you?

Any legal action considered would have to be against the passenger who wrote the negative review. Lyft is not responsible for passenger comments.

ajkroy, there is no difference between the passenger's negative review of the driver and any other negative review that you might run across online - except for the poor choice of words used to describe the driver.

 

[HighwayMan]

Any legal action considered would have to be against the passenger who wrote the negative review. Lyft is not responsible for passenger comments.

The OP seems to think otherwise and I was curious as to what makes him think that.

 

[quincy]

The OP seems to think otherwise and I was curious as to what makes him think that.

It could be because many people believe that websites are responsible for all content that appears on their sites.

Hosting content is not creating content, however, and unless a web host helps create (legally questionable) content or encourages its creation, the web host can find protection (immunity) from suit under the Communications Decency Act's section 230.

It will be the creator of the content who can be held legally liable for the words that are written should the words that are written spawn a lawsuit.

 

[cbg]

And once again I point out that if the writer of the comment has a valid reason for her belief, she is entitled to state that opinion and even attempt to convince others to her point of view in a free marketplace. The OP would have the burden of proof to show that the statement was false.

 

[quincy]

Not really.

It will be the writer of the words who will have to defend what is written, IF the review leads to a defamation lawsuit and the court determines the words can have a defamatory meaning.

Both opinion and truth are defenses the writer could potentially use. Possibly others.

A lot can depend on how the community where the driver lives (or the jury) defines the word in context of the review.

As a note: I can believe someone is a pedophile and state that but, without expressing my "valid reason" for holding that belief and without having proof of its truth, I can be sued for defamation and lose the suit. "Beliefs" only take you so far.

Lyft is not responsible for the words written by a passenger, whatever the case.

 

[cbg]

That's not how I read the law. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree this time, Q.

(I agree absolutely that Lyft has no responsibility here - I'm talking about who has the burden of proof and whether her opinion is actionable in the first place. At least in this situation.)

 

[quincy]

It is too bad you disagree. We have discussed "opinion" often on this site and what using that defense requires.

The plaintiff asserts that a statement defamed him. The court decides if the statement is defamatory per se (defamatory on its face) or if it could have a defamatory meaning.

Once it is established that the words can be either defamatory per se or capable of a defamatory meaning, it is on the defendant to defend the words that were written.

It is up to the jury to decide if the statement was understood in its defamatory sense by those to whom the statement was published or if the defendant's defense (opinion, truth, whatever) successfully defeats the claim.

To determine if a statement is pure opinion (one which does not state or imply fact) what is analyzed is the common usage or meaning of the words, whether the words are capable of proof or disproof based on this common usage, and the linguistic context and the social context of the words that are published.

How the word "creep" is understood by those who read a review labeling a driver as a creep, with nothing to support this "belief" that the driver is a creep, the takeaway by readers becomes important.

There are definitely defenses available to the passenger, and California has a strong anti-SLAPP statute that could get a defamation claim dismissed quickly if the suit is judged meritless.

But, again, "opinion" is not a fail-safe defense. Someone can be defamed by opinions that state or imply false fact.

 

[cbg]

Have we established that the reviewer did not provide support for her opinion?

 

[quincy]

No. And that could/would make a difference.

 

[mozart57]

I use Lyft; used one late last Monday night to get home from the airport. As a woman alone, I read the comments and I would have rejected a driver who had that description. I also would have silently thanked the women who wrote them.

You and her do not even know me how, I just drive. So you a judgement call based on her "opinion", that's not fair. You should conduct your own opinion on me not based on someone else. Thanks for the comment.

 

[mozart57]

Why do you think you can sue Lyft for a comment a passenger made about you?

Answer:
Answer: Because they do not control the comments, and making sure they are not frivolous comments. The hurting the drivers and they are involved in helping in defaming the driver's character. Why would they hire a driver that is a creep? or keeping them driving? They do not read the comments and or reply to drivers. They only send a weekly report about my performance. They do not send explanations why and what not. Meaning anyone can say anything and whatever they feel like what is true or false. We need to stop that nonsense, and that's why I feel Law Suit will prevent from posting frivolous comments by customers without the base. Or the Lyft or Uber would care more about the driver's not just believing that "the customer is always right".
def·a·ma·tion
ˌdefəˈmāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: defamation; plural noun: defamations

the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel.
"she sued him for defamation"
synonyms: libel, slander, calumny, character assassination, vilification; scandalmongering, malicious gossip, aspersions, muckraking, abuse;
disparagement, denigration;
smear, slur;
informalmudslinging, smack talk
"he sued the newspaper for defamation"

 

[Just Blue]

Answer: Answer: Because they do not control the comments, and making sure they are not frivolous comments. The hurting the drivers and they are involved in helping in defaming the driver's character. Why would they hire a driver that is a creep? or keeping them driving? They do not read the comments and or reply to drivers. They only send a weekly report about my performance. They do not send explanations why and what not. Meaning anyone can say anything and whatever they feel like what is true or false. We need to stop that nonsense, and that's why I feel Law Suit will prevent from posting frivolous comments by customers without the base. Or the Lyft or Uber would care more about the driver's not just believing that "the customer is always right".

But...that's not the way it works. Perhaps a different job would be a good change for you.

 

[mozart57]

But...that's not the way it works. Perhaps a different job would be a good change for you.

No wee need to teach people that abuse is not allowed in this job or any other job.