Defamation per se for online feedback comment?

[draco]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Minnesota

The other person is in California.

I sold some computer software to an attorney in California. The stated return policy on the website (third party website that lets you sell on there, not eBay) is 30 days from delivery and no refunds for opened software unless defective. A couple weeks after the 30 days, he contacts me claiming the software is defective. He said the software installed, but wouldn't run. I suggested he take it to an Apple store (it was Apple software) and see if they could get it to work. They offer free support. He said he did, and that he took it to 3 other experts, and none of them could get it to work. I asked him what they said was wrong with the software. He said they didn't say anything was wrong with the software. I told him since it was beyond the return period and 4 experts, including the manufacturer, failed to find the software at fault, I'm declining the return.

He became abusive and threatened a chargeback. I then offered to accept the return, stating I'd test the software and issue him a refund if it was defective. Otherwise, I'd return it to him along with proof that it was successfully installed on a computer (and removed). He never responded to my offer. He left me negative feedback stating I refused the return for a defective item. He also claimed the software had been used. This was the first time he ever mentioned it being used. It wasn't used and it would have been obvious if it was (the serial number would have immediately showed as used).

I wrote him again stating if Apple told me the serial number had been used before he received the software, I'd issue a refund. He hasn't responded to that offer either.

Since I have emails documenting everything he said is false and this deals with my business, would this fall under defamation per se? Would it even be worth it being in two different states?

Thank you in advance.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Minnesota
Would it even be worth it being in two different states?

It is highly unlikely that it would be worth the high costs to pursue any legal action against the buyer in California for leaving a negative feedback of the sort you describe. If it is possible to respond to the negative feedback on the website, however, you could do that - outlining your efforts to satisfy the buyer as you have outlined them here.

You could review the matter with an attorney in your area if you feel you have or your business has suffered severe enough reputational injury to warrant a lawsuit. But, from what you have posted here, I don't see that you have an action worth pursuing.

Good luck, draco.

 

[draco]

It is highly unlikely that it would be worth the high costs to pursue any legal action against the buyer in California for leaving a negative feedback of the sort you describe. If it is possible to respond to the negative feedback on the website, however, you could do that - outlining your efforts to satisfy the buyer as you have outlined them here.

You could review the matter with an attorney in your area if you feel you have or your business has suffered severe enough reputational injury to warrant a lawsuit. But, from what you have posted here, I don't see that you have an action worth pursuing.

Good luck, draco.

Thanks for the advice. I already left a response on the website. I'll probably talk to an attorney. I thought defamation per se didn't require you to prove actual damages though?

May have to ask this in a different forum section, but would you or anyone here happen to know if an attorney intentionally making a libelous statement is something the bar association deals with? Not expecting money from them, but it would be nice to show him he can't get away with something like this.

 

[quincy]

What a defamation per se statement would allow you to do is proceed with a suit without evidence of reputational injury (the injury is presumed), however, without demonstrable injury to help support the suit, the damages awarded tend to be nominal (and that is assuming the judge sees the comments as per se defamation and that is assuming you win your suit).

I'd have to review both Minnesota and California laws to tell you more, but I am not seeing from what you have posted that there is an action here worth the costs you would incur to pursue one. I could be wrong, so a personal review of all facts by an attorney in your area is smart.

As to an attorney telling a lie, attorneys can lie just like real people . If an attorney tells a defamatory lie, the attorney can be sued. The Bar Association will probably not be interested in any lies told by an attorney outside the attorney's practice of law, but if you want to file a complaint, go ahead. I doubt anything will come from it, especially if there hasn't been a defamation lawsuit decided in your favor to support your complaint.

If you are upset with the attorney/buyer over the negative feedback, your legal recourse will be to file a defamation suit against him, and a defamation suit can make sense if the words are, in fact, defamatory, and the reputational injury you have suffered as a result of the posting of the single negative feedback is severe enough to affect you and your business. If there is a decline in your sales, that can be an indication of reputational injury and that the negative comments have affected your business. You will need to be able to show a direct link between the negative comments and the loss of sales.

But, generally, negative feedbacks do not result in harm enough to warrant a suit, especially if you have the opportunity to set the record straight with a response.

Good luck.


Edit to add:
Since you are in Minnesota, you may have heard of the "Rate Your Doctor" defamation lawsuit filed by a Duluth neurologist against the son of a former patient over what the doctor claimed was a defamatory review. The suit was filed in 2010, appealed, and the Minnesota Supreme Court just issued their Opinion. The Court found that the comments made about the doctor were not defamatory. For more information, you can read the story in today's Duluth News Tribune (http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/257252).

And you can check out Grace v Neeley, a California negative feedback suit that resulted in the negative review being removed and the suit being dismissed (http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/grace-v-neeley#description).

Although suits over negative reviews are increasingly common, these are not easy legal actions to win, especially if there is no evidence of injury to support an award of damages.