Idiot leaves libellous review for law firm & gets sued.
Discussion
Seesure said:
ChocolateFrog said:
SmoothCriminal said:
Sarah's review has been flagged what was the jist of it.
What was the jist?(named person), tried it on with me. touched me up inappropriately. I felt disgusted and used. He tried to excuse his behaviour and said it was in his religion and culture.
Totally unprofessional and I had reported his behaviour.
Do not trust this Solicitors!"
Looks like a troll is stirring it up ... not the wisest of things to do unless they think they can hide behind the internet and not be tracked...
Seesure said:
ChocolateFrog said:
SmoothCriminal said:
Sarah's review has been flagged what was the jist of it.
What was the jist?(named person), tried it on with me. touched me up inappropriately. I felt disgusted and used. He tried to excuse his behaviour and said it was in his religion and culture.
Totally unprofessional and I had reported his behaviour.
Do not trust this Solicitors!"
Looks like a troll is stirring it up ... not the wisest of things to do unless they think they can hide behind the internet and not be tracked...
Thanks for replying.
It's odd that the original review is still up, I'm trying to remember if Trustpilot is accommodating at removing reviews on request, I know at work we've had some removed when we determined that the person was never a customer, although if they were then we respond pointing out an errors in the review and clarify what we did to fix any issue. Possibly they message the reviewer to see if they want to object to the removal, perhaps they did and he did.
I think it'll be a lot harder to ID the people who've posted. You'll have to get TP to release the data, assuming it would even ID the person posting in the first place.
Plus they are in Denmark, so would that make it even harder?
Regardless, it's a bit lame for people to be posting one star reviews out of spite to a company who were libelled.
Plus they are in Denmark, so would that make it even harder?
Regardless, it's a bit lame for people to be posting one star reviews out of spite to a company who were libelled.
Gareth79 said:
It's odd that the original review is still up, I'm trying to remember if Trustpilot is accommodating at removing reviews on request, I know at work we've had some removed when we determined that the person was never a customer, although if they were then we respond pointing out an errors in the review and clarify what we did to fix any issue. Possibly they message the reviewer to see if they want to object to the removal, perhaps they did and he did.
Trustpilot generally won't remove a negative review without a real good reason. And why should they? Their entire platform is worthless if they'll just delete reviews that the business owner doesn't like. Similar to TripAdvisor... good luck getting a review removed from there. It took my friend 2 months to get a negative review of his restaurant removed and that only happened in the end because he could prove he was closed for refurbishment when the negative reviewer apparently ate there.If you leave a suitably vague but entirely fake negative review on Trip Advisor / Trust Pilot then front it out when queried, it will be staying live.
Algarve said:
Gareth79 said:
It's odd that the original review is still up, I'm trying to remember if Trustpilot is accommodating at removing reviews on request, I know at work we've had some removed when we determined that the person was never a customer, although if they were then we respond pointing out an errors in the review and clarify what we did to fix any issue. Possibly they message the reviewer to see if they want to object to the removal, perhaps they did and he did.
Trustpilot generally won't remove a negative review without a real good reason. And why should they? Their entire platform is worthless if they'll just delete reviews that the business owner doesn't like. Similar to TripAdvisor... good luck getting a review removed from there. It took my friend 2 months to get a negative review of his restaurant removed and that only happened in the end because he could prove he was closed for refurbishment when the negative reviewer apparently ate there.If you leave a suitably vague but entirely fake negative review on Trip Advisor / Trust Pilot then front it out when queried, it will be staying live.
It breaks down how many of the reviews have been reported and how many have been removed. This solicitors hasn't reported any reviews. Other companies are more active to get negative reviews removed, others flood them out with fake five star reviews.
I also like checking for the organic reviews compared to the invited reviews.
Many years ago a sign appeared outside a local farm which accused a local law firm of being fairly poor, lying, and physically assaulting their clients.
I can only assume there was truth in the allegations because the sign was there for several months, before the local planning authority took action under planning rules. However the landowner just mounted the sign on a trailer instead. It was there for years.
I can only assume there was truth in the allegations because the sign was there for several months, before the local planning authority took action under planning rules. However the landowner just mounted the sign on a trailer instead. It was there for years.
Jack ketch said:
The solicitors do appear to suffer from a degree of denial of fact; something often seen on this site. One of the complaints raised was that they do not have the various offices around the UK that they show they have. Their reply was, “You claim that we advertise that we have offices in various places but we don’t, is both misleading and untrue”. Their website states, “We have offices in London, Birmingham, Cambridge, Oxford (all by appointment only), Leicester and our administrative office is in Market Harborough, Leicestershire”.
Have I missed something obvious or are they really that poor at defending negative comments?
Rick
What? So poor that they win a libel claim about negative comments? You must have very high standards - what is your definition of being good at something?Have I missed something obvious or are they really that poor at defending negative comments?
Rick
PS: "I think I'll respond to a story about a firm successfully suing for being slagged off by slagging that firm off". Love it!
Seesure said:
Gareth79 said:
Interestingly the bad review is still live, and there's now a large number of bad reviews resulting from the news, including a pretty serious allegation!
Seems to be a lot of negative reviews as of today...!And the review from "Sarah" is pretty strong to say the least !!! I would imagine the named individual will be tamping !!
La Liga said:
I think it'll be a lot harder to ID the people who've posted. You'll have to get TP to release the data, assuming it would even ID the person posting in the first place.
Plus they are in Denmark, so would that make it even harder?
Regardless, it's a bit lame for people to be posting one star reviews out of spite to a company who were libelled.
If the host of a defamatory comment does not take the comment down when the defamation is pointed out, the host may cease to be a mere carrier and become a publisher and so be liable itself. The host can also be ordered by a court to disclose the info that it holds as to the ID of a person who has posted defamatory content. Plus they are in Denmark, so would that make it even harder?
Regardless, it's a bit lame for people to be posting one star reviews out of spite to a company who were libelled.
PH is very twitchy and in my view a bit over cautious on the subject of libel risks.
NickCQ said:
I wonder if this will lead Trustpilot to tighten up what people can use their platform to say. Are they involved in the case in any way?
See below -The High Court said:
By s.13(1)(a) Defamation Act 2013 where a court gives judgment for the claimant in an action for defamation the court may order the operator of a website on which the defamatory statement is posted to remove the statement. The defamatory review was and remains on the website uk.trustpilot.com which is operated by Trustpilot A/S ("Trustpilot"). Trustpilot operates within the jurisdiction via its UK subsidiary Trustpilot Ltd.
Trustpilot is therefore the relevant 'operator of a website' for the purposes of s.13 DA 2013. By s.5 DA 2013, however, Trustpilot would, had it been named as a defendant, had recourse to the defence under s.5(2) that it was not itself the party that posted the defamatory statement. In my judgment liability having been determined against the Defendant, Trustpilot cannot be said to be exercising any right to self-expression such as to be protected by Article 10 ECHR. Accordingly, s.12 Defamation Act 2013 does not apply to restrict the power of the Court to grant relief affecting Trustpilot, as the relief sought by the Claimant does not affect Trustpilot's exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression.
In the circumstances I will make a s.13 order requiring Trustpilot to remove the defamatory review, on the basis that the Defendant's conduct to date makes it doubtful that he will comply with the injunctive relief the Claimant has been granted. As Trustpilot has not been present or represented at this hearing the order will contain a provision that it may apply to the Court for the order to be varied or discharged.
Trustpilot is therefore the relevant 'operator of a website' for the purposes of s.13 DA 2013. By s.5 DA 2013, however, Trustpilot would, had it been named as a defendant, had recourse to the defence under s.5(2) that it was not itself the party that posted the defamatory statement. In my judgment liability having been determined against the Defendant, Trustpilot cannot be said to be exercising any right to self-expression such as to be protected by Article 10 ECHR. Accordingly, s.12 Defamation Act 2013 does not apply to restrict the power of the Court to grant relief affecting Trustpilot, as the relief sought by the Claimant does not affect Trustpilot's exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression.
In the circumstances I will make a s.13 order requiring Trustpilot to remove the defamatory review, on the basis that the Defendant's conduct to date makes it doubtful that he will comply with the injunctive relief the Claimant has been granted. As Trustpilot has not been present or represented at this hearing the order will contain a provision that it may apply to the Court for the order to be varied or discharged.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff