Idiot leaves libellous review for law firm & gets sued.
Discussion
It was an enormous miscalculation by the firm, because it assumed Trustpilot would help them. Instead they've lost all meaningful use of it and more than likely harm beyond what one adverse review could ever have done (not to mention a reasonable discussion with TP may have seen the offending review edited or removed. If, for example, Summerfield Browne advertise on Google, their advert will automatically hook into the TP ratings to show the stars on the ad. This works well when you have a good rating, not so much when it's awful.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
It was an enormous miscalculation by the firm, because it assumed Trustpilot would help them. Instead they've lost all meaningful use of it and more than likely harm beyond what one adverse review could ever have done (not to mention a reasonable discussion with TP may have seen the offending review edited or removed. If, for example, Summerfield Browne advertise on Google, their advert will automatically hook into the TP ratings to show the stars on the ad. This works well when you have a good rating, not so much when it's awful.
As someone whose business use(d) TP, it is not particularly difficult to get obviously illegitimate reviews removed, especially if they aren't representative of an actual experience and the reviewer can't prove otherwise. There are mechanisms for companies to deal with it, the only issue - from memory - is that you have to wait an arbitrary period of time both to flag the review, and ultimately get it removed if the reviewer does not make their case. So while the reviews exist online and there is no mechanism for them to be removed until TP decide enough time has passed the solicitors could presumably argue they are being injured?People will lose interest in this pretty quickly and move on to something else. The bigger question I guess is whether a company who has gone out of their way to litigate over a defamatory review, which they subsequently won, will be emboldened to do likewise with the brain trust that are dogpiling in now posting simiarly defamatory views.
Durzel said:
As someone whose business use(d) TP, it is not particularly difficult to get obviously illegitimate reviews removed, especially if they aren't representative of an actual experience and the reviewer can't prove otherwise. There are mechanisms for companies to deal with it, the only issue - from memory - is that you have to wait an arbitrary period of time both to flag the review, and ultimately get it removed if the reviewer does not make their case. So while the reviews exist online and there is no mechanism for them to be removed until TP decide enough time has passed the solicitors could presumably argue they are being injured?
People will lose interest in this pretty quickly and move on to something else. The bigger question I guess is whether a company who has gone out of their way to litigate over a defamatory review, which they subsequently won, will be emboldened to do likewise with the brain trust that are dogpiling in now posting simiarly defamatory views.
They had the guys details because he was a customer, he named a solicitor who left half way through his case and a few other details, so they would have been able to identify him fairly easily. He even put in his update they were using his confidential information against him to sue him for deformation.People will lose interest in this pretty quickly and move on to something else. The bigger question I guess is whether a company who has gone out of their way to litigate over a defamatory review, which they subsequently won, will be emboldened to do likewise with the brain trust that are dogpiling in now posting simiarly defamatory views.
They won't have the contact details for non customers so they will have to deal with trust pilot to have a chance to identify them which they will not do without court action.
I used to have TP accounts with a few thousand reviews and we actively used it with our consumer clients. Anything above a free account is actually bloody expensive unless you make good use of it. They do have mechanisms to weed out unlawful or malicious reviews, though I think the damage they've caused themselves here far outweighs the damage a single poor review with a well drafted response would have done. Sometimes a bad review is a chance to illustrate how you can respond and give people an even better impression of the firm.
croissant said:
This has really backfired for them. Trustpilot and Google is littered with 1 star reviews and destroyed their online reputation.
It won't be long until we see a GoFundMe for the chap who was sued to cover his fines.
Apparently he lives in Sweden so I suspect the bill will go unpaid.It won't be long until we see a GoFundMe for the chap who was sued to cover his fines.
Reading the judgment (which is excellently clear by the way) it would seem the defendant slipped up by calling them "scam solicitors" which implies dishonesty, which the judge couldn't class as honest opinion (as strange as it seems), but a fact.
Certainly makes me think twice about the sort of language I use in reviews in the future.
Certainly makes me think twice about the sort of language I use in reviews in the future.
The defence of honest opinion has replaced the now abolished defence of fair comment. The honest opinion defence is, in summary, as follows-
Honest opinion
(1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the following conditions are met.
(2) The first condition is that the statement complained of was a statement of opinion.
(3) The second condition is that the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion.
(4) The third condition is that an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of—
(a) any fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was published;
(b) anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement complained of.
The Defamation Act 2013 is short and very clear. Have a read.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/conte...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/conte...
Honest opinion
(1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the following conditions are met.
(2) The first condition is that the statement complained of was a statement of opinion.
(3) The second condition is that the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion.
(4) The third condition is that an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of—
(a) any fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was published;
(b) anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement complained of.
The Defamation Act 2013 is short and very clear. Have a read.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/conte...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/conte...
I do find this area of law quite interesting.
PH is very twitchy and in my view a bit over cautious on the subject of libel risks.Thanks.
Does that mean it's possible to get a judgement against a defamatory comment prior to knowing who created it?
If TP were in a different country would that require a judgement in that country?
They have a UK subsidiary. I wasn't aware of this until it was posted on the page previously.
Breadvan72 said:
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.
Does that mean it's possible to get a judgement against a defamatory comment prior to knowing who created it?
If TP were in a different country would that require a judgement in that country?
The Spruce Goose said:
Breadvan72 said:
The Court has ordered Trustpilot to remove the review. it is curious that the review is still up.
it is a Danish company, does UK law apply to them if the servers are not hosted in the UK?The Spruce Goose said:
Breadvan72 said:
The Court has ordered Trustpilot to remove the review. it is curious that the review is still up.
it is a Danish company, does UK law apply to them if the servers are not hosted in the UK?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff