Internet libel - don't slag off a lawyer (even a US one)

[EskimoArapaho]

I was quite surprised that the UK court had considered this case: http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2015/03/07/shro...

TLDR: Web dude in England's Google account is used to slag off a Colorado lawyer, lawyer successfully sues here, dude loses £100000.

The reason for the fake review is still unknown. Either revenge for something else, or something to do with being paid to write reviews via www.fiverr.com

Here's Eady's judgement: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwuJ6gWyousoNC1JMW...

Seems the Web dude was unrepresented and had holes in his argument (deleted PayPal data, etc). And after that is was all 'balance of probabilities'.

(Just for reference I want to say that BreadVan72 is the most handsome lawyer in the world.)

[JustinP1]

I saw this in the national press at the end of last week, and was going to post it here but lost it.

Seems it's now been taken on by the local press too. There's was no mention that the guy was representing himself in the national press.

My gut feeling is that this is a good result. It's very easy to damage someone, and even more easily someone's business if someone is willing to be malicious. This sets out a marker.

[Soov535]

Quite right too.

Silly sod.

[Durzel]

How stupid have you got to be to defame a law firm?

edit: What I do find surprising in this, and other similar cases, is how patently obstructive or otherwise deceptive behaviour like deleting his Fiver.com records for the date covering the alleged incident, or making up some feeble story (i.e. lying) about being hacked by an unidentified third party goes unpunished (seperately)? A question for the lawyers really, can judges introduce additional charges for this sort of behaviour, or does the system not work like that?

Edited by Durzel on Monday 9th March 11:43

[JustinP1]

Durzel said:

How stupid have you got to be to defame a law firm?

I think he must have thought that he would never be found due to the trail of anonymity, and that either way being in a different country that he would never be chased or punished.

[Soov535]

JustinP1 said:

Durzel said:

How stupid have you got to be to defame a law firm?

I think he must have thought that he would never be found due to the trail of anonymity, and that either way being in a different country that he would never be chased or punished.

So much this.

Except that there is no such thing really!!

[JustinP1]

Soov535 said:

JustinP1 said:

Durzel said:

How stupid have you got to be to defame a law firm?

I think he must have thought that he would never be found due to the trail of anonymity, and that either way being in a different country that he would never be chased or punished.

So much this.

Except that there is no such thing really!!

Yes, IIRC though the lawyers had to pay another set of lawyers in California to subpoena Google to reveal the IP address of the fake reviewer.

[V8forweekends]

It would be interesting to know the motivation for posting the review that the dude got sued for. If he was getting paid - who by? If not why post it unless suffering from an illness or disorder of some kind?

[V8forweekends]

JustinP1 said:

Durzel said:

How stupid have you got to be to defame a law firm?

I think he must have thought that he would never be found due to the trail of anonymity, and that either way being in a different country that he would never be chased or punished.

Ironically, due to their constitutionally guarded rights to free speech, you can say stuff in the US that you can't here.

[Sheepshanks]

JustinP1 said:

Yes, IIRC though the lawyers had to pay another set of lawyers in California to subpoena Google to reveal the IP address of the fake reviewer.

IP address wouldn't have been certain - but bizarrely he used his own Google account. Why would he do that? He claimed it had been hacked.

[Devil2575]

V8forweekends said:

It would be interesting to know the motivation for posting the review that the dude got sued for. If he was getting paid - who by? If not why post it unless suffering from an illness or disorder of some kind?

Why do trolls seek out tribute pages for dead children on facebook and post lies in order to upset relatives?

Some people have issues that manifest themselves in malicious behaviour.

[Durzel]

Sheepshanks said:

IP address wouldn't have been certain - but bizarrely he used his own Google account. Why would he do that? He claimed it had been hacked.

Hubris probably.

Most people (especially trolls) would probably assume that they're untouchable by foreign parties, not surprising given the assumed cost & hassle involved. Defaming a law firm for $5 or whatever it was he got (judgement makes mention of "substantial dollar payments" to his PayPal account over time, so who knows) seems pretty stupid, like hacking into a Police website or something.

Interestingly it seems like the Streisand effect is causing the claimant to suffer more negative reviews, for having the audacity to call out a troll.

Edited by Durzel on Monday 9th March 13:01