Social media and review platforms are increasingly the way individuals seek views, advice and recommendations on all manner of goods and services.
Two recent cases not only highlight the pitfalls of posting comments on social media platforms which could result in defaming an individual or business, but also the risks involved in pursuing the matter through the court.
The pitfalls of posting negative comments online
A defamation case heard in Edinburgh in 2020 (Heather Hiram t/a Safe & Sound Hound v Alana Mullen t/a Pilrig Paws) involved the owner of a dog walking business claiming £5000 compensation from a competitor for alleged defamatory comments contained in a post and video clip uploaded to Facebook.
The comment and video posted by the defender claimed mistreatment of dogs in the pursuer’s care including her inability to control the dogs, not picking up after the dogs, leaving multiple dogs in her van for a lengthy period during high temperatures and that her boarding licence had been revoked. The pursuer claimed that the comments were defamatory and injurious to her due to her occupation as a professional dog walker which led to a loss of business as well as distress to herself. The defender lodged a defence stating that the comments posted were true and therefore not defamatory.
Ultimately the Sheriff found that the comments were defamatory and awarded damages in the reduced sum of £3,000.00. The limited award reflected the Sheriff’s consideration of the lack of evidence regarding the pursuer's loss of business.
The outcome and publicity surrounding this decision was largely positive for the pursuer.
The risks with taking court action
Conversely, the more recent English defamation case of Summerfield Browne Ltd v Philip James Waymouth (see our article Can sharing an opinion online be defamatory?) also highlights the negative consequences for a business taking such action, even where they are successful in their claim.
In this case a client of a London legal firm submitted a review to the internet platform TrustPilot whereby he accused the firm of being “another scam solicitor”. The legal firm demonstrated that the number of business enquiries had fallen since the review was posted. The judge found in favour of the legal firm and awarded damages of £25,000.
The publicity surrounding the decision has however been received in a largely negative light against the firm. It has been reported that following the decision, reviews have been posted on TrustPilot in support of the defaming client. The firm profile on TrustPilot has been temporarily closed as a result of the numerous reviews left which do not “reflect an experience with the business” but negative comments on the outcome of the case.
TrustPilot raised concerns about the outcome of the case and the effect it has on freedom of speech and essentially condemned the action taken by the firm. It noted “we believe strongly in consumers having the ability to leave feedback – good or bad - about a business at any time, without interference”.
The decision to pursue the matter through the court may ultimately come at a higher cost to the firm than the original loss claimed, owing to the reported negativity surrounding the claim. It seems that there is much to be considered by a business before taking such steps.
These cases are a timely reminder to not only check your facts and choose your words wisely before posting comments on internet platforms but to also carefully consider the possible consequences of taking action in such instances where you consider you have been defamed.
