Tin I Sue an Individual for Posting a Bad Yelp Review About My Concern?

A Manhattan woman who gave a Kips Bay gynecologist a ane-star review on Yelp1 has spent over $20,000 defending herself in court—and the litigation has barely even started. In July 2017, Michelle Levine went to see Dr. Joon Vocal for a bank check-up. "A week afterwards, he billed [her] insurance company $1,304.32 for the new-patient visit and ultrasound, and [she] got a bill for $427 that wasn't covered."2

In her Yelp review, she wrote: "[v]ery poor and crooked business exercise. I suspect that this doctor gives unnecessary process [sic] to a lot of people and so charges the insurance sky high prices and no one knows the difference." She also stated, "[east]verything about my ane and merely visit here has caused me emotional distress and panic, and at present they want me to coughing upward an extra $500 for services I didn't even need?" In response to her review two weeks after, Dr. Joon's lawyers sent Ms. Levine a letter informing her that she was being sued for about $one million.

Yelp Site

Think about it, how many times practise you wait at online reviews when deciding which restaurant to swallow at, what hotel to visit, etc. Positive reviews volition advantage business concern owners for doing well, while negative reviews will alert business concern owners of some of their areas that demand improvement. Online reviews are here to stay and are part of conducting concern.

However, substantial litigation has surfaced in recent years and more and more business owners are taking activity against the negative reviewers by suing them for defamation. Business owners have a correct to protect their reputation from the publishing of untrue and harmful words, but on the other hand customers have a Showtime Amendment correct to costless speech communication under the Constitution. So, where do we depict the line? When does a negative review amount to defamation? Nearly importantly, what does this mean for concern owners and consumers in Arizona?

While this article will not prepare yous with the legal tools to fight a lawsuit on your own, information technology will give you lot some necessary basics to assess your unique situation, understand your potential liability equally a Yelp reviewer, and know your rights as an Arizona business organisation owner. At that place is a quickly increasing number of defamation cases arising from online reviews and an even more rapidly increasing reliance on them by consumers. These reviews are disquisitional to the success of your business. While there are more often than not no special rules that utilise to online reviews in Arizona, the courts will utilize traditional defamation rules to the modern platform. We will hash out and elaborate on several of those rules in this article. If you accept been served with a lawsuit for posting a bad review or are thinking about filing a lawsuit against someone who has slandered you, please contact our office today.

What is defamation?

Defamation can more often than not be divided into two different categories: libel and slander. Libel arises from the written publication of defamatory statements (e.1000. emails, letters, published articles) and slander occurs equally a result of spoken words (e.k. public statements, workplace gossip, or accusations of misconduct). Liability for defamation can extend to an enormously vast set of communications, such as a conversation with a peer in the breakroom, a public speech, a newspaper article, or even a Yelp review.

Agreement and recognizing the differences between slander and libel are imperative for defamation victims equally it could make all the difference between bringing a valid defamation claim and existence prevented from bringing such claims altogether. Most of the time, the statute of limitations for bringing a slander claim is shorter than the statute of limitations for libel. Additionally, both slander and libel claims will have different filing and procedural requirements. For a more detailed discussion of what constitutes libel and slander, contact an experienced chaser today.

What are the Elements Required Under Arizona Law to Prove Defamation?

Defamation is mostly governed by land law. In Arizona, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the following elements are met in social club to successfully argue his case for defamation:3

  1. A fake argument was made past the defendant concerning the plaintiff;
  2. The argument was defamatory;four
  3. The argument was published5 to a third political party;
  4. The requisite mistake was on the role of the accused; and
  5. The plaintiff was damaged every bit a result of the statement.6

In addition to the to a higher place factors, Arizona courts frequently wait to the Second Restatement of Torts in analyzing defamation claims, viewing it as a persuasive potency.7

Stance is Mostly Not Defamation

Every bit a business organization possessor evaluating your potential claim against a Yelp reviewer, ask yourself: was the argument the customer fabricated true or fake? If a customer posts on Yelp that "in that location was a human finger in my chili!!!"—this is not an opinion, but a "factual" statement that could amount to defamation if untrue. Such a statement could atomic number 82 to a substantial loss of business income. However, if a customer posts "I think the chili tastes awful," then the owner will have a very difficult fourth dimension establishing defamation because the statement was only an opinion and non an exclamation of fact.

Defamation Per Se

Similar many other states, Arizona recognizes the legal theory of defamation per se. Defamation per se, also referred to as slander or libel per se, is a legal principle acknowledging that when certain statements are so inflammatory and damaging, the plaintiff will not need to prove that he or she has been damaged by the defamatory statements. So which statements trigger an analysis under defamation per se in Arizona?

  • Any publication which impeaches honesty, integrity, or reputation of a person;
  • Any written statement which, on its face, tends to "bring any person into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule;"8
  • Whatever statement which injures a person in his or her profession, trade, or business;
  • Any statement which imputes the committee of a law-breaking involving moral turpitude;9 or
  • Whatsoever statement that charges an infectious sexually transmitted disease, or alleges that a woman is unchaste.

So why is defamation per se an of import concept for Yelp reviews? Well, if a Yelp reviewer makes a defamatory argument on Yelp, at that place is also a considerable gamble that the review is related to that owner's profession, trade, or business. If this is the case, then the owner may not have to prove that he was injured by the defamatory statements and may not be required to testify special amercement. Generally, this ways that the owner can only allege non-pecuniary damages—such as damage to his reputation—and still testify his prima facie case for defamation.

Defamation Per Quod

Arizona also recognizes defamation per se's arch nemesis, defamation per quod. Statements can exist considered per quod when they do non "fall within the definition of defamation" on their confront, "but which by reason of special extraneous circumstances actually practise."ten Under defamation per quod theory, an Arizona plaintiff must criminate special damages—such as actual pecuniary loss.11 So if a defamatory statement is made by innuendo, for case, a plaintiff will have the burden of proving, through extrinsic evidence, that the innuendo was defamatory. Let's say a scientist writes a research paper that exposes a new popular drug as a imitation. If the pharmacologist who invented the drug sues the scientist for defamation because the scientist's conclusion is drawn from information which he knows to be fake, then they might have a strong case. However, since a lay person would neither know how to interpret the written report's findings nor its ramifications without being a scientist, extrinsic show would be necessary to brand an evaluation as to whether there really was defamation.

Public vs. Individual Figures

When analyzing defamation claims, courts will usually consider both the status of the plaintiff in society (whether the plaintiff is a public figure or a private figure) and whether the statement relates to either a public or private event. When an individual voluntarily and purposefully avails themselves to the public light, comment, and scrutiny, such individuals are more often than not considered public figures. Examples of public figures can include moving picture stars, musicians, politicians, individuals with large social media following, etc. In order for a public figure to succeed as the plaintiff of a defamation lawsuit, they must be able to testify a heightened standard of scrutiny—that the defendant acted with actual malice or reckless condone. On the other hand, if the plaintiff is a private effigy, simply proving that the accused made the simulated assertion with ordinary negligence is usually sufficient to prove defamation.

The courts will too take into consideration the actual public or private nature of the defamatory statement itself. For instance, if a defamatory statement is made well-nigh Gordon Ramsay's cooking, so he has undoubtedly availed himself in a place in society to be a public figure on the subject. However, if a defamatory argument is made almost his family, and then a court may likely determine that such a argument should not be analyzed under the heightened scrutiny of malice or reckless condone considering he has not become a public figure for such purpose. On the other paw, if a defamatory statement is made about Kim Kardashian's family, it will likely still fall nether the heightened standard because her entire family has stepped out into the public light for virtually all purposes.

Determining which level of scrutiny the court will apply to clarify your merits tin can be quite complex. However, with an experienced chaser, you volition be able to navigate through such determinations with confidence. For help in assessing your claim, delight phone call our office today.

Yelp Reviews and the Inevitable Problem of the Bearding User

Another trouble courts and plaintiffs are dealing with is the challenge of discovering the identity of anonymous users on Yelp. In the case Moblisa v. Doe,12 the Courtroom plant it necessary on summary judgment to hogtie the discovery of an anonymous defendant after the plaintiff made a sufficient showing to justify revealing the anonymous online reviewer. In Arizona, to reveal an anonymous user a plaintiff must commencement put forward sufficient prove to support their defamation claim, then they must put frontward enough show to bear witness that the force of the plaintiff's argument and the need for disclosure outweigh the anonymous reviewer'south Get-go Subpoena right to free speech.13

Why Can't I Just Sue Yelp?

In 1996, Congress passed Department 230 of the Communications Decency Human action, which holds that Internet service providers and online platforms, similar Yelp, cannot exist held liable for these kinds of acts. This immunity generally covers all defamation and privacy claims, too as negligence and other tort claims continued to a statement'due south publication. As long as the defamatory statements or false reviews are published by 3rd-political party users, Yelp volition exist immune from liability. While cases have repeatedly tried to circumvent Section 230, courts, including Arizona courts, have repeatedly reaffirmed its protection.

Arizona Privileges and Defenses

Along with Section 230, courts in Arizona have recognized several other privileges and defenses for defamation actions, which include substantial truth, the off-white report privilege, retraction or correction, and the opinion and off-white comment privilege.

Substantial Truth

Remember: "truth" is an absolute defense against defamation.14 In order to prove defamation, a plaintiff must show disarming evidence of a statement's falsity in social club to take a chance at proving defamation. If truth is on your side, and so you are by and large in a good position. Additionally, this defense is referred to every bit substantial truth considering under the doctrine, marginal blunders and inaccuracies past a plaintiff will exist ignored as long equally they do not materially or essentially affect the centre claim being made.

Fair Report

Historically, only one case in Arizona has applied the off-white report privilege.15 As a consequence, its effectiveness is not entirely certain. In the Arizona Court of Appeals case, Sallomi 5. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., it was establish that the fair report privilege applied to statements published by the Arizona Republic because they were considered a "fair and accurate abridgement of the public records used." In its statements, it described a local eating house equally a "hangout for narcotics dealers and users." The restaurant sued, but was unsuccessful, because the statements made past the Arizona Republic were based on police interviews, affidavits, a thou-jury-indictments, and a booking slip. Even though the Arizona Republic relied primarily on the law interviews, which were by no means public, the comments were still supported by readily bachelor public data so the court practical the fair study privilege.

Stance and Fair Comment Privilege

Stance and fair comment privilege is described as a "mutual law defense [that] guarantees the liberty of the press to express statements on matters of public involvement, as long as the statements are not fabricated with sick will, spite, or with the intent to impairment the plaintiff." This privilege protects non-media defendants the aforementioned style as media defendants when the plaintiff is a public official. In Arizona, the opinion and fair comment privilege is generally "limited to discussions of matters which are of legitimate concern to the customs as a whole because they materially affect the interests of all the community."16 However, a showing of actual malice volition defeat the opinion and off-white comment privilege.

Defamation through social media and other digital platforms can exist compared to the devastating furnishings of a wildfire—the longer y'all passively watch information technology happen, the more it is going to spread and damage your profession and your personal life. If yous are being defamed in any way, contact an experienced attorney today.

Denton Peterson in Mesa, Phoenix, and Scottsdale has represented clients in the Phoenix valley for libelous, slanderous and defamatory statements. While not every false statement constitutes actionable defamation, those that exercise tin be very harmful. Contact us today to talk over your example.
______________

1 Ms. Levine wrote reviews on several other sites also.
iiMeet https://nypost.com/2018/05/28/i-wrote-a-negative-yelp-review-and-it-made-my-life-a-nightmare/.
3See Morris 5. Warner, 160 Ariz. 55, 62 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
four In order to be "defamatory," a argument more often than not must exist false and bring the defamed person into disrepute, antipathy, or ridicule, or impeach her honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation. See Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 162 Ariz. 335, 341 (Ariz. 1989).
5 Published simply means communicating the statement at consequence to a third person other than the plaintiff.
6Morris v. Warner, 160 Ariz. 55, 62 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
7Sanchez v. Coxon, 175 Ariz. 93, 95 (1993).
8 Due southee Ilitzky v. Goodman, 57 Ariz. 216, 220-21 (Ariz. 1941).
ixSee Modla five. Parker, 17 Ariz. App. 54 (1972).
10See Goodman at 221 (Ariz. 1941); see also Boswell v. Phoenix Paper, 152 Ariz. 9 (1986).
11Boswell at six.
12Come across Moblisa v. Doe, 170 P.3d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App 2007).
13See also Dendrite Int'50 v. Doe, 775 A.second 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001).
14See Time Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 411 (1967).
fifteen Likewise known equally the "public records privilege."
xvi See Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Church, 103 Ariz. 582, 595 (Ariz. 1968).