Can I Sue an Individual for Posting a Bad Yelp Review Nearly My Business concern?

A Manhattan adult female who gave a Kips Bay gynecologist a one-star review on Yelpane has spent over $20,000 defending herself in courtroom—and the litigation has barely even started. In July 2017, Michelle Levine went to run into Dr. Joon Song for a check-upwardly. "A week later, 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: "[five]ery poor and crooked business organization practice. I doubtable that this md gives unnecessary procedure [sic] to a lot of people and and so charges the insurance heaven high prices and no i knows the difference." She also stated, "[e]verything about my one and merely visit here has caused me emotional distress and panic, and now they want me to cough up an extra $500 for services I didn't even need?" In response to her review two weeks subsequently, Dr. Joon's lawyers sent Ms. Levine a letter informing her that she was being sued for about $1 meg.

Yelp Site

Retrieve nigh it, how many times practise y'all wait at online reviews when deciding which restaurant to eat at, what hotel to visit, etc. Positive reviews will advantage business organisation owners for doing well, while negative reviews volition alarm business owners of some of their areas that need improvement. Online reviews are here to stay and are part of conducting business concern.

Withal, substantial litigation has surfaced in recent years and more and more business owners are taking action confronting the negative reviewers past suing them for defamation. Concern owners take a right to protect their reputation from the publishing of untrue and harmful words, but on the other hand customers have a First Amendment right to gratuitous speech under the Constitution. So, where exercise we draw the line? When does a negative review amount to defamation? Most chiefly, what does this hateful for business organization owners and consumers in Arizona?

While this commodity will not set you with the legal tools to fight a lawsuit on your own, it will requite you lot some necessary basics to assess your unique situation, sympathize your potential liability as a Yelp reviewer, and know your rights as an Arizona business owner. There is a speedily increasing number of defamation cases arising from online reviews and an fifty-fifty more than speedily increasing reliance on them by consumers. These reviews are disquisitional to the success of your business. While there are generally no special rules that apply to online reviews in Arizona, the courts will utilise traditional defamation rules to the modern platform. We will hash out and elaborate on several of those rules in this commodity. If you have been served with a lawsuit for posting a bad review or are thinking well-nigh filing a lawsuit against someone who has slandered you, please contact our role today.

What is defamation?

Defamation can by and large be divided into two different categories: libel and slander. Libel arises from the written publication of defamatory statements (e.yard. emails, letters, published articles) and slander occurs as a outcome of spoken words (eastward.g. 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 betwixt slander and libel are imperative for defamation victims equally information technology could brand all the difference between bringing a valid defamation claim and being prevented from bringing such claims birthday. About 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 give-and-take of what constitutes libel and slander, contact an experienced chaser today.

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

Defamation is generally governed past state constabulary. In Arizona, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the following elements are met in order to successfully contend his case for defamation:3

  1. A simulated statement was fabricated past the defendant concerning the plaintiff;
  2. The statement was defamatory;4
  3. The statement was publishedv to a third political party;
  4. The requisite error was on the part of the defendant; and
  5. The plaintiff was damaged as a result of the statement.six

In addition to the above factors, Arizona courts frequently await to the Second Restatement of Torts in analyzing defamation claims, viewing information technology as a persuasive say-so.7

Stance is Mostly Not Defamation

As a business owner evaluating your potential claim confronting a Yelp reviewer, ask yourself: was the argument the customer made truthful or imitation? If a customer posts on Yelp that "at that place was a human finger in my chili!!!"—this is non an opinion, but a "factual" argument that could amount to defamation if untrue. Such a statement could lead to a substantial loss of business income. However, if a customer posts "I think the chili tastes awful," then the owner will accept a very hard time establishing defamation because the statement was merely an stance and not an assertion of fact.

Defamation Per Se

Like many other states, Arizona recognizes the legal theory of defamation per se. Defamation per se, too referred to as slander or libel per se, is a legal principle acknowledging that when certain statements are so inflammatory and damaging, the plaintiff volition not demand to bear witness that he or she has been damaged by the defamatory statements. And then which statements trigger an analysis nether defamation per se in Arizona?

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

So why is defamation per se an important concept for Yelp reviews? Well, if a Yelp reviewer makes a defamatory statement on Yelp, in that location is also a considerable take chances that the review is related to that owner's profession, trade, or business. If this is the case, so the possessor may not have to show that he was injured by the defamatory statements and may not be required to prove special damages. Generally, this ways that the owner can simply allege non-pecuniary damages—such as impairment to his reputation—and still prove 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 practice not "fall within the definition of defamation" on their confront, "but which past reason of special extraneous circumstances really exercise."10 Under defamation per quod theory, an Arizona plaintiff must criminate special damages—such as actual pecuniary loss.eleven And so if a defamatory argument is made by innuendo, for case, a plaintiff will have the burden of proving, through extrinsic testify, that the innuendo was defamatory. Let's say a scientist writes a research paper that exposes a new popular drug as a fake. 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 imitation, so they might take a stiff case. However, since a lay person would neither know how to interpret the report's findings nor its ramifications without being a scientist, extrinsic evidence would exist necessary to make an evaluation as to whether there actually was defamation.

Public vs. Private Figures

When analyzing defamation claims, courts will normally consider both the condition of the plaintiff in social club (whether the plaintiff is a public figure or a private figure) and whether the statement relates to either a public or private upshot. When an individual voluntarily and purposefully avails themselves to the public light, comment, and scrutiny, such individuals are generally considered public figures. Examples of public figures can include movie stars, musicians, politicians, individuals with large social media post-obit, etc. In order for a public figure to succeed equally the plaintiff of a defamation lawsuit, they must be able to prove a heightened standard of scrutiny—that the defendant acted with actual malice or reckless disregard. On the other paw, if the plaintiff is a individual figure, merely proving that the defendant fabricated the false assertion with ordinary negligence is usually sufficient to evidence defamation.

The courts will also take into consideration the actual public or private nature of the defamatory argument itself. For example, if a defamatory statement is made virtually Gordon Ramsay'south cooking, then he has undoubtedly availed himself in a place in gild to be a public figure on the subject. Withal, if a defamatory statement is made about his family, then a courtroom may probable determine that such a argument should not be analyzed under the heightened scrutiny of malice or reckless disregard because he has not become a public effigy for such purpose. On the other manus, if a defamatory statement is made about Kim Kardashian'due south family, it will likely withal fall under the heightened standard because her entire family has stepped out into the public low-cal for virtually all purposes.

Determining which level of scrutiny the courtroom will apply to analyze your merits can be quite circuitous. However, with an experienced chaser, you lot will be able to navigate through such determinations with confidence. For help in assessing your claim, delight call our function today.

Yelp Reviews and the Inevitable Problem of the Anonymous User

Another problem courts and plaintiffs are dealing with is the claiming of discovering the identity of anonymous users on Yelp. In the case Moblisa v. Doe,12 the Court found information technology necessary on summary judgment to compel the discovery of an anonymous accused subsequently the plaintiff made a sufficient showing to justify revealing the anonymous online reviewer. In Arizona, to reveal an bearding user a plaintiff must first put forward sufficient evidence to support their defamation claim, then they must put forrad enough evidence to testify that the forcefulness of the plaintiff's statement and the demand for disclosure outweigh the anonymous reviewer's First Amendment right to free speech.xiii

Why Can't I Merely Sue Yelp?

In 1996, Congress passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which holds that Internet service providers and online platforms, similar Yelp, cannot be held liable for these kinds of acts. This immunity generally covers all defamation and privacy claims, equally well as negligence and other tort claims continued to a statement'due south publication. As long as the defamatory statements or imitation reviews are published by third-party users, Yelp will be allowed from liability. While cases accept 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 take recognized several other privileges and defenses for defamation actions, which include substantial truth, the off-white written report privilege, retraction or correction, and the opinion and off-white annotate privilege.

Substantial Truth

Remember: "truth" is an absolute defense against defamation.xiv In club to evidence defamation, a plaintiff must show convincing evidence of a statement'due south falsity in society to have a take a chance at proving defamation. If truth is on your side, and so you are by and large in a skillful position. Additionally, this defense is referred to as substantial truth because under the doctrine, marginal blunders and inaccuracies by a plaintiff will be ignored as long as they do not materially or substantially bear upon the center claim being made.

Fair Report

Historically, only one instance in Arizona has applied the fair report privilege.15 As a consequence, its effectiveness is non entirely certain. In the Arizona Courtroom of Appeals example, Sallomi 5. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., it was found that the fair study privilege applied to statements published by the Arizona Republic because they were considered a "fair and authentic abridgement of the public records used." In its statements, it described a local eating house equally a "hangout for narcotics dealers and users." The eating place sued, but was unsuccessful, because the statements made by the Arizona Commonwealth were based on police interviews, affidavits, a grand-jury-indictments, and a booking slip. Even though the Arizona Democracy relied primarily on the police force interviews, which were past no means public, the comments were still supported by readily available public information so the court practical the off-white report privilege.

Opinion and Off-white Annotate Privilege

Opinion and off-white annotate privilege is described as a "common law defense [that] guarantees the freedom of the press to express statements on matters of public interest, every bit long equally the statements are non made with ill volition, spite, or with the intent to harm the plaintiff." This privilege protects not-media defendants the aforementioned fashion as media defendants when the plaintiff is a public official. In Arizona, the opinion and fair comment privilege is mostly "express to discussions of matters which are of legitimate business to the community as a whole because they materially affect the interests of all the community."16 However, a showing of actual malice will defeat the opinion and fair comment privilege.

Defamation through social media and other digital platforms can be compared to the devastating effects of a wildfire—the longer you passively watch it happen, the more information technology is going to spread and damage your profession and your personal life. If you are existence defamed in any way, contact an experienced chaser today.

Denton Peterson in Mesa, Phoenix, and Scottsdale has represented clients in the Phoenix valley for libelous, slanderous and defamatory statements. While non every simulated argument constitutes actionable defamation, those that do tin exist very harmful. Contact united states of america today to discuss your instance.
______________

one Ms. Levine wrote reviews on several other sites besides.
iiSee https://nypost.com/2018/05/28/i-wrote-a-negative-yelp-review-and-it-fabricated-my-life-a-nightmare/.
threeSee Morris v. Warner, 160 Ariz. 55, 62 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
4 In order to be "defamatory," a statement generally must exist false and bring the defamed person into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule, or impeach her honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation. Run across Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 162 Ariz. 335, 341 (Ariz. 1989).
v Published merely means communicating the statement at issue to a third person other than the plaintiff.
6Morris five. Warner, 160 Ariz. 55, 62 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
7Sanchez v. Coxon, 175 Ariz. 93, 95 (1993).
eight See Ilitzky five. Goodman, 57 Ariz. 216, 220-21 (Ariz. 1941).
9Come across Modla v. Parker, 17 Ariz. App. 54 (1972).
10Encounter Goodman at 221 (Ariz. 1941); encounter likewise Boswell five. Phoenix Newspaper, 152 Ariz. ix (1986).
11Boswell at vi.
12Run across Moblisa v. Doe, 170 P.3d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App 2007).
xiiiSee also Dendrite Int'50 v. Doe, 775 A.second 756 (North.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001).
14See Fourth dimension Inc. five. Hill, 385 U.S. 411 (1967).
15 Also known as the "public records privilege."
sixteen See Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Church, 103 Ariz. 582, 595 (Ariz. 1968).