Negative Online Review Leads to $350,000 Recovery in Defamation Action
Social media has brought many benefits to business. A slew of positive reviews on Yelp!, Google, Amazon, or even on a smaller business’ website will likely lead to increased customer visits and higher sales. However, negative reviews could potentially destroy the viability of a product, service, or entire business. So far, legal action against negative commenters has been met with mixed results . . . until now.
Florida Court: Defamatory Negative Reviews Are Actionable
Recently, Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal upheld an award of punitive damages in a negative online review lawsuit involving defamation. In Copia Blake and Peter Birzon v. Ann-Marie Giustibelli, P.A. and Ann-Marie Giustibelli [Case No. 4D14-3231], the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision in favor of Giustibelli that found the negative reviews posted by Blake and Birzon to be false representations of fact.
Blake and Birzon argued that they had a first amendment right to discuss their perception of the service that Giustibelli provided, the courts disagreed because Blake and Birzon made statements of fact that were proven to be false. Therefore, Giustibelli obtained a $350,000 defamation judgment against them.
Important Distinctions: Facts, Opinions, and Defamation
Of course, this doesn’t mean that all negative reviews count as defamation. While it is permitted (and reasonable) to provide a negative opinion about an experience, the falsification of facts is not permissible. A license to defame is not given simply because a person is dissatisfied with a service or product.
The critical distinction in a defamation case is between fact and opinion. Under the First Amendment and Florida libel law, statements of pure opinion are not actionable. However, libel actions can be brought for “a false and unprivileged publication by letter, or otherwise, which exposes a person to distrust, hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy or which causes such person to be avoided, or which has a tendency to injure such person in [their] office, occupation, business or employment.”
In Birzon and Blake v Giustibelli, the dissatisfied clients made allegations that Giustibelli falsified a contract and that Giustibelli lied to Blake about the legal fees. These statements were factual and proven to be false. Thus, Blake and Birzon were guilty of defamation.
Where It All Went Wrong
Although Yolofsky Law doesn’t handle defamation litigation, we do want to share stories like these because they prove an important point: words matter. The words that the complainants used in their reviews were legally actionable because they weren’t opinions. You could say that typing the number 4 cost them $350,000.
These cases are prime examples of what can go wrong if your legal advisor doesn’t work proactively. At Yolofsky Law, we protect your business from the very beginning, ensuring business structures and operational documents are robust and legally sound to avoid pitfalls.
If your business operations are under threat, Yolofsky Law serves as your trusted advisor during negotiations and dispute resolution, helping you navigate legal complexities and make informed decisions.
Don’t Hesitate to Reach Out
If you need help with a business matter, please contact us to set up an appointment. Email us at [email protected] today or schedule a 15-minute call to see how we can help.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
(1)LRX, Inc. v. Horizon Assoc. Joint Venture ex rel. Horizon-ANF, Inc., 842 So. 2d 881, 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (quoting Thomas v. Jacksonville Television, Inc., 699 So. 2d 800, 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)