Dealing with Negative or Defamatory Reviews on Social Media
Since social media posts can be easily shared, negative or false comments about a business can go viral in no time.In the age of social media, a positive…
June 20, 2017 at 10:57 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Since social media posts can be easily shared, negative or false comments about a business can go viral in no time.
In the age of social media, a positive review or comment about a company can be very beneficial, helping a brand gain notoriety and increase business. But a company's good reputation can often be quickly undone by negative reviews, especially when the review is defamatory.
Since social media posts can be easily shared and reposted, negative comments about a business can go viral in no time and reach an enormous number of people, a number that far exceeds the original poster's immediate circle of contacts.
Mark Rosenberg, co-chair of law firm Tarter Krinsky & Drogin's Reputation Management practice, sat down with Inside Counsel to discuss the parameters of when negative reviews might be unlawful, and various methods for dealing with negative reviews and those that are blatantly untrue or use false statements. He has brought action against reviewers on behalf of clients who claimed that reviews contained false statements and exceeded the bounds of protected speech. Over the years, Rosenberg has also helped clients work through several solutions to negative reviews, and not only through the court system.
“Negative reviews on an Internet review site such as Yelp, Trip Advisor or Healthgrades can quickly damage your or your business' reputation,” he said. “Even more problematic is when the review is defamatory, that is when the review is based on false statements of fact.”
In fact, while the reviewer's opinions are protected speech under the First Amendment, false statements of fact are not protected. Under the law, there is a difference between when a reviewer claims that a restaurant's soup tastes like gasoline and when the reviewer falsely claims that there was a mouse swimming in his soup – the former is a protected opinion and the latter is defamatory.
“While negative and even false reviews can be frustrating, it is not always necessary to respond to each one,” explained Rosenberg. “Before moving forward, an analysis should be conducted as to the importance and nature of the review, its potential to cause damage and whether a particular response could make things worse.”
In general, there are three key avenues that can be taken to have a negative review taken down – convince the reviewer to remove the offending review, ask the review site to remove the review and obtain a court order or judgment requiring the reviewer to take down the review. According to Rosenberg, these include: Respond online to the review; send a cease and desist letter; buy-off the reviewer; contact the Website and; obtain a court order or judgment.
So, when exactly is the social media review considered defamatory? In the context of a business, a review is defamatory when it makes false statements about the business or the products or services it offers. Rosenberg has worked with clients in getting negative reviews removed and guided them in situations where removal is not an option. His efforts have included contacting the review site and explaining why the review is false and thus violates the site's policies, filing lawsuits against the person posting the review, sending demand letters to the reviewers, assisting clients in preparing a response to the review and working with reputation management firms to make the review less prominent on search results pages.
“A court order is often the option of last resort because first and foremost, it is expensive,” he said. “To obtain a court order, a lawsuit needs to be filed and litigation is not cheap. Also, in many situations, obtaining an order requiring the site to remove the review can be difficult to obtain. That is because sites hosting third party reviews are largely protected by a federal law known as the Communications Decency Act.”
So, instead of filing a lawsuit against the site, the lawsuit needs to be filed against the person who posted the review, with the order compelling that person to remove the review. This gets tricky when the review was posted anonymously or under a false name, according to Rosenberg.
There are several methods for dealing with negative reviews and those that are blatantly untrue. He advises responding the review, contacting the review site, sending a letter to the reviewer demanding that the review be removed and filing a lawsuit.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFinancial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
In Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readGC With Deep GM Experience Takes Legal Reins of Power Management Giant
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 2Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 3Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 4'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 5Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250