Has anyone seen the recent articles about people being sued by companies because they wrote bad reviews on sites like YELP and Angie's List?  One lady was sued for $750,000 because her stuff was taken from her house so she posted about it on YELP.  Should we be concerned about what we post on YELP?  Should we sugar coat our reviews?

Apparently the contractor won (according to Good Morning America).  This is very disturbing especially if everything she said was true.   Definitely is a good reminder to make sure you're being absolutely truthful in your reviews.  This might give encouragement to business owners who want to sue reviewers for defamation.

guess I should slow my 1-2 star marathon....

Hey friends.. this is new for me since I've been around just a couple months and I do NOT have any official word.. but I wouldn't worry so much!  

My common sense tells me to recommend just sticking to the facts in your reviews!  
The article you're referring to, Lindsay, looks like an extreeeeeeme case.  If a yelper to the point of talking about damage and theft, it's a lil diff than not liking a meal, or a contractor simply showing up late, ya know?

So, I wouldn't worry too much as long as you're honest and factual :)  That's what the site is about!

I would hate to see the yelp review about the contractor who demolished this centuries old Chateau in France (the cornerstone and pride of its village) in error when they were supposed to raze a small decrepit outbuilding only!

digitaljournal.com/artic…

The women accused the company of trespassing and theft, yet never filed a police report and offered zero evidence to back up such incendiary claims.

I've never been accused of such, but if I were, frankly I'd at least contact a lawyer. What would you do?

Luckily, the US judicial system is fair and balanced, and not at all stacked against those with fewer resources at their disposal.

You shouldn't sugar coat your reviews, just present the facts.  You're entitled to your opinion, but when you accuse someone of a crime without proof, you've crossed the line into defamation or libel (I never remember which one is which).

Angela, you're right on both.  Libel IS defamation.  So is Slander.  Libel is written and slander is spoken.  I remember it like this.. Libel sounds like scribe.  Slander sounds like slang.  ha

I read the complaint. I'm no lawyer, or anything close but it is interesting. The biggest defense to a defamation claim is belief that what you say is true. There are certainly some ways that the plaintiff could prove that the woman said things she knew not to be true. She mentions that he never returned her key and implied that he broke into her place. He says he returned the key by certified mail. Perhaps he can prove she received the key by having her signature to receive the parcel? But still, she believes he stole her stuff, does that necessarily mean she needs to provide evidence? The complaint does mention that the woman claims to have found many of the things once she unpacked her things.

Either way, a suit for $750k seems a bit excessive. I'd be curious to know how much revenue the company pulls in a year. Courts are in the business of making litigants whole. He claims 300k in lost work. If he's not pulling anything close to that a year, seems to be a hard bar to reach. The last 500k is for harm, loss of reputation, and anxiety.

Very interesting that a summary judgment was levied against the contractor. Will definitely be curious to see how this ends up.

Anybody have a friend on Yelp who's an Intellectual Property attorney?  I want the straight scoop vs. theoretically founded on myth and half-guesses...

@Jay - What 'straight scoop' do you want? This isn't an IP issue.

Sorry, litigation side-- I want to know where the line is in terms of precedent for what could be considered defamation vs. freedom of speech. Obviously the woman that was sued was ruled to have lied about theft, etc. but I'm sure it will open the flood gates for future litigation in situations that aren't as black & white.

No it closes the flood gates. It means if somebody had an axe to grind against you JWriddle, started a blog with your name, picture, home address and accused you of serious crimes, there is precedence for you to defend yourself.

From reading the complaint and the article, I don't see how the woman was found to have lied about anything. It seems as though the information was ordered removed until a verdict was handed down. The guy requested a jury trial, the information was removed by order of the judge. The case has yet to be litigated.

The plaintiff's and defendant's stories are pretty divergent. The plaintiff will have to prove that the woman said things that weren't true, and that she knew that they weren't true and further that he suffered damage as a result. If he can produce a written and signed contract, that goes a long way to proving she said things that weren't true. Proving her intent though is a very different matter.

Since it is civil and not criminal, I will cede my armchair esquire to those who are ones in real life insofar as whether or not the burden is on the women to prove her accusations or for the owner to prove his innocence.

It is Yelp in a nutshell though. I'd like for somebody to back up inflammatory claims with evidence, while others want the other guy to disprove the charges.

The contractor is the one who brought the complaint, that's why the burden is on him to prove that what the woman said is untrue, and that she knew it was untrue. I'm no lawyer, but I don't need to be....the guy brought the case so he has to show why she should be held liable under the law. Otherwise, the courts would be filled with people making all sorts of wild claims against others and forcing them to prove otherwise.

Burden is on him to show that it's reasonable to assume she was libelous, not to prove it. Preponderance of the evidence and all...

Proof is not the correct term to use in that case, true. But he will have to convince a jury that it's more likely than not that she did utter statements that she knew to be untrue, and that he suffered loss as a result. Either way, the burden is on the person bringing the case, not the defendant.

Well, I take that back... The burden is different in civil and criminal proceedings, but there still must be a provable claim. Proof beyond all reasonable doubt, vs. proof based on preponderance of the evidence. It's arguing semantics at this point.

I wouldn't say it's just semantics. There is a world of difference. Ask anyone who's been found liable in a civil case after a not-guilty verdict in a criminal trial.

I don't follow. The burden of proof is lower in a civil trial versus a criminal trial, but there's still a burden of proof.

Link to the complaint?

I'm just saying it's not an insignificant expanse between beyond a reasonable doubt and on preponderance of evidence. Ask OJ.

Here's a copy of the complaint:

apps.washingtonpost.com/…

I'm not an active lawyer and have not kept up on any changes to defamation law, but I am an inactive member of the Georgia bar. I wouldn't advise getting too worked up by what the burden of proof is for defamation. There are elements that must be proven in most cases (easily Googled). In the instance of accusing a business owner of trespass, theft and the like, the business owner (probably) need not prove injury. Those accusations constitute defamation per se, if untrue (probably). The issue is whether the Yelper knew the claims were untrue, or had a reckless disregard for the truth (probably). With respect to what we do here on Yelp in general, always keep that in mind: if you accuse a business owner of something defamatory on its face, you are looking for trouble. Stick to opinions about quality of service, quality of product, etc. and you're fine. In this particular case, I think the Yelper probably should be sued. The court can sort out the facts. Yelp is not the place to accuse a business owner of theft or anything else obviously injurious to their reputation. The preceding is not a legal opinion, just a common sense opinion based on legal knowledge. Individual cases are hard to parse, which is why I've sprinkled a lot of 'probably' in the above.

Woo, thanks for your comment. It's interesting for sure.

they went to high school together.

I've heard about this and this is ridiculous. The man who sued for $750,000 sued for libel. Did the woman lie? To my understanding and based on recent reports, the woman did NOT lie. So, how on earth is it libel? He did a crappy job and she told the truth. I will continue to review businesses as I perceive them from my experience. If a business gives crappy service, I will review it that way. If a business is great, that will go down as well. I wouldn't, out of spite, say something crappy for no specific reasons.

It's sad that he won. It goes to show how each passing day our rights are being taken away. I will say what I want and when I want. Now, if she lied about something specific, like saying "He put a hole in my roof! And never fixed it!" and that never happened, I'd understand.

" So, how on earth is it libel?"

She accused of theft and trespassing, yet never filed a police report.

"Now, if she lied about something specific, like"

Committing crimes isn't specific enough for you?

I don't think the case has been fully settled.  They went to court a few weeks ago and the judged order her to remove part of the post.  But as far as the $750,000 goes, thats still up in the air.

Let that be a lesson for you. If you failed to report the rape, then you'd better have some strong evidence or else it never happened and it's defamation to accuse the rapist.

I haven't looked very hard, but I've found nothing stating that her claims were untrue. At most, I found a couple of references that her claims "didn't add up" and this was the reason for the order to amend the review. Claims not adding up may be reason to order the review be removed temporarily, but it takes a lot more to establish defamation. The court hasn't ruled on the defamation claim yet.
Maybe she lied. Maybe not. Up to this guy to show she did. Sorry, but the party with the resources to bring and pursue litigation against an individual for claims true or false gets a bit more scrutiny from me because that party always has more power, in or out of court.

I completely agree with Robin!  Where Yelper get themselves into trouble with the law is when they start stating facts (innocently or not) in there reviews.  If you are going to state a fact in a review, be prepared to prove that fact.  Opinions are your own and there is no burden of proof.  Under the law there is a big difference between saying "the dish tasted disgusting" and "in my opinion the dish tasted disgusting."  I would further suggest avoid using inflammatory language in reviews, you can get you point across without infuriating business owner.

Just my two cents from the West Coast where we have had some of these cases popping up!

1. Defamation is making a false statement of fact, not stating your opinion. "The dish tasted disgusting" is already an opinion, not an objective fact, so you don't need to qualify it by saying "in my opinion".

2. She did file a police report, don't know why people keep saying she didn't. Obviously this doesn't prove he stole her jewelry.

3. She relentlessly screwed with this guy and posted numerous statements of fact on Yelp and Angie'slist, and complained to several agencies such as the BBB and VDPOR. The contractor denies every allegation. Whether these allegations are true or false will be a matter of proving the facts.

No offense, but it seems someone of Yelp authority in this thread said to stick to the facts...actually you are allowed to express your opinion until you are blue in the face, it's making statements of facts that can get you in trouble (if it could harm somebody's reputation). Just make sure the facts you state are correct. I've done a few of these contractor-homeowner cases and they seem to get just unbelievably caustic. As bad as some divorces. I've even been physically threatened by a contractor in open court (as in many divorces).

@Ruckus T ~ RE: @Robin Y; @Boris Y; and most recent Dynomutt F comments):

Ruckus, by chance is there a resource link you can post that references\mentions the a police report being filed by the defendant? It would be a bonus if the source provides context that points to it being filed by the reviewer\defendant *before* the civil suit was filed).  Much appreciated!

Sure thing broski. It's in the complaint filed by the contractor, in multiple places. Linked in this thread.

You're welcome!

Thanks!

The best protection against this sort of thing is to make sure your statements are factually correct, or to make sure they communicate your feeling, your impression, your beliefs, and nothing more.

e.g. I wouldn't say "the contractor stole from my house", but I would say: "I was left with the belief that the contractor may have stolen from my house".  The former is an accusation, the latter is a statement about what you think.  They can argue against the former, but not the latter.