I used to be a fan of review sites. I would rarely book a holiday without first checking what previous users had to say about it. I began to have my doubts when we had a particularly unpleasant short stay at an apartment in Greece a few years ago. Think cockroaches, damp, unpleasant staff etc. What was alarming was that there were very contrasting reviews. Some had an experience as unpleasant as ours. Others seemed to have gone in search of paradise and found it! I did begin to wonder whether there was some other agenda sitting behind the favourable reviews.
The well-known Trip Adviser site has had to address addressed
this issue although their problem is more about fake positive reviews –
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49605457
In an increasingly competitive legal market, it is no surprise that law firms have seen the importance of online reviews. When I was involved in the management of my former firm, I would regularly look at sites like Trust Pilot and Social Media to see how we were perceived! Anything negative was acted on immediately! This type of consumer research can be useful. But it can also be dangerous…and expensive.
The recent case of Summerfield Brown Ltd v Weymouth [2021] EWHC 85 (QB) (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/85.html) is an important example!
1. It was ‘honest opinion’. Isn’t that the
whole point of a review? But Master Cook held that this defence is not
available where there is an allegation of fraud. The use of the words ‘scam
solicitor’ suggested that the solicitors were dishonest.
2.
He argued that it was in the public
interest, but he had demanded the return of his £200 in return for removal of
the review. Master Cook found that - “that this
demand wholly undermines the defence of public interest”
3. Finally he argued truth. The Master noted – “there is evidence that it is a responsible firm of solicitors with
no published SRA decisions against it and thus it is inconceivable the Claimant
could be a scam firm or trading fraudulently and have such an unblemished
record.”
The honest opinion defence was struck out and summary judgment
was entered in relation to public interest and truth. The client was ordered to
pay damages of £25k. Trust Pilot, who were not a party, were ordered to remove
the defamatory post.
This decision is possibly of limited effect because of the use
of the word ‘scam’ and the attempt to get money for the post’s removal.
Equally, it highlights the damage that can be done by a
negative review and that they can, in some cases, amount to libel.
