Trustpilot doesn’t understand freedom of speech.
Trustpilot has warned users after a business sued a man for leaving a negative review on the platform.
“We strongly oppose the use of legal action to silence consumers’ freedom of speech,” says a message on the website.
Leaving a negative review is indeed freedom of speech. Libel, however, is not and this idiot was sued because he committed libel.
The warning comes after a man was ordered to pay £25,000 in libel damages to solicitors who sued, on the basis the review was false and defamatory.
He called them scammers. That’s libel, right there. He got precisely what he deserved. My late wife had something similar happen on eBay many years ago. Getting it sorted was painful and unnecessarily expensive, but through tenacity we got it done. Some people seem to think that calling a provider or seller a scammer is a valid form of feedback. No, it isn’t, it’s defamatory.
“We strongly oppose the use of legal action to silence consumers’ freedom of speech. As a public, open, review platform we believe strongly in consumers having the ability to leave feedback – good or bad – about a business at any time, without interference.
“This is the first time we’ve seen a business taking such extreme measures against a consumer voicing their genuine opinion. The vast majority of businesses on Trustpilot engage with their consumers or use our flagging tools to report content and resolve their issues.”
What did you expect them to do? You are fortunate that they didn’t go after you for hosting it. This was not someone merely leaving feedback that was negative, it was clearly libellous and the courts agreed. Bugger all to do with freedom of speech and if you can’t see that, you have no business hosting reviews.
You have the freedom to speak, but you do not have the freedom to defame and never have.
Summerfield Browne said in a statement: “As a family firm, the decision to pursue legal action was not one we took lightly and doing so gave us no pleasure.”
When someone decides to defame you, causing damage to your reputation and business, if you can afford to do it, which most of us can’t, then taking them to the cleaners is a proportionate response pour encourager les autres.
Given Trustpilot’s lack of understanding of the law, I wouldn’t use them for either leaving a review, nor for sourcing information on potential businesses.
I wonder why the BBC haven’t taken anyone to court over having their news content described as left wing propaganda? I mean, that can’t possibly be true so it must be libellous.
Amen, Sir
The view of a classical liberal.
The difference is so obvious, you wonder how a website with such morons running it has been able to survive this long.
I don’t know. It seems pretty clear to me that ‘scam solicitor’ is hyperbole in the context – much as calling a landlord who charges £5 per pint a ‘crook’ is hyperbole. But then I don’t understand the law.
Therefore it is untrue and by definition, libellous. If you are going onto a public forum to leave a negative review, then it needs to be factual.
That much is self evident.
Oh, that’s the level.
“Hyperbole” doesn’t mean simply “exaggeration”. I believe the law recognises the distinction, to the benefit of satirists and caricaturists everywhere.
The law does. This, however, was not remotely satire or caricature, it was a deliberate libel.
As you see, not content with the headline, he repeated it in the review.
I am well aware of the definition of hyperbole. It was clear that this statement was intended to be taken literally and people clearly did, hence the action taken and rightly so. The court came to the same conclusion.
I was somewhat amused by Waymouth’s attempt to settle out of court.
When attempting to reach a settlement with a plaintiff against whom you have committed a tort, you don’t demand that they give you money when they are seeking damages.
Extremely serious, and foolish, to accuse a legal firm of being “scammers” as the firm may have found itself being investigated by the SRA if it hadn’t cleared its name and, as a legal firm, is well placed to go to law to do so.
Quite so. It is unfortunate that sites such as Trustpilot actively encourage the behaviour by making it incredibly difficult to get such reviews removed. Their bias is in favour of the reviewer. I recall a cafe in France who had a negative review left on Trip Adviser. The complaint was about something over which they had no control as it was an arrangement by a tour company, but they were unable to get it removed.
Given this, I don’t use such sites as the reviews are unreliable.