Libel Law Application To Reviews: Understanding The Legal Boundaries

Libel is a form of defamation expressed through writing, pictures, signs, print, or any other physical form of communication. Libel laws apply to reviews if the reviewer is proven to have made a false statement of fact about a business, communicated it to a third party, and caused harm to the business's reputation. Libelous statements are often presumed to be damaging, and the affected business may be able to recover damages without proof of actual harm. However, the right to freedom of expression may limit the ability to award damages in libel cases. To prove defamation in a review, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the statement is false, published, harmful, and unprivileged. While negative reviews can cause significant harm to a business's reputation and revenue, they are not necessarily defamatory and are often protected by free speech laws.

Libel vs. Slander

Libel and slander are two forms of defamation. Defamation is a false statement communicated to another person that damages a person's or entity's reputation. Libel is a defamatory statement in written or pictorial form, whereas slander is a defamatory statement that is spoken.

Libel and slander can harm a person's reputation and are considered legal offences. Libel is considered in context; for example, a writer describing an athlete as a "pimp" in a glowing profile in a magazine is likely to be interpreted as a compliment. Slander, on the other hand, involves false or defamatory statements conveyed orally, typically through speech.

To prove defamation, the plaintiff must show the following key elements:

• The defendant made a false statement claiming to be factual.
• The defendant communicated or published the false statement to a third party.
• The statement was unprivileged or non-confidential.
• The defamatory statement resulted in harm, injury, or other losses to the defamed party (plaintiff).

In the United States, the First Amendment's protection of freedom of expression limits a state's ability to award damages in actions for libel. However, this does not mean that all speech is protected. Defamation law aims to balance the protection of people's reputations with the freedom to share opinions and information.

The biggest difference between libel and slander is that, in addition to proving the above, plaintiffs alleging slander must also show special damages. However, a slander per se claim—a false statement that is so obviously harmful that damage to the plaintiff's reputation is presumed—does not require the plaintiff to prove special damages.

Proving Defamation

Libel is a form of defamation expressed through writing, pictures, signs, print, or any other physical form of communication. Defamation laws strive to protect a person's reputation, which is tied to their human dignity. However, these laws must also preserve essential principles such as freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

To prove defamation, the plaintiff must show the following:

• The defendant made a false statement claiming to be factual. Truth is a defence to defamation, and the defendant must prove that the statement was true.
• The defendant communicated or published the false statement to a third party. The statement must have been communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff and the defendant.
• The statement was unprivileged or non-confidential. Qualified privilege allows someone to make a statement that would typically be considered defamatory, but due to particular circumstances, it is not. For example, a nurse writing something defamatory in a patient's chart to be provided to a doctor.
• The defamatory statement resulted in harm, injury, or other losses to the defamed party (plaintiff). The statement must have tended to lower the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of a reasonable person.

In addition to the above, some sources state that the plaintiff must also prove fault amounting to at least negligence. This means that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was at least negligent in making the false statement.

If the plaintiff can establish these factors, falsehood and harm are inferred, and the burden shifts to the defendant to provide a valid defence.

Defamation vs. Bad Review

Libel is a form of defamation expressed through writing, pictures, signs, print, or any other physical form of communication. It is a false statement that injures a person's reputation, exposes them to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or injures them in their business or profession. Defamation, on the other hand, is a false statement presented as a fact that causes injury or damage to the reputation of a person, business, or entity.

A bad review, on the other hand, is a negative reflection of a customer's poor first-hand experience with a company's product or service. It is important to note that not all negative reviews amount to defamation. Some negative reviews can have merit, while others may be completely groundless, fabricated, or even made by competing businesses. However, a bad review crosses the line into defamation or libel when it states a verifiable fact that harms the business' reputation and can be proven false.

To prove defamation, the plaintiff must show that the defendant made a false statement claiming to be factual, communicated it to a third party, and caused harm, injury, or loss to the plaintiff. The statement must also be unprivileged and non-confidential.

In the context of reviews, the line between defamation and a bad review can be blurry. For example, consider a scenario where a customer posts a negative review claiming that a restaurant has violated health codes. If this claim is fabricated and the restaurant can prove it to be false, the restaurant owner may have grounds to claim defamation. They would need to demonstrate that the false statement was published to potential customers, causing reputational damage and potential loss of business. In this case, the review would not be protected under free speech laws, and the restaurant could consider legal action.

In summary, while negative reviews can be damaging to a business, they do not automatically qualify as defamation or libel. For a statement to be considered defamatory, it must meet specific criteria, including being a false statement of fact rather than an opinion, causing harm to the plaintiff, and being published to a third party.

Opinion vs. Fact

Libel is a form of defamation expressed in a tangible medium such as writing, pictures, or signs, which can harm a person's reputation, expose them to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or cause harm to their business or profession. Libel laws do apply to reviews, and businesses or individuals can take legal action against reviewers if they believe a review contains false or defamatory statements that have caused reputational damage or loss of business. However, it is important to note that reviews are generally protected under free speech laws, and proving defamation in the case of a review can be challenging.

When determining if a statement is defamatory, it is crucial to distinguish between opinions and facts. Opinions are subjective beliefs that cannot be proven or disproven with objective evidence, whereas facts are objectively true and can be supported by evidence. Statements of opinion are generally protected by free speech laws, and expressing negative opinions about a business or service is not considered libelous. For example, stating that a dentist seemed nervous about doing a filling is likely to be considered an opinion and is protected under the First Amendment.

On the other hand, statements of fact can be proven or disproven and are not matters of opinion or personal belief. If a statement of fact is false and causes injury or damage to the reputation of a person, business, or entity, it may be considered defamation. For instance, a customer posting a review claiming that a restaurant has violated health codes by having pests in the kitchen could be considered defamatory if the statement is fabricated and causes reputational damage or loss of business for the restaurant. In such cases, the reviewer could be held liable for the harm caused by their false statement.

It is important to note that the distinction between opinion and fact is not always clear-cut, and there may be grey areas or subjective interpretations. However, understanding the difference between opinions and facts is crucial for both reviewers and businesses to navigate libel laws and protect themselves from legal consequences.

Defamation Laws by State

Libel is a form of defamation expressed through writing, pictures, signs, print, or any other physical form of communication. Slander is the spoken form of defamation. Defamation is governed by state law and each state varies in its standards for defamation and potential damages.

To prove defamation, a plaintiff must show four things:

• A false statement purporting to be fact.
• Publication or communication of that statement to a third person.
• Fault amounting to at least negligence.
• Damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

In the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Court held that proof of actual malice is required for an award of damages in an action for libel involving public officials or matters of public concern. This set a national standard for libel. However, states still vary in their anti-defamation statutes and how they interpret defamation laws.

For example, in the state of Georgia, USA, the law defines libel as "a false and malicious defamation of another, expressed in print, writing, pictures, or signs, tending to injure the reputation of the person and exposing him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule." In Georgia, a plaintiff must prove falsity, especially when the defamation is between non-public figures.

In Arizona, to establish a defamation claim, you must prove that:

• The statement in question is false and references you.
• The defamer expressed the statement as a fact rather than an opinion to at least one other person.
• Your reputation was harmed due to the statement, leading to financial loss, such as loss of employment or a canceled business contract.
• The defamer acted maliciously or negligently.

In California, reviews are protected under the First Amendment Act or Anti-SLAPP statute, which prevents people or businesses from using unfounded lawsuits to intimidate and silence customers from exercising their right to free speech.

Frequently asked questions