[HN Gopher] Customer who defamed BC company on Google, Yelp orde...
___________________________________________________________________
Customer who defamed BC company on Google, Yelp ordered to pay $90k
Author : palidanx
Score : 76 points
Date : 2022-09-01 19:10 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (vancouversun.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (vancouversun.com)
| [deleted]
| wahwah100 wrote:
| oh boy this is going to open up a can of worms
| eloisius wrote:
| This always worries me, and I never post reviews online as a
| result. Where I live, there are pretty severe penalties for
| defamation, and I'd rather not find out how it goes in court.
| However, it seems like Google or Yelp could bind both parties to
| arbitration if they want to list their business or post reviews
| of businesses on their website. Is there are reason they don't do
| that?
| bombcar wrote:
| I find the "economics" of reviews to be so weird - it is NOT
| worth it to me to review something badly, and does a good
| review from me really help anything?
|
| At most a "I would shop here again" button might be something
| I'd press.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Google and Yelp do not want the hassle and administrative cost
| of running arbitration.
|
| For firms that do arbitration in their EULAs or TOS, some of
| them have been targeted to purposefully overwhelm them with the
| expense of many cases going through arbitration.
| kelnos wrote:
| There's really no incentive for Google or Yelp to do this,
| though. Clearly plenty of people still post reviews (positive
| and negative), and businesses do get value out of it (though
| certainly all businesses are not happy with the forced
| relationship). So all Google and Yelp would be getting out of
| it is cost and headaches. It doesn't really matter to them if a
| business and customer get into a legal fight; the most they
| might have to do is follow a court order to take down a review
| or something, which is no big deal.
|
| Also consider that many business don't exactly consent to be
| listed on Yelp or Google, and have no business relationship
| with Yelp or Google (many do, but not all). So there'd be
| nothing for the business owner to agree to, and they'd be free
| to sue a reviewer, regardless of whatever agreement Yelp or
| Google have dreamed up.
| dleslie wrote:
| If you're going to make strong claims about an individual or a
| company in printed text, then make sure you have the receipts to
| prove it. The only thing "special" about this is that it happened
| online, and not in a newspaper or other deadtree publication.
| elliekelly wrote:
| He also _admitted_ his intent was to cause harm to the
| business. Even without "receipts" I suspect he wouldn't be
| looking at such large judgment if his motivation hadn't been
| malicious.
| paxys wrote:
| What is the point of every negative review ever posted if not
| to cause harm to the business?
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| To advise those about to enter into
| employment/contract/other with said company. It would cause
| harm to the company indirectly, but the intent was not to
| harm the company, but instead to help those about to
| interact with them.
|
| You can also negatively review something with the hope that
| the feedback would prompt the company to make positive
| change.
| threatofrain wrote:
| That's just the wise defensible argument that everyone
| should be making regardless of truthiness, but imagine
| that you think a restaurant sucks and should die. While
| it should be wrong to make false statements about
| businesses, it shouldn't be wrong to want a business to
| fail.
|
| The motivation for improvement or helping other customers
| should not be the only safe motivations to have. It
| should not be considered inherently immoral or unsavory
| to want some businesses to fail.
| deelowe wrote:
| The issue at hand is whether the individual intended to
| harm the business. Malicious intent matters a great deal
| in law. It's why there are different degrees of
| murder/manslaughter. To take your example to the extreme.
| It's OK to want to murder someone, but if you go out of
| your way to actually do it, you'll be booked for 1st
| degree. If instead, you run a stop sign and someone gets
| killed, the penalty will be much less.
| kelnos wrote:
| I think the issue is that it's harder to tease apart
| _why_ you want to harm the business. Sure, you might say
| "they screwed me over, and I want to hurt them", but
| maybe you're lying, and it's really "they're of a race I
| don't like, and I want to hurt them" or even just "the
| owner was rude to me, and I want to hurt them". Those
| aren't defensible reasons to publicly attack someone, or
| their business.
|
| But if you claim that you just want to protect future
| potential customers from having a bad experience, that
| shows some level of emotional detachment from the
| experience that you yourself had, and makes it seem more
| likely that you're being reasonable instead of just
| lashing out, and possibly exaggerating or even lying.
|
| Certainly this isn't an iron-clad, 100% reliable
| heuristic, but it's not terrible.
|
| And on a higher level, I think we just need more positive
| process in the world. Trying to protect others is
| positive; getting revenge is negative. Revenge serves no
| useful purpose, and often the revenge seeker doesn't
| really find what they're looking for (emotionally) after
| getting revenge. It's just toxic all around. Now, that
| shouldn't be a legal consideration, I don't think, but
| from a social/society standpoint, maybe it's important.
| threatofrain wrote:
| I think that the standard should be on whether you made
| false harmful statements, and not whether you
| _accidentally_ or _nobly_ made harmful false statements,
| with little or no focus on mens rea.
|
| If I said that a restaurant is unsanitary and unsafe but
| my claims are false, does it really matter if I'm trying
| to protect other people but in the process I destroy a
| decent business? Alternatively, if I truthfully claim
| that a restaurant is unsanitary and unsafe but my claims
| are true, does it matter what my emotional underpinnings
| are? Our attention should be on whether harm was
| justified from verifiable facts and not on the flimsy
| assessment of individual psychology.
|
| Perhaps we find out that the Twitter whistleblower wants
| to harm the business because they're angry at Twitter's
| relationship to society. With a broad slate of issues to
| worry about, should we be directing our finite attention
| to the truthiness and weightiness of claims as verifiable
| by facts, or should we be focusing on individual
| psychology?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > If I said that a restaurant is unsanitary and unsafe
| but my claims are false, does it really matter if I'm
| trying to protect other people but in the process I
| destroy the a decent business?
|
| Yes, it matters.
|
| The mental state limitations in (for instance) US law on
| defamation are about where the higher value of freedom of
| expression trumps the concerns motivating defamation law,
| which is why defamation requires at least simple
| negligence, and in some cases has a more stringent mens
| rea element.
|
| > Alternatively, if I truthfully claim that a restaurant
| is unsanitary and unsafe but my claims are true, does it
| matter what my emotional underpinnings are?
|
| Well, no, and that's why falsehood is _also_ a required
| element.
| threatofrain wrote:
| I don't see a requirement for negligence or higher moral
| culpability in my reading, but I'm not a lawyer.
|
| https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySec
| tio...
|
| As harmful speech to businesses is generally a civil
| matter, why should we desire mens rea? Why ought the
| search for relief hinge on whether someone was _noble_ as
| opposed to whether they spoke falsely and harmfully?
| Every other person in society feels they are righteous in
| their mind.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I don't see a requirement for negligence or higher
| moral culpability in my reading,
|
| You may not find it in the state statute, because it is a
| federal Constitutional limitation grounded in the First
| Amendment. See, _Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc._ 418 U.S.
| 323 (1974).
|
| > As harmful speech to businesses is generally a civil
| matter, why should we desire mens rea?
|
| Because Constitutional limits on government power (except
| those specifically by their own terms tied to criminal
| law) affect all uses of government power, including
| providing civil remedies through the judiciary.
|
| People freely expressing honest views without failing
| some legal duty of care cannot be punished in a society
| where from of expression is viewed as a fundamental
| right.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| This idea of "harm" is actually a really big issue in
| many current societies (at least Canada and United
| States) .
|
| There is no monetary value of "harm" unless there is a
| claim of financial loss. But those financial losses are
| often future presumed customers, the company essentially
| claims a right to future revenue. However if an injustice
| has been done to the customer the company rightfully
| should lose future revenue.
|
| I agree with you about ego driven revenge. But in fact to
| allow a bad actor to perpetuate is actually injustice and
| good people at lease care about, if not act to prevent,
| injustice.
|
| Just like (IANAL) most court items, the fact of the
| matters matters most, the intent is mostly about
| modifying the consequences.
|
| EDIT: this idea of "harm" is also what allows rights
| holders to go after Pirates by claiming that every
| download is a lost sale, which is clearly not true.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| To save other people from getting harmed by a bad product
| or service.
|
| But unless you go out of your way to say you want to harm
| the company, it's not possible to differentiate those.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > What is the point of every negative review ever posted if
| not to cause harm to the business?
|
| Blimey. Bit of a worrying question!
| kelnos wrote:
| Well, either you intend to cause harm to the business, or
| you intend to protect possible future customers. I think if
| he had just said, "I wanted to make sure any future
| potential customers knew the experience I went through so
| they wouldn't run into trouble", the judge may have been
| more sympathetic.
|
| Yes, protecting future customers would probably cause harm
| to the business, but intent matters.
| wowokay wrote:
| Well but at the same time reviews on those platforms are
| opinion related to services rendered. I suppose it's fair to
| say that comments can be worded in a better way in order to
| avoid something like this. It could also see the going after
| Google and other services that offer a review platform because
| I feel there should be a legal warning shown before posting a
| review if it is no longer taken as opinion and instead is
| considered factual. This also somehow feels like a win for
| companies like Comcast/Xfinity that are often reviewed
| terribly.
| dleslie wrote:
| This was different than a simple opinion about quality or
| service; he claimed that the company engaged in fraudulent
| behaviour, but did not provide sufficient evidence to support
| that claim.
| paxys wrote:
| I wish judges were this lenient when someone took a business to
| court for false advertising. Can a business prove everything they
| write about themselves online? Are they reliable witnesses?
| silisili wrote:
| IMO, this is one of many reasons we need an anonymous yet
| verifiable review system. I'm not positive how to even approach
| such a problem, to be honest.
|
| I like to leave reviews, but not when places insist attaching my
| name to them(Google). Not because I'm lying, but because I don't
| want retaliation in some form if I return, or some psycho showing
| up at my house.
|
| Sure I could make a burner with a fake name, but that's too much
| hassle.
| paxys wrote:
| "Anonymous yet verifiable" is something that sounds lovely to
| read but makes zero sense in this context.
| bombcar wrote:
| Trusted third-party can do this. But it would be pretty hard
| to monetize and keep working.
|
| Basically the third-party would view your receipt and confirm
| you purchased the product, and then let you review it.
|
| Amazon kind of does this sometimes, and it doesn't really
| help for all the various reasons that immediately pop to
| mind.
| paxys wrote:
| That third party could be compelled to disclose your
| identity by a court, so not really anonymous then.
| silisili wrote:
| It doesn't seem impossible, as long as we're not talking 100%
| perfect anonymity nor 100% verifiability.
|
| Perhaps make users upload receipt dated within last x days,
| scratching out some details, and writing their username on
| it. It would take an admin all of 5 seconds to review and
| click approve, which would delete the receipt and allow the
| review through. Perhaps after x amount of verified reviews,
| just whitelisting the user. So at this point, your IP,
| username, and date of purchase are known to the review
| system, so not 100% anonymous.
|
| Reviews without a receipt, or in waiting, are allowed but
| flagged as unverified or unsubstantiated. Probably allow them
| to be viewed, but not by default.
|
| And of course, your typical spam preventions, review bombing
| deletion, etc.
| paxys wrote:
| All this will do is make it painful enough for regular
| users to never use the service (who even gets receipts from
| a restaurant anymore?) while malicious ones will be able to
| generate fake ones in seconds to review bomb.
| multifasciatus wrote:
| I don't see this case as a reason. It seems the system worked
| as intended here. Defendant made very specific claims in their
| review "charged for goods not ordered", it went to the judge
| and the defendant could not prove what they said was true.
|
| Just be careful that when writing a review you don't lie or
| embellish the facts. As well as making it clear when you are
| just stating an opinion. "the goods I received were not of the
| quality I expected" (opinion based) vs "the vendor
| intentionally gave me bad quality goods" (speculative and not
| easy to prove).
| duxup wrote:
| I don't know how this one would get verified.
|
| "I didn't order this and you charged me too much!"
|
| "No we didn't."
|
| Someone going to go through the paperwork to validate it? What
| a pain for whatever 3rd party who does this.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Presumably, someone signed a receipt. According to the
| article, it was done on a Visa payment card.
|
| Home improvement isn't exactly cheap, so I would hope people
| doing such things would be reviewing their receipts,
| particularly if they're in the business of constructing
| homes.
| bombcar wrote:
| You would be frightened and amazed at the lack of paperwork
| on every level of construction.
|
| Sometimes the receipts are tracked, but often it's a "well
| we charged enough to cover our costs and we got what we
| needed to do the job, all good".
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Some more context from the actual opinion. Sounds like Ginther
| (the reviewer) had two separate orders he was considering, he
| gave the go ahead on one, but the lumber company misunderstood
| and charged him for both. The court found that Ginther knew it
| was a mistake and not "Fraud" so the allegation was defamatory.
| There's a bunch more in there - Ginther had received an invoice
| for both charges but didn't read it, and lied about not receiving
| it, etc etc.
|
| https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/14/2022BCSC1461cor1.ht...
|
| [22] On February 18, Ms. Jenkins emailed Mr. Ginther stating that
| she was attaching his invoice for the hemlock soffits, which she
| said would be delivered the next day. Ms. Jenkins stated:
|
| _I will process your credit card for the balance tomorrow unless
| I hear from you. If you prefer you may give a cheque to the
| driver. We will hold the Cedar until you are ready for a colour
| and delivery. No Rush. It is safely stored and covered in our
| warehouse._
|
| [23] Mr. Ginther responded the same day, directing Ms. Jenkins to
| "pay the balance on our visa (less the $7500 deposit)". He added:
| "Will let you know on the cedar when we make a decision."
|
| [24] Longhouse charged Mr. Ginther's credit card with the balance
| for both invoices, less the $7500 deposit, for a total of
| $14,428.62 on February 19, 2016.
|
| [25] When the soffits were delivered, Mr. Ginther was very
| unhappy with the quality of the stain. He complained to Mr.
| Jenkins. Longhouse retrieved the soffits, re-stained them, and
| redelivered them to the site in mid-March. Mr. Ginther said he
| was still very dissatisfied with the stain. However, he accepted
| delivery and installed them because he did not want to delay
| construction.
|
| [26] On March 31, 2016, Mr. Ginther noticed the charge from
| Longhouse on his credit card statement, which included both the
| soffits and the siding. He contacted Ms. Jenkins by phone and
| email. He said that he had not ordered the cedar siding and that
| the quality of stain on the soffits was unacceptable. He demanded
| a refund of the charge for the siding ($6,902.07) plus an
| additional $1,000, which was his estimate of 50% of the cost of
| re-staining the hemlock soffits. He added that if the refund was
| not processed by the next day, he would be calling "visa fraud".
|
| [27] Matters deteriorated from there. On April 1, the two men had
| a heated text exchange, which quickly escalated to crude insults.
| Each gave as good as he got. Later that day, Mr. Jenkins emailed
| Mr. Ginther, warning him that he considered his reference to
| fraud defamatory, and stating the plaintiffs' position that Mr.
| Ginther had ordered the cedar in December 2015. Mr. Jenkins asked
| Mr. Ginther to arrange to pick up the cedar siding and advised
| him that he would be charged a storage fee commencing April 6.
|
| [28] Mr. Ginther did not respond. On April 28, Longhouse
| attempted to deliver the cedar to the site but Mr. Ginther
| refused to take it. The delivery company returned it to
| Longhouse.
|
| [29] In early April, Mr. Ginther and his wife complained to their
| credit card company about the transaction. It investigated and
| ultimately dismissed their complaint.
|
| [30] Mr. Ginther posted the Google review some 16 months later,
| in November 2017. He posted the Yelp review on January 3, 2018.
|
| [31] These facts do not prove that Mr. and Ms. Jenkins intended
| to and did charge Mr. Ginther $6,902 for cedar siding they knew
| he had not ordered. At most, they prove that the plaintiffs
| mistakenly believed that Mr. Ginther wanted to order the cedar
| and charged him for it.
| duxup wrote:
| >Ginther claimed in subsequent online reviews that the company
| defrauded, scammed or deceived him by charging him for cedar
| siding they knew he had not ordered. He argued at trial that what
| he had said was true.
|
| >But in a ruling on the case, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Nitya
| Iyer found that Ginther was not a credible witness and he had not
| proven the allegations.
|
| The article isn't clear if his claims were true or not. The judge
| doesn't seem to believe him. Those are very specific claims. If
| they were untrue then I could see this outcome / I don't
| necessarily disagree.
|
| I haven't posted many negative reviews online but the few I have
| all have been specific and accurate.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Yeah, getting sued for defamation for a bad review, and getting
| sued for defamation because of allegations of _fraud_ , are not
| quite the same.
| brigade wrote:
| This is why the US sensibly protects opinion (this company
| committed fraud) based on disclosed facts (they charged me
| for siding I did not order), and flips the burden that the
| plaintiff has to prove the defendant knew the purported facts
| were untrue.
|
| Which I mean, Ginther still obviously believes he did not
| order siding that he was charged for.
| duxup wrote:
| >Ginther still obviously believes
|
| Well he claimed it, not sure if he is lying and maybe knows
| it.
| brigade wrote:
| Why would you jump to "he's lying" and not "he's
| mistaken"?
| duxup wrote:
| I'm saying what he says is not necessarily what he knows.
|
| As for the rest the judge already decided he wasn't
| credible as far as the judge was concerned.
| brigade wrote:
| ...how exactly is that different from lying in your mind?
|
| "Not credible" as far as proving that the plaintiffs
| acted fraudulently, which is a _far_ cry from the
| plaintiffs proving that his allegations were false.
| duxup wrote:
| "Not credible" applies to his testimony.
| fgonzag wrote:
| What do you mean? He would obviously know if he placed
| the order, and if he was charged for it. Either he's
| lying or his not, but he can't be mistaken.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| You seem to be implicitly ruling out mental illness. It's
| absolutely possible that he earnestly believes this
| without it being true.
| brigade wrote:
| Like thinking he ordered X amount but it was actually Y
| amount, or placing an order and it taking so long you
| forgot about it so you place it again, or ordering the
| wrong product code and failing to verify it, or skimming
| over the order and missing that the salesman added extras
| for whatever reason and signing it anyway, or...
|
| If he didn't remember placing the order, or believed that
| the order was modified, then at worst he's mistaken, not
| lying.
| [deleted]
| itronitron wrote:
| It would be nice to know whether or not the company did charge
| him for cedar siding, and if they did whether the company had a
| record of Ginther placing the order. Disappointed that
| information is not included in the article.
| [deleted]
| blowski wrote:
| What happens if a company is caught promoting its wares through
| forums? Could I sue for them making untrue claims?
| kelnos wrote:
| Sure, why not? Whether or not you'd win is another matter. I
| don't know that many people succeed at false advertising suits,
| in general, regardless of where the advertising happens.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-01 23:01 UTC)