I assume this was not in the UK? As I am curious why you didn’t take the company to a civil court if they were unlawfully imposing restrictions on your opinion, view and free speech though intimidation or such like - or was it not worth the effort or not possible in the country where this happened?
I have a problem with this, in that a review is by its very nature subjective, is it not? It doesn’t need even to be “substantiated”, whatever that means.
The only thing it cannot be is defamatory (eg “Product X gives you cancer” or “is made by child slave labour” – although if it could be proved that it did indeed give you cancer or was made by kiddie slaves, you would be protected by a public interest or fair comment argument).
I would however argue that a reviewer also has a moral, and possibly legal, duty to not provide factually incorrect information where this is relevant (eg “The Acme XXX Blu-ray plays SACDs as well as BDR, DVDs and CDs”, when it in fact can’t play SACDs).
I’ve not been the target of their legal sword. Their target is always corporations. And less of a free speech issue and more of an illustration of how companies weild overbearing legal tools to impose their will. I’ve spent many years working with ex employees of this unnamed company, who are well versed in the shenanigans.
Well yes however to try and be somewhat more objective about this I looked up the relevant legislation in the UK. Substantiated means with supporting evidence to show that it is not untrue.
So formally in the UK I understand under the Defamation Act 2013, the following criteria need to be met if a company is to make a case for damages from a review or some such like:
1. It must be published to a third party
This requires a statement to be made publicly and be shared with someone else, verbally or in writing.
2. It must be a false statement
A statement is only considered to be false if it is untrue and/or intended to create a false impression. As mentioned above, expressing your opinion is not usually defamatory unless it is found to be untrue.
3. It must cause serious harm to the claimant
The defamation needs to be sufficiently serious that there is reputational damage. If the statement has been made about a business, they will need to show the financial impact that had or may be created.
The Court will usually consider all relevant circumstances and therefore proof of damage to reputation is essential as established in the case of Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2015].
4. There must be no defamation privilege in place
There can be certain circumstances where statements are immune from defamation. You can be protected by absolute privilege; this is on occasions when the statements made are considered sufficiently important for example public policy reasons. There is also a qualified privilege.
There are two types: statutory qualified privilege and common law qualified privilege.
- Statutory qualified privilege covers a statement on a matter of public interest, but this can be defeated if the statement is made with malice.
- Common law qualified privilege covers statements made where there is a reciprocal relationship of duty, including a social or moral duty.
As you can see in our contexts - point 2) is likely to be the most relevant… followed by 3)
2 Likes
Do we know if the manufacturer filed the suit in the UK or the US? I believe for defamation (and slander), the burden of proof in the UK and US are on opposite sides.
I have no idea, however I seem to remember seeing in the op’s video, the emails from the lawyer appeared in American English as opposed to standard English.
Presumably, NPR, have to deal with journalistic defamation and slander a lot because their site states the following:
In American courts, the burden of proof rests with the person who brings a claim of libel. In British courts, the author or journalist has the burden of proof, and typically loses.
Correct, it was an American company threatening a British bloke.
It was never a lawsuit, it was just threatening.
I’m assuming the article has been removed by Sir Richard.
1 Like
I am no expert, but reading into it I see in the UK, a negative personal opinion or ‘editorial’ is a not a basis for defamation, unless it becomes malicious or grievous in aspects that are knowingly untrue.
I find this case interesting as a sales ‘white paper’ on the DAC architecture was referenced using simplified consumer terminology which technically was corrected in the review, and that was a basis of one of the complaints as a falsehood… so that aspect would have or did fail.
We do see a fair amount of this in high end consumer audio (fortunately not seen it from Naim) so
I think it was a YouTube video about the behaviour of dCS referenced on another social media site which is against AUP. It is easily searchable on the web.
1 Like
Cheers, I’ll have a look.
1 Like
That is correct. AFAIK, the “it must cause harm” aspect is specific to the UK. I’ve heard that mentioned before but I could not say where.
It’s point 3 of the UK legislation I had summarised above in this thread. Follow the UK gov link to get more detail.
Yes I know, that’s specifically why I mentioned it. It’s in relation to your summary earlier.
1 Like
On the other side of the coin, retailers and the hospitality industry in particular are being targeted by blackmail. “Pay up or we will leave negative reviews”. Slightly different context I realise.
Well indeed, but that is an entirely different matter as you say and possibly confusing in this thread… extortion and blackmail are criminal offences with up to 14 years imprisonment.
FWIW I think many such online review services are largely discredited now or at best treated very cautiously and not taken particularly seriously as they are so open to abuse and churlish grudges.
Indeed; although the impact of such reviews does depend on the industry and how well written they are. But there was an interesting article I caught by accident on You and Yours (Monday I think) about genuine blackmail attempts where those who did not pay up were suffering from the reviews then left. Anyway you are right that this is a diversion from this thread.
There is no way a company can successfully sue someone who expresses their own opinion about their products, not in Europe. What is possible in the US I don’t know but it wouldn’t surprise me if it works there, commonplace to sue each other it seems…
I believe successful defamation claims are more common in the UK than the US. No idea about the rest of Europe.
1 Like