"Are the Authors of Consumer Reviews Protected by Anti-SLAPP Laws?"

An interesting post by Paul Alan Levy (Consumer Law & Policy Blog), about a brief that Public Citizen just filed in VIP Pet Grooming Studio, Inc. v. Sproule; as the cases cited in the brief make clear, many courts do view such reviews as matters of public concern that are protected by anti-SLAPP statutes, though the trial court here took the opposite view.

Comments

[ah....Clem]

The obvious answer is yes, they should be. Of course, it's often the case that what the law should be is not what it actually is.

IANAL, but my reading of the statute is that they are, despite the trial judge's legal opinion.

[jb156]

I'm not convinced one way or the other as to whether reviews should be considered "a matter of public concern" as a general legal principle, but this specific case seems to be a very bad one for an Anti-SLAPP action. As the court stated, the statements in question are not merely a lay-persons opinion, but carry the implication of the professional judgement of an expert witness, should the case go to trial.

It's not yet adjudicated whether actual negligence occurred, and lacking that judgement, making a strong disputable claim of negligence would seem to be perfect grounds for a defamation lawsuit. There's no indication that it is intended to silence the reviewer entirely, but rather to punish them for making a specific factual claim of injury which is harmful to the reputation of the business. If the reviewer had couched the words as opinion, without using the word negligence and without making a definite statement out of the veterinarian's more nuanced notes, then it would have more protection under an Anti-SLAPP law, I would think.

I am not a lawyer and would be very interested to know if my assessment is incorrect.

[ah....Clem]

Here's the Yelp review. You can be the judge of whether it's legally defamatory.

I would strongly caution you against using this business. A grooming visit on March 4, 2020 ultimately ended with us having to put our 4-month old puppy to sleep two days later as a result of their negligence or incompetence. When we brought our happy healthy puppy in for a bath and cut, we specifically discussed our concerns regarding our puppy's hesitance to being bathed and the use of the clippers. We told the groomer that if there was any issue to stop and we would come get our puppy. Instead the groomer pushed our puppy through the process and only stopped and called us when it became very apparent that there was something physically wrong with our puppy. When we picked him up, he was clearly in distress, and we rushed him to the emergency vet. He had water in his lungs that the vet said could only have come from a dramatic physical accident at the groomer. Despite two days at the vet on a ventilator he continued to decline and we had to make the hard decision to let him go. We tried to discuss the situation with the groomer. They have taken no responsibility and in fact were abusive. They have threatened us financially and legally regarding telling our story. We will be pursuing legal recourse against this business when the courts reopen. You would be best finding another groomer.

[jb156]

Yep, I read the entire denial-of-motion, and it looks like the review you quoted matches what was quoted in the document. The key "assertions of facts" are the use of the term "negligence" (which does have a common use but here appears to be using the legal term) and the statement "that the vet said could only have come from a dramatic physical accident at the groomer" which was contradicted by the vets notes presented as evidence in the motion. Both of those are adjudicable (as noted in the dismissal) and not mere statements of opinion. If the review had said "careless" or "that the vet told us that it was probably caused by the grooming incident" then it would be clearly opinion.

I tend to lean toward greater protection for speech, and I support Anti-SLAPP laws, but in this specific case, it seems to me that the court threaded the needle correctly as to the result of non-dismissal (at least with regard to the actual poster, since it seems that they sued both the poster and his wife).

But I don't think I like the arguments used in the earlier part of the dismissal, which is I guess what Eugene was most focused on. Reviews are clearly public participation, though by posting a review after filing a negligence suit, they were asking for trouble. At the very least, they were providing the groomer's lawyers with ammunition to defeat their case, and at the worst, they opened themselves up to defamation.

If they started the argument at page 7, and stuck to just the fact-vs-opinion element, I think they would have sufficiently provided reason to deny the dismissal of defamation charges. And if the reviewer had waited until their negligence case had been settled, they would have had settled fact to post on their review (if it wasn't covered under nondisclosure) and avoided defamation that way.

[ReaderY]

There are human beings dying right now for want of ventilators, and they used one for a dog?

[Cal Cetín]

"This blog is filled with bitter clingers. I wish the software would allow negative stars. And I hear that one of the bloggers likes to ____ _____."

I hope you don't Bowdlerize this criticism.

[Cal Cetín]

"I wish to comment on the service at Dr. ____'s clinic. I will never get any better."

[Cal Cetín]

"You would be very fortunate indeed to get this mechanic to work on your car."

[Cal Cetín]

"Don't listen to the haters, this store hardly ever sells spoiled meat."

[David Nieporent]

Captain was sober today.

[Cal Cetín]

"I changed veterinarians because I wanted my dog to go to a better place, and that's what happened."

[Cal Cetín]

"No praise of mine could possibly match the quality of the service I received."

[Cal Cetín]

"One out of two people is enriched after an investment with this advisor."