Britain's ASA Announces that On-Line Reviews May Not be Trustworthy


Internet Poisoning Internet Defamation

I found a news squib I came across today to be particularly interesting because it follows the precise example I often use to explain the difference between opinion and a statement of fact, and it shows how one country is dealing with reviews posted for extortionist purposes.

First, the example. If you eat at a restaurant and later post a review that says the food tasted like poison, you are probably safe from a claim for defamation. Most would agree that is mere hyperbole; that you are offering your opinion that the food tasted bad, not that you actually meant it contained poison.

On the other hand, if you say that the food did, indeed, poison you, then you’d better be able to back it up with hard evidence. The first cannot be measured – what you think poison tastes like is your opinion. The second statement can be tested, because we can see if the food that day could have lead to food poisoning.

Now to the real life application. It seems that one of the latest fads in Internet extortion is for a reviewer to post a review claiming that he suffered food poisoning at a restaurant. The extortionist then offers to accept, say, $5,000 for the pain and suffering of the poisoning and, oh, incidentally, offers to take down the terrible review as well. Other times the offer to remove the post never comes, because the false allegation of food poisoning is from a competitor.

This bogus review scam has become so rampant in Great Britain that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has informed TripAdvisor that it can no longer claim or even imply that its on-line restaurant and hotel reviews can be trusted. The news item added that it is not always the case the reviewer knows he or she is lying. When one suffers legitimate food poisoning, they almost always blame the last place they ate, not realizing that the incubation period for a good case of food poisoning is usually one or two days, and can take as long as a week. In most cases, it is impossible to know which restaurant is responsible for the poisoning except by finding a common restaurant among a group of victims.

A Primer on SLAPP Suits and Anti-SLAPP Motions

I routinely receive calls from parties and attorneys who have run afoul of California’s anti-SLAPP statute. Since most of the calls arise from defamation actions, I previously did not think the topic was appropriate for this business blog, but recent events have changed my mind. Some of my own anti-SLAPP motions have arisen in the business context, as well as the inquires from other attorneys. It is clear that business people need to have at least a cursory understanding of what constitutes a SLAPP action before pursuing litigation, since it is equally clear that many attorneys are not conversant with this area of the law.

What is a SLAPP suit, and what is an anti-SLAPP motion?

A "SLAPP suit" is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. I use the expression Spurious Litigation Against Public Participation, since that better captures both the goal of the plaintiff and the nature of the lawsuit, but the standard verbiage is "strategic lawsuit against public participation".

The action is spurious and frivolous because the typical SLAPP plaintiff does not care whether he wins the lawsuit, and often knows he has no chance of prevailing. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism.  The heart of California’s anti-SLAPP legislation is set forth in subpart (e) of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, which provides:

(e) As used in this section, "act in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue" includes:

(1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law;

(2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law;

(3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest;

(4) or any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.

To win an anti-SLAPP motion, the defendant must first show that the speech in question falls under one of the four sections set forth above. But that is just the first prong of the analysis. If the defendant proves the speech was protected, the plaintiff can show that he is still likely to prevail on the action. In other words, defamatory speech is not protected simply because it falls under one of the four sections.

So how do you know a SLAPP action when you see it? That is not always obvious, and as many attorneys and their clients have painfully learned, failing to recognize they have created a SLAPP can be extremely costly. One of my recent anti-SLAPP successes provides a good example of how an attorney can be caught in this trap.

I’ll Sue You if You Sue Me.

In this case, our (future) client had entered into a settlement agreement with the defendant in a prior action. The settlement agreement required the defendant company to pay damages to our client, and contained a confidentiality agreement. Two years after the settlement agreement was signed, the defendant had still not paid the damages to the plaintiff, so he retained our firm to sue to collect the money due under the agreement.

We filed the action for breach of contract, attaching a copy of the settlement agreement. The defendant answered the complaint and also filed a cross-complaint, claiming that it was a breach of the confidentially agreement to attach the settlement agreement to the complaint. Incidentally, counsel for defendant had discussed with me his intention to cross-complain on this basis, and I had warned him that would be a really bad idea. He did so anyway.

The reason the cross-complaint was a bad idea was because it was a SLAPP. Do you see why? Remember again what SLAPP stands for – Spurious Litigation Against Public Participation. Under section 42516(e)(1), "any . . . writing made before a . . . judicial proceeding" is an "act in furtherance of person’s right of petition." Defendant had breached the settlement agreement, so clearly we were entitled to sue for breach of that contract. That is the public participation – taking a case before a court for redress of a grievance. By claiming that we had breached the agreement by attaching the confidential settlement agreement, Defendant was just suing our client for suing. Stated another way, the defendant company was in essence saying, "for daring to make our breach of the agreement public, I’m going to sue you." I filed an anti-SLAPP motion against the company for the cross-complaint.

So let’s run this case through the two-prong, anti-SLAPP analysis. Our burden was to show that the speech was protected under the anti-SLAPP statute. The speech here was the complaint itself, with the settlement agreement attached. Filing a complaint is a specifically protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, and comments made in conjunction with litigation are protected under Section 47. There was no issue that our complaint was a protected activity.

That takes us to the second prong, by which the plaintiff, here the cross-complainant, must show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the case, even if the speech is a protected activity. The company had failed to pay our client the money due under the agreement, so it was clearly in breach, and therefore could not possibly prevail on its own breach of contract claim, since one of the elements of a breach claim is performance.

The court granted our anti-SLAPP motion, to the utter shock of opposing counsel. Counsel had argued that the motion could not be granted because the facts were in dispute. He erroneously thought that, like a motion for summary judgment, the evidence cannot be weighed. But an anti-SLAPP motion is supported by evidence. We provided evidence that the money owed had never been paid, and there was no evidence that could be presented to the contrary.

The company must now pay all of our client’s attorney fees. Fortunately for the company, I am very efficient at these motions, but I have received calls from attorneys facing fees exceeding $100,000 after they unwittingly created a SLAPP action.

Bottom line for businesses: You probably have no desire to become acquainted with the minutia of California’s anti-SLAPP laws, but if you are going to be involved with any litigation, whether bringing or defending an action, the possibility of a SLAPP action needs to be on your mental checklist. As the above example illustrates, it may never be a thought to your attorney, and you will be the one to pay the price.


Sometimes You Can Talk Your Way Out of Litigation

A call I received yesterday illustrated a common mistake made by business owners; one that I want to pass along so you can avoid making the same mistake.

First let me set the scene. When a client comes to an attorney to complain about something, it will always be the case that the attorney takes whatever first step he or she chooses to take based only on one side of the story. In this particular case, a client came to me complaining that someone had posted comments on a blog that defamed his company. I reviewed the blog and the comments certainly were defamatory, if they were false as my client assured me they were.

So, I sent a strongly worded cease and desist letter to the blogger, informing him that I had been instructed to bring an action for defamation, and suggesting that he take down the comments as a way to minimize his damages. But since I am aware that I have heard only one side of the story, I always end such letters with the following statement: "If I have in any way misstated the facts, or there are any other facts of which you think I should be aware, please call or write me immediately."

Within ten minutes of faxing the letter, the blogger called me. But instead of using the opportunity to explain why the statements did not amount to defamation or, if they did, to offer some way to undue the damage he had done, his first screamed statement was, "How could you send a letter like this when you have only heard one side of the story?"

Exactly, dear caller, and that is why the letter invited you to call me with your side. Instead, he immediately went to the usual posturing about how he was going to make sure I was disbarred, drawn and quartered for threatening such a frivolous action, but without ever telling me what made the action frivolous. I served him with the complaint the following day, and once again the action will ultimately end as I have explained here. (He did, however, take down the blog posting.)

Admittedly, a lot of attorneys won’t care what you have to say, and may not care if the action is without merit if they think they can make a buck off the representation. But don’t assume that going in, if you really do have facts to show that the attorney was misinformed.

In one case, for example, a client informed me that he was owed a large sum of money from a former employer for commissions on products sold prior to his termination. In response to my demand letter, the President of the company called to explain why the commissions were not owed, and then sent irrefutable documentation to support his claim. When I showed the documentation to the client, he acknowledged the facts and the terms of the agreement, but said he had hoped I would find someway around that reality as the action proceeded. I took the matter no further, and by spending a few minutes responding to me, the President saved his company a lot of unnecessary litigation.

You must proceed with caution when responding to a demand letter, because the attorney may later try to twist your words to claim you somehow admitted to the wrongdoing. For that reason, you might want to make your response through an attorney. We know the magic words that can keep the response from ever being used against you. But don’t immediately reject the thought of actually responding to an attorney’s letter, and if the facts are on your side, tell your attorney to provide a thoughtful, civil response so that the other attorney won’t feel compelled to prove who is boss.

Twitter Comments Can Land Businesses in Court

Twitter comments (along with others) have now become the basis for an Internet defamation lawsuit.

Courtney Love, always a class act, has been posting “tweets” about fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir, also known as Boudoir Queen.  Simorangkir claims that Love failed to pay money that was owed to her.  Love claims otherwise, and refered to Simorangkir as a “nasty lying hosebag thief”, as well as accusing her of being a drug addict and a prostitute, according to the Associated Press.

Assuming the comments were false, the statements are clearly defamatory, but the case will still present some interesting issues if it ever makes it to trial.  Defamation is always about reputation, and defamatory remarks do not always translate to loss of reputation.  Given the context of the statements and the person making them, will anyone believe that Simorangkir is guilty of the acts claimed by Love?

Lesson for all businesses:  Are your employees "twittering" or sending instant messages from their computers at work?  Plaintiff attorneys look for the deep pocket, and if an employee sends a defamatory tweet from an office computer, you can bet your company will be named in the action.  One way to protect the company is to make such conduct outside the scope of employment, and it is only outside the scope of emploment if the company has a written and enforced policy against using company computers for such purposes.

Can Businesses Terminate Employees for Blog Posts?

The Internet, through social websites and blogs, offers fertile ground for employers that want to run an informal background check on current and prospective employees. And, since everything eventually ends up in court, the actions taken when something unacceptable is found during such a background check provide new issues for lawyers who deal with free speech and defamation.

Happier Days at the Nursing SchoolTake the case of Nina Yoder. She was expelled by the University of Louisville's nursing school because of her Internet postings. Yoder has now sued the university, alleging that the expulsion violated her First Amendment rights.

The nursing school expelled Nina Yoder on March 2, saying her MySpace postings "regarding patient activities and identification as a University of Louisville School of Nursing student violates the nursing honor code which you pledged to uphold," according to a copy of her dismissal letter, which was attached to the suit.

In her blog postings, copies of which she attached to her own complaint, Yoder makes caustic comments about Christians and blacks. I attempted to go to the website to make my own determination about the appropriateness of her comments, but she appears to have taken down her MySpace page.

According to an article posted at, the nursing school is upset because some of Yoder’s postings are about specific patients (although they are not mentioned by name). In one of her postings, she wrote about a birth she witnessed: "Out came a wrinkly bluish creature, all Picasso-like and weird, ugly as hell ... screeching and waving its tentacles in the air." I’m not sure a patient would want the miracle of her child’s birth described in that way by someone who should, like any medical professional, respect her privacy, but I can also see that as a failed attempt to humorously describe what she had seen.

But there was far more. The school officials were probably equally unimpressed when Yoder wrote about how the nursing school is in downtown Louisville, adjoining an area "inhabited by humanoids who have an IQ of 10 and whose needs and actions are basically instinctive. As in, all they do is ––––, eat, –––– and kill each other." She did, however, graciously concede, "OK, maybe I am generalizing yet again."

As discussed in a prior blog posting, Yoder and her supporters are using the "there’s so much trash on the Internet you can’t hold my trash against me" defense. As Yoder wrote in her petition requesting reinstatement to the nursing program, "If profanity was grounds for dismissal for the School of Nursing, the nursing school would go bankrupt."  Her petition to the school for reinstatement can be seen here.

The court has not yet set a hearing date on Yoder’s request that the nursing school be ordered to reinstate her. We’ll know then if the trash defense worked.  The standards are different in the academic arena than in the employment context. Under California’s at-will presumption, an employer would generally be safe terminating an employee for something said on a blog, but California’s Constitution affords more free speech protections than even the First Amendment, so tread carefully. For a more detailed analysis of employees and blogs, see You Write What You’re Told.

[UPDATE]  Thanks to Web Savy Med Student for providing me with an update on this case.  I was unable to find the court's ruling, but according to Web Savy and other sources, Yoder took the case to court and was reinstated to the nursing school.  The court dodged any free speech issues, and instead decided the matter strictly on the honor code.  Although her comments were "objectively distasteful", according to the court those comments did not deal with her profession and did not violate any confidentiality since the patient could not be identified.

Defamed Businesses Finding More Barriers to Redress

A recent decision out of Maryland illustrates the legal tension that exists between anonymous Internet defamers and the businesses they victimize.

Someone trashed a Dunkin’ Donuts on-line, claiming it was unsanitary and dirty. DD didn’t appreciate that comment, and sought the identity of the person who had posted the comment. In deciding whether the message board was required to disclose that information, Maryland’s highest court decided that the victim of the comments must go onto the board and basically give notice to the defamer. This gives the defamer an opportunity to protect his anonymity by removing the offending comment (although some unscrupulous sites won’t allow the person that posted the comment to take down his own message). Then the victim must persuade the court that the comments constitute defamation. Defamatory comments are not protected speech, so the court can then require disclosure.

It’s a tough course for the victim, because being forced to go into the lion’s den will often only fan the flames. However, as this case makes clear, a victim may well be barred at the door if he does not have the fortitude to take that step.

For a more complete discussion of the Maryland case, go to Internet Free-for-All Promises An Ongoing Test of Free Speech.

Biegel v. Norberg -- Chilling On-Line Reviews?

Yelp is based in San Francisco and is viewed there as a favored son for some reason. When someone dares to challenge Yelp or its postings, many of our Northern California neighbors get exercised. I received several calls from media outlets over the past couple of days, seeking comment on the case of Steven Biegel v. Christopher Norberg, an Internet defamation case involving

The simple facts are these. Norberg was treated by Biegel, a Chiropractor. Norberg was told the treatment would cost a certain amount if he was paying for it out of his own pocket, but his insurance company was allegedly billed at a much higher rate. Although a common practice, since health care providers and insurance companies are free to enter into whatever arrangements they please, this apparently bothered Norberg, so he posted a review on, giving Biegel just one star and questioning the honesty of his billing practices. When Biegel complained about the review, Norberg replaced it with a new entry, accusing Biegel of attempting to harass him into silence. Biegel then responded by suing Norberg for defamation. The trial is set for March 2009.

Note that Yelp is not being sued, only the person that actually posted the allegedly defamatory statements. Nonetheless, many are bothered by such a lawsuit, concerned that it will have a chilling effect on the willingness of people to post their views on sites such as and Some have suggested to me that just as the website is immune from liability for anything said by visitors, that immunity should be extended to the visitors as well.

I fought at the forefront of cases involving the Communications Decency Act, which shields website operators from liability for the comments of others, because that limitation makes infinite sense. We would not have open forums and dialog on the Internet if the website operators had to fact check every comment posted.

But on the issue of whether those who post the comments should be protected, I find myself cast as the curmudgeon, seeking to stifle freedom of speech. Here is how the San Francisco Chronicle quoted me:

“Sites that are seemingly well intended are turning into wastelands of defamatory and unspecified allegations,” said Aaron Morris, a partner with Morris & Stone LLP in Orange County who is not involved in the case. “There needs to be some sort of blowback against unfettered speech. People should be able to go on and say, ‘That’s not a true statement about me, and I need to be able to attack this.’ “

If everyone played nice, review sites would not be a problem. But they don’t. Suits against those who post defamatory statements won’t chill free speech, but they will chill defamatory speech, and that’s a good thing. You see, those seemingly helpful reviews you are reading on line are being gamed big time, and there must be a means to fight back. I receive calls every day from businesses that are being falsely trashed by competitors. In one case it was discovered that a company had employed a full time defamer (my designation, not theirs), whose job was to spend all day every day, creating false identities in order to post false reviews, blogs and websites about competitors. I’d love to say that it will all come out in the wash --  that a good business will receive enough good reviews to override the false statements -- but that is not the case. Whereas a legitimate reviewer will post their remarks and go about their business, these professional defamers utilize SEO methods to move the defamatory blogs and websites to the top of the heap.  Honest reviews don’t stand a chance against the bogus ones.

So what about the Norbergs of the world, who just want to post their comments without fear of legal action? Yes, the target of the criticism can file an action, but he will pay a heavy price if the posting was not defamatory. The poster can first respond with a simple anti-SLAPP motion, which stops everything including discovery and allows the court to determine whether the speech was protected and whether the plaintiff has a chance of prevailing. If the motion is granted, the plaintiff pays all of the poster’s attorney fees. He’ll then come to me, and we’ll file a SLAPP BACK action, suing the prior plaintiff for malicious prosecution, winning the poster millions of dollars (individual results may vary). Now who is chilled?

[Update]  After all the attention this case received, the ending, like so many cases, was rather anti-climatic. The parties settled and the offending post was replaced by a new conciliatory post by Norberg.

Dude, Who's My Plaintiff? -- Courts Allow Anonymous Plaintiffs

On August 12, 2008, the Second District U.S. Court of Appeals reaffirmed the national and local trend toward recognizing a litigant’s right to proceed anonymously through the courts. In order to sue under a pseudonym, plaintiff’s generally must show that the need for confidentiality outweighs the public’s right to know and any prejudice suffered by defendant due to the secretive pleading. While not necessarily a light burden for plaintiffs, the real strain of the increasingly minted right is on defendants.

Depending on the context of the suit, major public out-lashes could be directed at defendants helpless to stop the tide. For instance, defendants sued civilly (publicly) for sexual abuse stand to lose much in the way of reputation, and eventually income, no doubt due in large part to the public’s natural inclination to distance themselves from what might be a perpetrator. While public scrutiny of the would be victim once would serve as a blow-off valve to some extent, now defendants are not only left to deal with an unrelenting public reaction, but will dually reap heightened scrutiny for the same allegations as plaintiffs who have convinced the court of the need for confidentiality will have generally shown that they would face unwarranted injury should their identities be disclosed. In other words, defendants will have no way to call public attention to a plaintiff’s credibility, and the public will be informed, or may very well assume, that defendants or their associates had posed a threat to the plaintiff prior to or during the litigation.

Defendants’ aggressive depiction of all factors assessed by courts of their jurisdiction in deciding whether or not to permit plaintiffs to act incognito is the only recourse afforded to diminish the risk of anonymous lawsuits. Particularly, considering the public has a well established right to know who is using the court system, focusing on the lack of need to preserve a plaintiff’s identity and the severe damage that could be inflicted on a defendant’s personal and/or professional reputations as a result of the anonymous lawsuit would be key. Also, seeking an anonymous designation as a defendant may also assist in preventing unfair prejudice. Ultimately, regardless of a defendant’s choice of tactics the courts have once again increased the need to vigorously litigate cases at the earliest of stages, which requires a heightened state of readiness, and can make litigation all the more daunting.

1. Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendants, Docket No. 06-1590-cv, (Dist. 2d, 2008)

2. Id. at 7-8.

Jury Awards $11.3 Million in Internet Defamation Case

It’s amazing what you can do when the defendant doesn’t show up at trial.  With no opposition at trial, the plaintiff in an Internet defamation case convinced a South Florida jury to award her a record $11.3 million in damages. 

Sue Scheff of Weston, Fla., sued Carey Bock of Mandeville, La., in December 2003 over the messages posted calling her a crook, a con artist and a fraud, USA Today reported Wednesday. The dispute was centered on a referral business Scheff runs that helps parents of troubled children find appropriate schools, the newspaper said. After their transaction involving Bock’s two sons, Bock began posting the messages, the jury was told.

Bock was unable to pay an attorney and did not attend the Broward County, Fla., trial or enter a defense, and Scheff said she doubted she’d see any money at all.

Employer Loses Communication Privilege if ill-will is Shown

California Civil Code Section 47 affords certain privileges that protect a person from liability, even if he speaks or writes something that would otherwise be defamatory. Civil Code section 47, subdivision (c), provides that a communication is privileged if it is made "without malice, to a person interested therein, (1) by one who is also interested...." Trial courts, anxious to clear their dockets, sometimes read far too much into this simple statute, and find a privilege in cases the statute was never intended to cover.

In Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., an employee brought action against his employer, alleging national origin discrimination, retaliation, and defamation. The Superior Court, Santa Clara County, granted Trendwest’s motion for summary adjudication, and employee appealed.

The defamation claim was based on Mamou’s assertion that Trendwest had told other employees that he was starting his own competing business, and had used Trendwest information for that purpose. This would be both illegal and unethical, and therefore qualifies as defamation. However, the trial court found that the communications were covered by Section 47, and on that basis granted Trendwest’s motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing Mamou’s case.

Application of the Section 47 privilege, as with any conditional privilege in defamation law, involves a two-step inquiry. The first question is whether the factual predicate for the privilege was present-whether, in traditional terms, the "occasion" was "privileged." (Taus v. Loftus.)  At trial the defendant bears the burden of proof on this question.  If he succeeds, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the statement was made with malice.

For purposes of a statutory qualified privilege, "[t]he malice referred to ... is actual malice or malice in fact, that is, a state of mind arising from hatred or ill will, evidencing a willingness to vex, annoy or injure another person.  The factual issue is whether the publication was so motivated.  ‘Thus the privilege is lost if the publication is motivated by hatred or ill will toward plaintiff, or by any cause other than the desire to protect the interest for the protection of which the privilege is given’." (Agarwal v. Johnson.)

The Court of Appeal found that a jury could easily find that the statements by Trendwest personnel were motivated by ill will towards plaintiff.  Mamou alleged that one was hostile toward him as a member of the "Syrian regime" some members of Trendwest management had, inferentially, undertaken to purge.  A jury would be entitled to find that these feelings would naturally engender spite and ill will toward Mamou, and that this was what motivated Trendwest personnel to make the statements Mamou claimed were defamatory.

This was just one example, but the Court of Appeal concluded that it was enough for Mamou to show evidence of a single triable issue of fact. Since he obviously did, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on the defamation cause of action.

The analysis is somewhat circular, and sometimes escapes trial courts. Inter-office communications about an employee may well be privileged under Section 47. Say, for example, an employer believes that an employee stole from the company, and fires the employee on that basis.  Thereafter, when asked why the employee was fired, the employer tells other employees that he had stolen from he company. If the employee sues for defamation, and can prove that he never stole from the company, would he prevail?  Probably not, because in this hypothetical the employer genuinely believed that the employee was guilty.  With no showing of malice, the Section 47 privilege applies.

But where the situation gets more complicated is when the employee is claiming that the defamation itself is the evidence of the ill-will constituting malice. If in our hypothetical there was no basis for the employer to believe that plaintiff was responsible for the theft, then telling that story may be sufficient showing of malice. This is a distinction that is sometimes difficult to get through to the trial court.

Defamation and On-Line Reviews

A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is a lawsuit or a threat of lawsuit that is intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the person filing the SLAPP. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.

To guard against the use of lawsuits designed to quash free speech, California passed an anti-SLAPP statute. Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 provides a quick procedure a defendant can use to stop a SLAPP suit. Rather than goes through a year of costly litigation, a defendant can bring a simple motion to strike the complaint. The court then decides whether the speech in question is protected free speech. Claims stemming from these acts are subject to a special motion to strike unless the trial court determines that the plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits. (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).)

Section 425.16 applies to causes of action "against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue." (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) Such acts include: "(1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; (4) or any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest." ( Id., subd. (e).)

But note that the section requires a "public issue." Many parties and judges forget this element, as illustrated by the recent, unreported decision, European Spa, Inc. v. Kerber, decided by the First District Court of Appeal on August 28, 2008.

In European Spa, a user posted a review of the Spa, which stated: "My first impression was its tacky décor. Then I encountered an extremely rude European gentlemen, I believe this is the owner. From what I could see, the employees are miserable and tired. When I went into the steam room I saw mildew and brown spots on the walls.... I could not even sit in there. I went for my massage, and that was ok. But the room had a strange smell and the blankets were dingy. It was also very cold. I guess the owner does not put on the heat. There is just too much to go on about. I will never go there again, and I will make sure I will tell as many people as I can about the horrible experience that I had."

Another review, posted on, stated: "One star is even too much for this place. First of all, when I walked in there it looked like selling a whole bunch of useless things you'll wind up selling at a garage sale. The service was horrible. I had this creepy old European man helping me and he was just outright rude. The guy was acting as if he was doing me a favor by letting me come to his spa.... And what was with the 18 percent service charge? ? ? It's questionable that the therapists or the providers ever receive it. My massage was ok and that was the only highlight of this.... And their sauna and steam room ... was really disgusting. Their lounge are was just full of tacky decorations as what I've heard they've been around for a long time, and I really don't understand why.... I would never come back and much would rather go to the spa at my gym."

The owners of the spa were convinced that these posts came from a former employee that had started her own competing spa, not from customers. (As it turned out they were right, but they suspected the wrong employee.) They sued the former employee, who brought an anti-SLAPP motion, claiming that whether or not she was the person who had made the posts, they were protected free speech.

Resolving the merits of an anti-SLAPP motion requires a two-part analysis, concentrating initially on whether the challenged cause of action arises from protected activity within the meaning of the statute and, if so, proceeding next to whether the plaintiff can establish a probability of prevailing on the merits. (Overstock.Com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 699.)

Several years ago the court in Rivero v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 913, 924 (Rivero) made inroads into articulating the boundaries of what constitutes a "public issue" or issue of "public interest" as those terms are used in section 425.16, subdivision (e). Surveying the pertinent case law, the Rivero court identified three categories of statements that fit the bill: (1) the subject of the statement concerned a person or entity in the public eye; (2) the statement or activity involved conduct that could directly affect large numbers of people beyond the direct participants; or (3) the statement or activity concerned a topic of widespread public interest.

The court in Weinberg v. Feisel (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1132 also addressed the issue, delineating some attributes of an issue which would render it one of public, rather than merely private, interest: "First, ‘public interest’ does not equate with mere curiosity. Second, a matter of public interest should be something of concern to a substantial number of people. Thus, a matter of concern to the speaker and a relative small, specific audience is not a matter of public interest. Third, there should be some degree of closeness between the challenged statements and the asserted public interest; the assertion of a broad and amorphous public interest is not sufficient. Fourth, the focus of the speaker's conduct should be the public interest rather than a mere effort ‘to gather ammunition for another round of [private] controversy....’ Finally, ... [a] person cannot turn otherwise private information into a matter of public interest simply by communicating it to a large number of persons."

In European Spa, the court concluded defendant was wrong in concluding that reviews posted on the Internet are subject to an anti-SLAPP motion, because they did not meet the"public interest" element. The reviews did not connect with or encourage any larger discussion or public debate of general societal or consumer issues related to the spa industry. For example in Gilbert v. Sykes (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 13, a patient/consumer created a Web site that related the consumer's experiences with plastic surgery performed by a prominent, widely known plastic surgeon, as well as information and advice for those considering plastic surgery. As the reviewing court explained, these statements concerned a matter of public interest within the meaning of section 425.16. The assertions that a high profile surgeon produced nightmare results that prompted extensive revision surgery contributed toward public discussion about the risks and benefits of plastic surgery in general. Equally important, the Web site was not limited to attacking the plastic surgeon, but contained advice, information and other features, including tips on choosing a plastic surgeon, that contributed to the general debate over the pros and cons of undertaking cosmetic surgery. (Gilbert v. Sykes, supra, at pp. 23-24.) The (fraudulent) spa reviews did not rise to that level, and the trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion on that basis.

The same week, the Second District Court of Appeal came to a different conclusion in the unpublished decision of Kim v. IAC/InterActive Corp. There, a review about a dentist was posted on Citysearch, which read:

"Don't go there-worse dentist in Glendale

I do not recommend Dr. Kim. I randomly selected him as my dentist but after my initial visit, I was very discouraged. He made it very clear that he did not like HMO patients (which I was). His attitude towards me was poor as if I was a second-class citizen. I waited 5 weeks to schedule an initial visit, and he made me wait another 6 weeks to schedule my first cleaning. "Because you're an HMO patient, we cannot schedule you at convenient times." He is also understaffed. His receptionist doubles as his dental assistant. She was quite unprofessional and made comments about my age and marital status when I turned in my patient information card. All in all, DO NOT use this dentist!"

The dentist filed a complaint and subpoenaed the records from Citysearch, and then filed an action against the poster, and other defendants. The defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court granted based entirely on the fact that the dentist was unlikely to prevail in his action.

The result was correct, but the reasoning was flawed. The statement did not cross the line into defamation or trade libel, and the action against would never have survived under the Communications Decency Act, which shields Websites from liability for information posted by others. But the court never considered whether the post was a matter of public interest.

Maine Court First to Find that Print-On-Demand Publisher Cannot be Liable for Defamation

When is a publisher not a publisher? When it is a copy machine. Confused? Consider the following case.

In Sandler v. Calcagni, a defamation action was filed in the federal district court in Maine over a book that was printed and distributed by BookSurge, a print-on-demand service owned by In case you are not yet familiar with these services, they are “publishers” that permit anyone to upload a tome and have it made into a book. The author can buy copies of his own book to sell or distribute, and in the case of BookSurge and others, the book will be added to Amazon’s catalog of available books. If someone comes across the author’s book, it can be ordered, printed and shipped.

In the Sandler case, a dispute arose among some high school students and one of the parents came up with the creative idea of publishing a book in order to tell her side of the story. The target of her vitriol responded by suing her for defamation, along with BookSurge as the publisher of the book. With traditional books, the publisher can be held liable for defamatory content, because it is presumed that the publisher reviewed and edited the book and therefore had the opportunity to make certain the author could back up the claims. But can that model be applied to a print-on-demand service that never sees the material?

In Sandler, the court said no. The court correctly concluded that print-on-demand publishers are really no different than electronic copy machines. The author uploads the text to BookSurge’s servers, and whenever someone wants a copy they can cause the book to be printed. Since the “publisher” has nothing to do with the content of the book, the court found that it could not be held responsible for the defamatory content

This is just one case, and it is not controlling on other states, but I predict every state will reach the same conclusion. If the publisher is merely acting as a copy machine, it makes no more sense to hold it liable than you would hold Microsoft or Adobe liable for providing the publishing tools.