- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A couple is being sued for defamation after each wrote 1-star Google reviews
Posted on 7/25/21 at 10:17 pm to Twenty 49
Posted on 7/25/21 at 10:17 pm to Twenty 49
quote:
Even that’s not safe. A certain poster is said to be considering a class action against down voters for infliction of emotional distress.
The Snowflake should log off
0
Posted on 7/25/21 at 10:26 pm to NoSaint
quote:
If accurate, it’s incredibly shitty behavior by the couple too and they had plenty of opportunity to think better of it.
No saint,
They posted about the rudeness of the secretary they interacted with. I don’t think that rises to “incredibly shitty” and even if it does a 6 figure lawsuit outweighs it by a lot IMO.
Posted on 7/25/21 at 10:34 pm to Byrdybyrd05
I had Hattie B's in Nashville call me to take down a negative review I left them.
Posted on 7/25/21 at 11:43 pm to Byrdybyrd05
Sounds like assholes on both sides who are now engaged in a legal battle.
Posted on 7/25/21 at 11:50 pm to Byrdybyrd05
Why didn't they just settle this at the pool board meeting.
Posted on 7/26/21 at 12:07 am to Byrdybyrd05
from the article, it sounds like the couple weren't actually customers of the roofing company, or even prospective customers, but were just trying to wheedle information about the job the roofing company was doing for their landlord.
If so, then I think the roofing company has a case... If you leave a 1-star review for a company when you have never been a customer or even evaluated them as a customer, that sounds like defamation to me. If they said something like "you tell me or I will leave a 1-star review for you" then it becomes a pretty easy case to make.
If so, then I think the roofing company has a case... If you leave a 1-star review for a company when you have never been a customer or even evaluated them as a customer, that sounds like defamation to me. If they said something like "you tell me or I will leave a 1-star review for you" then it becomes a pretty easy case to make.
Posted on 7/26/21 at 2:12 am to Byrdybyrd05
quote:What does this have to do with the pool board?
A couple is being sued for defamation after each wrote 1-star Google reviews
Posted on 7/26/21 at 3:27 am to HoustonGumbeauxGuy
quote:
If they simply stated factual information, that lawsuit is not going anywhere
Exactly. Truth is an absolute defense. If they gave their honest opinions on the reviews then I assume they will get summary judgement in their favor.
The owner has to prove malicious intent. As long as they didn’t knowing lie they will be fine. But if they knowingly lied in even a tiny aspect they are screwed.
Posted on 7/26/21 at 3:28 am to HoustonGumbeauxGuy
quote:
Freedom of speech is going to set these people free
The first amendment is not applicable here at all.
Posted on 7/26/21 at 3:29 am to CovingtonTigre
quote:
He denied it was a SLAPP situation.
Did he really?
Posted on 7/26/21 at 3:30 am to sec13rowBBseat28
quote:
What’s the deal with Garcia roofing?
Oh man you missed it. Chick came in her saying a woman at the company sexed her husband. OT did OT things. It was glorious before it got whacked
Posted on 7/26/21 at 3:32 am to IT_Dawg
quote:
Owner brings up a good point though, these people had no right to the report and did not do business with this company….
Not really. If they left a review stating their experience in interacting with the company the above doesn’t even matter
Posted on 7/26/21 at 3:35 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
The point may not even be to win the lawsuit.
This is true. Especially since the owner said he’d spend 100k to sue them. It could drain the couple. However now that it has gotten publicity I am sure a lawyer will take it up for them and file for a summary judgment and then have the Court make plaintiff pays court and legal fees. Might even counter-sue for good measure.
Posted on 7/26/21 at 3:37 am to Twenty 49
quote:
Even that’s not safe. A certain poster is said to be considering a class action against down voters for infliction of emotional distress.
Wait...what?
Posted on 7/26/21 at 4:15 am to Ted2010
There is 0 percent chance this suit sticks to a goddamn wall. This thread has too many pages and replies
Posted on 7/26/21 at 4:54 am to Ted2010
quote:
However now that it has gotten publicity I am sure a lawyer will take it up for them and file for a summary judgment and then have the Court make plaintiff pays court and legal fees. Might even counter-sue for good measure.
While summary judgment can be used in multiple surgical ways in most jurisdictions for it to be used in the way you imply (effectively dismissing the case) requires a finding of the court that no material facts are in good faith controversy. Unless one of the attorneys is a moron and produces faulty pleadings it will be hard to get a judge to make this ruling since if nothing else the malice or other nefarious intent will be alleged of the defendants. That is a question of fact for a jury.
This would be a nice place to attempt to use anti-SLAPP legislation and Washington does have an excellent anti-SLAPP law... oh wait they don't. They passed some wide wide ranging and aggressive anti-SLAPP legislation but the Washington State Sup Ct struck it down as unconstitutional several years ago (Davis v Cox) Now ridiculously timely Washington is the first state to enact the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act which literally just became effective there about 29 hours ago. I actually have a copy of UPEPA on my desk to review later today. It will likely be adopted by many states. Since I have not reviewed it I can't speak to it specifically but I am guessing this case might fall under it. It would be interesting if this case actually became the test case for the constitutionality of UPEPA.
This post was edited on 7/26/21 at 8:21 am
Posted on 7/26/21 at 5:43 am to Fat Batman
quote:
Freedom of speech doesn't relieve you of the responsibility of saying things.
I don't have the knowledge to argue the legal points but what is the use of having a review function if people can be sued for saying what they really think? That seems to contradict the whole purpose
Posted on 7/26/21 at 6:33 am to FredBear
This is all going to come down to what was actually said in the review.
If the only talk about the woman being rude, I don't see how they lose.
Now if they say the place does shoddy work or something that is different.
If the only talk about the woman being rude, I don't see how they lose.
Now if they say the place does shoddy work or something that is different.
Posted on 7/26/21 at 7:01 am to Jyrdis
quote:
7 downvotes and not one rebuttal. Marx theorized a system built on logical fallacies and inconsistencies. No wonder his followers can’t at least rebut the ridiculousness of the OP
Posted on 7/26/21 at 7:04 am to Jyrdis
We did. You clearly haven’t been to any part of Washington east of the Cascades, so your OP was dumb as frick to begin with. Seattle is not the only living existence in Washington
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News