A €40,000 damages award against a Dublin man who posted a defamatory review online of a plumbing company is “hugely significant” and should make people “think twice” before posting critical reviews, an internet law expert has warned.
Ireland is beginning to see cases being initiated over critical online reviews, reflecting a “growing phenomenon” worldwide, barrister and law lecturer Michael O’Doherty, who is also the author of Internet law, the first Irish work on the subject.
Some reviews have led to six figure awards against posters, including a 2019 case in Australia where a cosmetic surgery company defamed by online reviews from a former client was awarded €290,000 based on loss of revenue, he pointed out.
Mr O’Doherty was speaking in advance of the Kilkenny law festival this weekend, where he will participate in a panel discussion on Saturday on libel, defamation and the media.
Marriage equality a decade on: ‘Things have gone backwards’
Rhasidat Adeleke on life in the spotlight: ‘How do people like Beyoncé handle this? This is crazy!’
Dara Ó Briain: ‘I’m a man, I can’t manage family at the best of times ... now I’ve willingly taken on a 600% increase in family members’
Michael Gaine: Suspected body parts found in search for missing Kerry farmer
He described as hugely significant, the “first of its kind”, a recent High Court decision where a man was ordered to pay €40,000 to Stillorgan Gas Heating and Plumbing Ltd, based in Dun Laoghaire, over critical reviews of a boiler installation.
James Manning, of Castleside Drive, Rathfarnham, Dublin, was found to have defamed the company in four reviews he posted in February 2022 on the Trustpilot review website and the firm’s Google maps review page. Two of the reviews, which included untrue references to the firm such as “con men”, were removed after 24 hours, and two were removed after four days.
After Mr Manning failed to put in a defence to the company’s action, the High Court gave judgment in default of any appearance by him and the matter was adjourned for assessment of damages. During the assessment hearing, Mr Manning expressed regret over the tone of his review. He also said, when his posted review was taken down, he should not have replaced it with a post in his wife’s name.
In a judgment last February, Mr Justice Conleth Bradley held the company was entitled to €40,000 damages over the defamation.
The case, Mr O’Doherty said, illustrates that people should think twice before “venting” online. It is significant that the damages were awarded against the poster, not the publisher, and people may be unaware how much a critical review may cost them, he said.
There is no difficulty with a negative review expressing truthful criticism, the problem is when people go beyond the truth and “go over the top” in their criticisms and use defamatory words like “crooks”, “chancers” or shysters” that they cannot stand over, he said.
Those who write fake reviews for reasons including to damage a rival business could also face defamation proceedings, he said.
Among the difficulties experienced by those who believe they were defamed is the difficulty in getting the relevant review taken down, he added.
He accepted the costs of going to the High Court might deter some against taking defamation proceedings but pointed out the Circuit Court route, with a damages threshold of €60,000, is also available.
The Kilkenny law festival is on the theme Bringing lightness and insight to the law, runs over the weekend and will feature contributions from a wide range of participants, including senior judges, lawyers, academics, historians and journalists. Details are available at kilkennylawfestival.com/
