3 ms·
Amusing (in a terrifying way) that the judge ruled the review was likely to dissuade other clients from doing business with the law firm. Isn't that the whole
by TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Amusing (in a terrifying way) that the judge ruled the review was likely to dissuade other clients from doing business with the law firm.
Isn't that the whole point of a site like TrustPilot and of reviews in general?
Does this mean everyone who has ever received a negative review now has grounds to sue for defamation?
A defence against defamation is evidence that the accusations are true. Did the judge even check?
- notahacker 6y agoEveryone who has ever received a negative review has grounds to sue for libel, if the person who left it is unable to defend the truth or reasonable belief behind their claims. This has always been the case. A defence against libel is that the accusations are true, but if you don't submit any evidence to support that, the judge's job isn't to try to prove that you were telling the truth for you.
- pjc50 6y ago> Everyone who has ever received a negative review has grounds to sue for libel Maybe, but unless they have a spare six-figure sum lying around they don't have the material capability to sue for libel. It's incredibly expensive. The sheer cost of the law makes it ineffective .. except when protecting the privileged. Or, in this case, since it's a firm of solicitors, they can represent themselves effectively.