8 ms·

Customer who defamed BC company on Google, Yelp ordered to pay $90k

• eloisius 4y ago
  This always worries me, and I never post reviews online as a result. Where I live, there are pretty severe penalties for defamation, and I'd rather not find out how it goes in court. However, it seems like Google or Yelp could bind both parties to arbitration if they want to list their business or post reviews of businesses on their website. Is there are reason they don't do that?
  • bobthepanda 4y ago
    Google and Yelp do not want the hassle and administrative cost of running arbitration. For firms that do arbitration in their EULAs or TOS, some of them have been targeted to purposefully overwhelm them with the expense of many cases going through arbitration.
  • kelnos 4y ago
    There's really no incentive for Google or Yelp to do this, though. Clearly plenty of people still post reviews (positive and negative), and businesses do get value out of it (though certainly all businesses are not happy with the forced relationship). So all Google and Yelp would be getting out of it is cost and headaches. It doesn't really matter to them if a business and customer get into a legal fight; the most they might have to do is follow a court order to take down a review or something, which is no big deal. Also consider that many business don't exactly consent to be listed on Yelp or Google, and have no business relationship with Yelp or Google (many do, but not all). So there'd be nothing for the business owner to agree to, and they'd be free to sue a reviewer, regardless of whatever agreement Yelp or Google have dreamed up.
  • bombcar 4y ago
    I find the "economics" of reviews to be so weird - it is NOT worth it to me to review something badly, and does a good review from me really help anything? At most a "I would shop here again" button might be something I'd press.
    • ThunderSizzle 4y ago
      Good reviews are worth real money. These real reviews end up becoming their own website and channels. E.g. vacuum wars
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• wahwah100 4y ago
  • teraflop 4y ago
    How so? Legally, I don't see anything particularly unusual about this. I don't think there's ever been any case law to suggest that online reviews enjoy some kind of blanket protection from libel laws. Whether a particular statement is defamatory depends on a lot of complex factors, but the medium of communication is not especially relevant. At least in the USA, the frequently-mischaracterized section 230 of the CDA would (probably) have protected Google and Yelp themselves from being sued over their users' reviews. It wouldn't have done anything to protect the review's author. I don't know how Canadian laws compare.
• dleslie 4y ago
  If you're going to make strong claims about an individual or a company in printed text, then make sure you have the receipts to prove it. The only thing "special" about this is that it happened online, and not in a newspaper or other deadtree publication.
  • elliekelly 4y ago
    He also admitted his intent was to cause harm to the business. Even without "receipts" I suspect he wouldn't be looking at such large judgment if his motivation hadn't been malicious.
    • paxys 4y ago
      What is the point of every negative review ever posted if not to cause harm to the business?
      • xboxnolifes 4y ago
        To advise those about to enter into employment/contract/other with said company. It would cause harm to the company indirectly, but the intent was not to harm the company, but instead to help those about to interact with them. You can also negatively review something with the hope that the feedback would prompt the company to make positive change.
        • threatofrain 4y ago
          That's just the wise defensible argument that everyone should be making regardless of truthiness, but imagine that you think a restaurant sucks and should die. While it should be wrong to make false statements about businesses, it shouldn't be wrong to want a business to fail. The motivation for improvement or helping other customers should not be the only safe motivations to have. It should not be considered inherently immoral or unsavory to want some businesses to fail.
          • 4y ago
• silisili 4y ago
  IMO, this is one of many reasons we need an anonymous yet verifiable review system. I'm not positive how to even approach such a problem, to be honest. I like to leave reviews, but not when places insist attaching my name to them(Google). Not because I'm lying, but because I don't want retaliation in some form if I return, or some psycho showing up at my house. Sure I could make a burner with a fake name, but that's too much hassle.
  • duxup 4y ago
    I don't know how this one would get verified. "I didn't order this and you charged me too much!" "No we didn't." Someone going to go through the paperwork to validate it? What a pain for whatever 3rd party who does this.
    • bobthepanda 4y ago
      Presumably, someone signed a receipt. According to the article, it was done on a Visa payment card. Home improvement isn't exactly cheap, so I would hope people doing such things would be reviewing their receipts, particularly if they're in the business of constructing homes.
      • bombcar 4y ago
        You would be frightened and amazed at the lack of paperwork on every level of construction. Sometimes the receipts are tracked, but often it's a "well we charged enough to cover our costs and we got what we needed to do the job, all good".
  • paxys 4y ago
    "Anonymous yet verifiable" is something that sounds lovely to read but makes zero sense in this context.
    • silisili 4y ago
      It doesn't seem impossible, as long as we're not talking 100% perfect anonymity nor 100% verifiability. Perhaps make users upload receipt dated within last x days, scratching out some details, and writing their username on it. It would take an admin all of 5 seconds to review and click approve, which would delete the receipt and allow the review through. Perhaps after x amount of verified reviews, just whitelisting the user. So at this point, your IP, username, and date of purchase are known to the review system, so not 100% anonymous. Reviews without a receipt, or in waiting, are allowed but flagged as unverified or unsubstantiated. Probably allow them to be viewed, but not by default. And of course, your typical spam preventions, review bombing deletion, etc.
• duxup 4y ago
  >Ginther claimed in subsequent online reviews that the company defrauded, scammed or deceived him by charging him for cedar siding they knew he had not ordered. He argued at trial that what he had said was true. >But in a ruling on the case, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Nitya Iyer found that Ginther was not a credible witness and he had not proven the allegations. The article isn't clear if his claims were true or not. The judge doesn't seem to believe him. Those are very specific claims. If they were untrue then I could see this outcome / I don't necessarily disagree. I haven't posted many negative reviews online but the few I have all have been specific and accurate.
  • bobthepanda 4y ago
    Yeah, getting sued for defamation for a bad review, and getting sued for defamation because of allegations of fraud, are not quite the same.
    • brigade 4y ago
      This is why the US sensibly protects opinion (this company committed fraud) based on disclosed facts (they charged me for siding I did not order), and flips the burden that the plaintiff has to prove the defendant knew the purported facts were untrue. Which I mean, Ginther still obviously believes he did not order siding that he was charged for.
      • duxup 4y ago
        >Ginther still obviously believes Well he claimed it, not sure if he is lying and maybe knows it.
        • brigade 4y ago
          Why would you jump to “he’s lying” and not “he’s mistaken”?
          • duxup 4y ago
• blowski 4y ago
  What happens if a company is caught promoting its wares through forums? Could I sue for them making untrue claims?
  • kelnos 4y ago
    Sure, why not? Whether or not you'd win is another matter. I don't know that many people succeed at false advertising suits, in general, regardless of where the advertising happens.
  • jboy55 4y ago
    If a company stated that all their building materials were able to withstand the impact of a bullet in a public forum. You can sue them when you purchased said materials and found out they weren't bulletproof. You don't have standing to sue, just because you read that post. Its only when you become a customer based on those materials. Edit: Of course you can sue, it'd just get thrown out for no standing. Nothing stops you from suing.
• paxys 4y ago
  I wish judges were this lenient when someone took a business to court for false advertising. Can a business prove everything they write about themselves online? Are they reliable witnesses?
  • ectopod 4y ago
    There was a case recently in the UK. A man fraudulently obtained a senior management position in the NHS. He did the job for more than a decade and everyone agrees he was very good at it. But he was jailed for fraud and ordered to repay a fat chunk of his salary. The NHS suffered no harm. And as you say, employers routinely perpetrate worse frauds against employees. We have a double standard where people are routinely held to much stricter account than companies. It stinks. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/06/jon-andrewes-nhs-jailed https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/06/jon-andrewes...
    • DanBC 4y ago
      You've got some of the detail wrong. He spent years hopping from job to job in different organisations. Some of them were NHS orgs, but others were charities. When his deception was discovered he left the job. From your link: "the prosecution did not accept his claim that he had performed excellently during his time at various NHS bodies, saying he was rated as “unsatisfactory” in some of his job" His original trial court documents aren't available, but his appeals against the confiscation orders are available: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2020/1055.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2020/1055.html https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2022/24.html https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2022/24.html And he did cause harm to those organisations.
      • ectopod 4y ago
        The prosecution always overstate their case. The actual judgment says: > Mr Andrewes has performed valuable services for the hospice and the two trusts in return for the net earnings and, if one were to focus solely on his performance of the services (before his fraud was uncovered), it would be hard to deny that the hospice and the two trusts were receiving full value in exchange for the salary paid.
• mikeyouse 4y ago
  Some more context from the actual opinion. Sounds like Ginther (the reviewer) had two separate orders he was considering, he gave the go ahead on one, but the lumber company misunderstood and charged him for both. The court found that Ginther knew it was a mistake and not "Fraud" so the allegation was defamatory. There's a bunch more in there - Ginther had received an invoice for both charges but didn't read it, and lied about not receiving it, etc etc. https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/14/2022BCSC1461cor1.htm https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/14/2022BCSC1461cor1.ht... [22] On February 18, Ms. Jenkins emailed Mr. Ginther stating that she was attaching his invoice for the hemlock soffits, which she said would be delivered the next day. Ms. Jenkins stated: I will process your credit card for the balance tomorrow unless I hear from you. If you prefer you may give a cheque to the driver. We will hold the Cedar until you are ready for a colour and delivery. No Rush. It is safely stored and covered in our warehouse. [23] Mr. Ginther responded the same day, directing Ms. Jenkins to “pay the balance on our visa (less the $7500 deposit)”. He added: “Will let you know on the cedar when we make a decision.” [24] Longhouse charged Mr. Ginther’s credit card with the balance for both invoices, less the $7500 deposit, for a total of $14,428.62 on February 19, 2016. [25] When the soffits were delivered, Mr. Ginther was very unhappy with the quality of the stain. He complained to Mr. Jenkins. Longhouse retrieved the soffits, re-stained them, and redelivered them to the site in mid-March. Mr. Ginther said he was still very dissatisfied with the stain. However, he accepted delivery and installed them because he did not want to delay construction. [26] On March 31, 2016, Mr. Ginther noticed the charge from Longhouse on his credit card statement, which included both the soffits and the siding. He contacted Ms. Jenkins by phone and email. He said that he had not ordered the cedar siding and that the quality of stain on the soffits was unacceptable. He demanded a refund of the charge for the siding ($6,902.07) plus an additional $1,000, which was his estimate of 50% of the cost of re-staining the hemlock soffits. He added that if the refund was not processed by the next day, he would be calling “visa fraud”. [27] Matters deteriorated from there. On April 1, the two men had a heated text exchange, which quickly escalated to crude insults. Each gave as good as he got. Later that day, Mr. Jenkins emailed Mr. Ginther, warning him that he considered his reference to fraud defamatory, and stating the plaintiffs’ position that Mr. Ginther had ordered the cedar in December 2015. Mr. Jenkins asked Mr. Ginther to arrange to pick up the cedar siding and advised him that he would be charged a storage fee commencing April 6. [28] Mr. Ginther did not respond. On April 28, Longhouse attempted to deliver the cedar to the site but Mr. Ginther refused to take it. The delivery company returned it to Longhouse. [29] In early April, Mr. Ginther and his wife complained to their credit card company about the transaction. It investigated and ultimately dismissed their complaint. [30] Mr. Ginther posted the Google review some 16 months later, in November 2017. He posted the Yelp review on January 3, 2018. [31] These facts do not prove that Mr. and Ms. Jenkins intended to and did charge Mr. Ginther $6,902 for cedar siding they knew he had not ordered. At most, they prove that the plaintiffs mistakenly believed that Mr. Ginther wanted to order the cedar and charged him for it.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]