Trustpilot navigates defamation allegation

A debt recovery law firm is suing review website TrustPilot for defamation, over reviews that include allegations of harassment and fraud.

The case is interesting because it is likely to shift the way online review websites approach the content of the reviews on their platforms.

The action, one of the first cases where a law firm has brought proceedings against a review site, concerns 20 separate reviews posted between February 2020 and January 2021.

BW Legal Services Limited, regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), is suing for libel.

Mrs Justice Tipples DBE, presiding over and interim hearing in the proceedings, made it clear that : “The court is not, at this stage, adjudicating on any issue concerning any of the reviews, other than meaning. Specifically, the court is not determining whether allegations made in the reviews about the claimant (or anyone else) are true.”

The Danish company which owns and operates TrustPilot has not yet been required to file a defence.

Each of the reviews was assessed separately to establish its precise meaning, and was found to be defamatory.

The first review referred to the law firm as “absolute liars” and “an absolute disgrace”. The firm submitted it had been accused of harassing a client and falsifying transcripts of telephone conversations with the aim of misleading the SRA. “At the heart of the review”, according to the firm, was a clear allegation of dishonesty.

In response, the defendant suggested nothing in the review could be understood to imply the firm had harassed a customer: allegations concerning the firm’s imputed intentions were also, TrustPilot said, unsustainable.

Further reviews were similarly uninhibited. One referred to the law firm as “total scumbags”, and a “vile robo firm of solicitors” who relied on “bullying tactics” to force people to pay penalty notices.

BW Legal Services Limited maintained the defendant presented the information to users of the website as a reliable information source on the profiled companies, citing the use of the word “trust” in its name – TrustPilot - as an endorsement of this perspective.

TrustPilot responded, submitting that the meaning of each statement inferred by the firm was “far removed” from how the ordinary reasonable user of the site would understand the reviews. In fact, the defendant contended, the claimant’s pleaded meanings adopted an “overly lawyerly” analysis of the reviews: “the ordinary reasonable user” of their site, they claimed, would seek out multiple reviews to form an overall impression.

Tipples J described this approach as “fundamentally flawed” and said: “The issue for the court is what each statement complained of means and, amongst other things, whether that meaning is defamatory of the claimant at common law.”

She went on to explain: “The only admissible context is the review itself, and the defendant’s argument as to how the ordinary reasonable reader will approach, and read, the TrustPilot website is unrealistic and based on speculation.”

The logic of the defendant’s argument meant that no single review could ever be defamatory, the judge continued, saying:  “That consequence is nonsensical. Accordingly, in determining whether the statement complained of in one review is defamatory of the claimant at common law, all other reviews on the TrustPilot website are irrelevant.”

In her view, each review’s meaning was defamatory at common law, and consisted of a mixture of statement of fact and expressions of opinion.

She added: “The TrustPilot website is an open platform on which anyone can write a review of their experience of the claimant and, in doing so, rate the claimant’s performance. They do so in their own words and the language used, and the tone of that language, will no doubt reflect the quality of that experience. The narrative provided by reviewers in these circumstances is one that the reasonable reader will understand as factual and when the reader sees that the claimant is described as a “scumbag” or “absolutely shocking” or “run by parasites” the reasonable reader will understand that as the reviewer’s opinion of the claimant, based on the facts relating to their experience.”

A spokesperson for TrustPilot responded to the ruling, commenting: “TrustPilot continues its efforts to protect consumers and freedom of expression by robustly defending the claim brought against it by BW Legal - and in a reassuring sign for both consumers and platforms, we are pleased to have received a positive judgment at the preliminary hearing. Context is key when determining whether online review content is defamatory. It is not reflective of a consumer’s experience to read only the black and white text of a review - which BW Legal put to the judge - and it is more important to consider the reality of how consumers come to find reviews. In this case, consumers would have searched for the business online, or for reviews of the business on TrustPilot, and in doing so would have been able to see all feedback from all reviewers.”

However, the company said the judge also “broadly accepted” its argument that critical words on the TrustPilot platform - such as "scam" or "fraud" - should generally be understood as opinion not fact, expressed on a medium where people tend to post in less inhibited ways.

The case will now proceed to a substantive hearing.

The potential implications for online review platforms are interesting. When an opinion is published, the reasons for that opinion should be made clear.

If you have problems with untrue reviews of your business, we may be able to help. Contact us today to speak to one of our expert defamation solicitors. 

Article credit: Lalla Merlin