[1]Trustpilot:
A debt recovery law firm is suing Trustpilot for defamation over 20 negative reviews that accuse it of pursuing debts which it knows do not exist, it has emerged.
In a ruling [2] earlier this week, Mrs Justice Tipples found the meaning of each review defamatory in common law of Leeds firm BW Legal.
This is an interim stage in defamation proceedings that comes before the defendant has to file a defence.
Tipples J emphasised: “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.”
BW Legal said most of the reviews made a similar allegation, namely that it “has been pursuing a debt which it knows, has been shown, or otherwise ought to know does not exist”.
In arguing that the meanings were not defamatory, Trustpilot’s counsel submitted that the starting point was that “the ordinary reasonable user” would seek out multiple reviews to form an overall impression, and would not rush to judgment on the basis of a single review.
He also argued that the ordinary reasonable reader would understand that the substantial majority of the statements in the reviews were, or included, expressions of opinion. This meant, Trustpilot said, that no one review would have “a substantial adverse effect on people’s attitudes towards the company”.
Tipples J described this approach as “fundamentally flawed”. She explained: “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.
“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 argument meant that no single review could ever be defamatory, the judge continued. “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.”
Tipples J said each review was defamatory “because the words complained of would lead ordinary people of ordinary sense to the opinion that the claimant conducts its business of debt recovery in an improper manner, and will have a substantial adverse effect on people’s attitudes towards the claimant”.
Looked at this morning, BW Legal has a Trustpilot score of just 1.1 (out of five), with 97% of the 496 reviews left rating it just one star.
However, the court held that the star rating “does not add anything to what the reviewer then sets out in their review” and so the statements complained of did not include ‘BW Legal is a one-star company’ as part of their natural and ordinary meaning.
A spokeswoman for Trustpilot said: “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.
“What’s more, we are pleased that the judge broadly accepted our 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.
“We’re delighted with the ruling, which serves as a reminder that Trustpilot will always protect the right of our reviewers to express their opinions, without fear of legal action. Consumer voice is a cornerstone of our platform, and we are proud to take a stand against those who seek to suppress it.”
This is not the first time BW Legal has sued over negative online reviews. Last year, it failed in [3] a bid for a Norwich Pharmacal order aimed at uncovering the identities of people who posted reviews about it on the Glassdoor website.
In 2021, the High Court awarded London law firm Summerfield Browne damages of £25,000 [4] for a defamatory review on Trustpilot posted by a disgruntled former client. The claim was brought against the client, not Trustpilot.