First Amendment
Law firm can sue over alleged fake online reviews that toppled its top rating, appeals court says
A Houston law firm alleging that it was defamed by 99 fake three-star reviews on its Google business page can sue for defamation for 62 of those reviews, an Ohio appeals court has ruled. (Image from Shutterstock)
A Houston law firm alleging that it was defamed by 99 fake three-star reviews on its Google business page can sue for defamation for 62 of those reviews, an Ohio appeals court has ruled.
Lawyer R. James Amaro and the Amaro Law Firm in Texas can’t sue for reviews that are mere opinions, according to the Aug. 28 decision by the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals. But it can sue for the 62 reviews describing fictitious interactions or experiences with the firm that can be proven true or false, the appeal court said.
Court News Ohio covered the decision in a recent story noted by the Legal Profession Blog.
The actionable reviews included language such as “no follow-up,” “never called me back,” “never updated me,” “never responded,” “no communication” and “did not answer call.” Other actionable reviews had language indicating that the writer was a client, such as “no idea what is going on with case.”
The appeals court described the actionable reviews as “no communication reviews” and “client language reviews.”
But the firm can’t sue over reviews that gave the firm three stars, with no text included or with positive evaluations, or that contained only a subjective evaluation, such as “poor communication” and “no timely response.”
The Amaro Law Firm had more than 1,500 positive reviews and a perfect five-star rating before the negative reviews appeared in 2022, the firm said in its lawsuit. Because of the high rating, the firm appeared near the top of Google search results for personal injury firms.
The reviews were written in the name of people who were never clients or were never potential clients, the firm’s suit said. In response to a subpoena, Google said all the negative reviews were from an IP address assigned to the Ohio residence of two people—who became the suit defendants.
The defendants had claimed that the reviews were constitutionally protected statements of opinion. They also sought to dismiss causes of action for invasion of privacy, trade libel and tortious interference with business relations on the ground that they are derivative of the defamation claims.
A trial judge in Licking County, Ohio, agreed with the defendants and dismissed the entire suit in December 2023. The appeals court reversed, allowing the defamation claims for 62 reviews, as well as the other causes of action.
“Both the client language reviews and the no communication reviews contain specific and unambiguous statements,” the appeals court said. “Whether a law firm called or did not call someone, followed-up or did not follow up with someone, and whether a reviewer had a case with appellant each have a commonly understood meaning. The language in these reviews is not so hyperbolic so as to undermine the reader’s impression that the reviews allege appellant did not return calls, follow up or were a client of appellant.”
The case is Amaro v. DeMichael.
#Law #firm #sue #alleged #fake #online #reviews #toppled #top #rating #appeals #court
