Il premio danni alla società di Dublino rispetto alla revisione online dovrebbe far “pensare due volte” prima di “sfogare”, afferma Internet Law Expert
https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2025/05/17/damages-award-to-dublin-firm-over-online-review-should-make-people-think-twice-before-venting-online-says-internet-law-expert/
di PoppedCork
15 commenti
An expensive day for the defendant.
He described it as hugely significant, the “first of its kind”, a recent High Court decision where a man was ordered to pay €40,000 to Stillorgan Gas Heating and Plumbing Ltd, based in Dun Laoghaire, over critical reviews of a boiler installation.
The potential for abuse by commercial entities against individuals is high as reviewers and websites will be afraid of publishing truthful negative reviews, even if they are theoretically protected. This is a victory for commercial interests.
A lot of those sites evolved in the U.S., where defamation laws set a very high bar. It is usually very hard to bring a defamation case. There’s a fairly stark contrast with Ireland, and other Common Law jurisdictions like Australia (mentioned in the article), England / Wales etc all have much lower thresholds for civil defamation.
Certainly should make some keyboard warriors think before posting. Make sure you can stand over your claims!
He was found to be using his wife’s name.
How to we rate businesses now then?
Hope this won’t have a chilling effect on leaving negative reviews. Negative reviews, when honest are important indicator to avoid dodgy practices and chancers.
>He also said, when his posted review was taken down, he should not have replaced it with a post in his wife’s name.
That will do it alright.
If your review is fair and you have something to back it up, like at least being an actual customer / patient, fair enough.
If you left a bad review which is a complete bs, and most importantly, there is no record of you at said business – hopefully you have some consequences.
From reading the entire article, the issue isnt leaving an honest negative review. The issue is going over the top. The defendant in this case used terms like “con men” in his review which were deemed to be untrue.
The article doesnt get in to the nature of his issue.
Nothing to stop you leaving g a 1 star review with wasn’t happy with the outcome of their service. Can’t say more foe legal reasons.
If the review is factual and unemotional, there shouldn’t be an issue. Calling someone a con man is likely almost always defamatory. Saying “the dire customer service and support I received after installation would make me think twice about this company in future” is based on your experience and is unlikely to be considered defamation.
Likewise asserting that something is a scam is potentially defamatory. But saying that the way a business operates feels very dodgy is not.
I would imagine that most businesses probably won’t go down the road of suing over Google reviews. It’s probably not worth it 90% of the time.
If the criticism is legitimate there should be nothing to worry about. Don’t let corporates intimidate you with their vexatious litigation. This should not be entertained by the legal fraternity.
> After Mr Manning failed to put in a defence to the company’s action, the High Court gave judgment in default of any appearance by him and the matter was adjourned for assessment of damages. During the assessment hearing, Mr Manning expressed regret over the tone of his review. He also said, when his posted review was taken down, he should not have replaced it with a post in his wife’s name.
Not surprising he lost given he didn’t even try to defend himself. Do defamation cases always start in the High Court?
Gamers in shambles when they can’t review bomb games they dislike after this.
Fastway could potentially make more money suing reviewers than (not) delivering parcels.