Trip advisor facing leagl action in UK

Old Sep 24th, 2010, 10:24 AM
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Trip advisor facing leagl action in UK

A group of B&B and hotel owners are starting a group action against Trip Advisor over bad and malicious reviews, including one accusing the owner of being a racist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/201...travelwebsites
hetismij is offline  
Old Sep 24th, 2010, 10:27 AM
  #2  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don;t see how they can sue tripadvisor.I would thin they would have to sue the individuall posters. And - I understand that truth is an absolute proof against either slander or libel.
nytraveler is offline  
Old Sep 24th, 2010, 10:35 AM
  #3  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"I don;t see how they can sue tripadvisor.I would thin they would have to sue the individuall posters."

Because they'd be sued under the law of England, not of New York. Trip Advisor published something that's allegedly defamatory - and might well be allegedly stirring up racial hatred. There's no debate about the fact that Trip Advisor published the "defamations" in the jurisdiction.


And - I understand that truth is an absolute proof against either slander or libel."

Wrong.
flanneruk is offline  
Old Sep 24th, 2010, 10:36 AM
  #4  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well if people read an anonymous trip report on TripAdvisor and believe it, so that they don't even visit the place in question to find out for themselves, how can they know what is the truth?

They don't like that the reviews are anonymous - anyone with a grudge could post a bad review or 10, and bring down a B&B or small hotel.

TripAdvisor don't take down disputed reviews, or check for themselves the veracity of them. There is no proof these reviewers ever actually stayed at the establishment they are complaining about.
hetismij is offline  
Old Sep 24th, 2010, 10:46 AM
  #5  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
" I understand that truth is an absolute proof against either slander or libel."

In English law the presumption is that a defamatory statement is false unless the person making the statement can prove it's truth. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it was decided the plaintiffs had a case.
Stilldontknow is offline  
Old Sep 24th, 2010, 11:03 AM
  #6  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I use tripadvisor all the time but comptely ignore reviews where the reviewer only has 1 posted review. I'd be really upset if it got shut down, I have had great luck using it to pick places to stay. Usually the "fake" reviews are very easy to pick out.

I don't personally see how you could ever sue them for offering a place to write bad reviews, when in actuality some of them were probably bad places to stay.
lindy27 is offline  
Old Sep 24th, 2010, 11:28 AM
  #7  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Truth is an absolute defense in England and the US, so Flanner's comment is wrong.

But the law of England is highly favorable to defamation plaintiffs. This is why the US has enacted a law prohibiting enforcement of English judgments that are products of libel tourism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism
BigRuss is offline  
Old Sep 24th, 2010, 11:36 AM
  #8  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tripadvisor is a company based in Massachussetts/USA.
The law of England is not relevant to decide whether or not the reviews in question are lawful or not.

The legal action (if there will be any) will take place in a US court of law, with US laws governing the case. (You can also read that in the Guardian's article)

The only angle an English court of law had would be to block access to the website. But not what kind of content would appear on the website. Or impose fines. It also does not work the other way around, i.e. that a US court of law imposed a fine on a UK website for whatever offense.

Since the driving force behind this "battle against injustice" is a commercial enterprise (KwickCheck) it may be safe to assume that the latter company gives a fiddler's fart about the poor B&B owners but takes this opportunity as free PR.
Cowboy1968 is offline  
Old Sep 24th, 2010, 12:56 PM
  #9  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 20,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good for B&Bs! Sue TripAdvisor. Some websites post only reviews from people who actually were there. How do they know that? They ask for a review only if you made your reservation through their website.

One of those is Expedia - they send an e-mail with a link to post a report, and post it only after a review. Once I said in my report how much my room was, they didn't post and e-mailed me why, asking to take the price off.

With websites like TA it's just a disaster waiting to happen.
Dayenu is offline  
Old Sep 24th, 2010, 01:38 PM
  #10  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 27,609
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Another problem with TA is that the property owner gets to post a response to your review, but you can't respond to her/him. I had an owner do that, and even though he flat out lied, TA would not correct the response. I've found TA can be good for some countries, eg. Italy, but a disaster for others. eg. Morocco.
thursdaysd is offline  
Old Sep 24th, 2010, 02:05 PM
  #11  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Since the earliest days of English Common Law truth is an absolute defense to civil suits of slander and libel. I learned that in law school torts, which I aced.

We also have the First Amendment in the USA, born out of the despotism of jolly olde English kings and queens. Thomas Jefferson wrote a *declaration* to that effect. That is why we are not British subjects, even though some Brits still refer to Americans as the colonists.
spaarne is offline  
Old Sep 24th, 2010, 05:47 PM
  #12  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Under this system how can you have restaurant reviews in newspapersor magazines? Almosteverytign the reviewer writes is an opinion (the mother ofthe chef may LOVE all the swill he serves up). Or what about movie reviews?

It seems that anyone doing business with the public has to put up with negatvee reviews - and unless it can be proen that the reviews are specifically unture (as in saying the kitchen is full of mice or similar)or the reviewer has an axe to grind (is married to a competitor) I can;t imagine how they have a leg to stand on. (And suing for negative reviews will only give more publicity to the reviews.)
nytraveler is offline  
Old Sep 24th, 2010, 08:21 PM
  #13  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
>

That's the whole point of the action, read the article. One B + B owner had no vacancies so the person she turned away claimed it was because she is racist.
sashh is offline  
Old Sep 24th, 2010, 11:13 PM
  #14  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"I can;t imagine how they have a leg to stand on."

This has got nothing to do with your defective imagination. Or with the misleading gibberish about English law American universities palm off on their unsuspecting students

The saga starts with a British company called Kwikchex, which has so far merely asked TA to stop publishing defamations. It won't be drawn on where it'll sue if TA doesn't agree: anyone who thinks the Guardian article says it'll be in the US clearly can't read.

The facts are:

1. TA has without any doubt published in England damaging articles about a number of businesses
2. Under English law, those businesses may sue the publisher, TA, in England
3. To simplify hugely, those businesses merely need to establish they've been damaged by the alleged defamation.
4. At that point, the legal onus is on TA to prove the "defamations" are true - or were true at the time If the review said there were six rats in the room, TA has to show there were six: not five, not four. The whingeing pillock who called a hotel racist has publicly admitted he was lying anyway, so at least one allegation can't even be defended.

TA cannot possibly prove the allegations were true: its business model isn't set up for that. It can't even identify the authors to start substantiating the libels.

Now there are reasons why a Kwikchex case might not work in England. English law doesn't like class actions, or "no win, no fee", so there's a bit of nimble footwork needed. The bit of TA that's published the "defamations" might not actually have any assets in England.

Most importantly, TA's got deeper pockets than Kwikchex: bringing libel actions in England isn't just expensive, but a defendant can apply to have the action struck out if it's not obvious the plaintiff can afford the eventual cost. Winning the case is vital for TA's future: for Kwikchex it's just a minor stunt.

And the whole issue of "forum shopping", where foreigners find a single case of being libelled in England, so sue here, is under active review. Unsurprisingly, England's lawyers are fighting very hard indeed to keep things unchanged.

That's why Kwikchex are being very cagey about their plans if TA doesn't back down. But, if they can find a way of funding genuinely aggrieved businesses to sue in England, and sustain the case through the endless appeals, TA will almost certainly lose and will have to fork out substantial damages.

Any US law faculty that gives a good degree to someone who doesn't understand the difference between "truth is an absolute defence" and "in a case of defamation, the plaintiff has to prove the truth of the defamation" is defrauding its customers.
flanneruk is offline  
Old Sep 25th, 2010, 01:11 AM
  #15  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Overall, I would think Tripadvisor is a benefit to small hotels and B&B's that few people would have heard of otherwise, or be willing to take a chance on, absent a personal recommendation from someone they know. The coverage is much better than the typical travel guide, especially when it comes to small establishments. (Without Tripadvisor, the influence of Rick Steves --already the "Oprah" of small hotels--would be even more pervasive.)

I have used the site with consistent success in the US and Europe; I'd hate to see it restricted or shut down because it allows us to consider smaller, non-chain hotels that I might not have been aware of. One does have to read it carefully to get a broader depiction of a hotel or b&b and to eliminate or reduce the weight one gives to "outliers." This is not a "problem" unique to lodging or Tripadvisor. There are loads of sites now reviewing all manner of businesses from restaurants to hotels to doctors to contractors. They all have the potential to boost or harm the business in question. That's the nature of freedom of speech. One man's freedom is another's slander. There are certainly cases of fraudulent reviews, both positive and negative, but readers have to use some judgment. A negative opinion shouldn't necessarily be cause for a lawsuit. Perhaps the site should allow businesses to opt out, if they don't want to have Tripadvisor reviews published. That would be better than reducing the candidness of the reviews that get printed and used by many of us.

Many lodgings, including large hotels, inns and b&b's take pride in their positive reviews, and I believe that this has had a positive impact on service in the travel industry. It also gives the individual consumer a voice which is a great equalizer. I don't have to be a VIP to get good service. We've stayed in a number of places, from large chain hotels to small bed and breakfasts that have used their Tripadvisor rating as a promotional tool and asked guests to write reviews after their stay.
victoria_reynolds is offline  
Old Sep 25th, 2010, 02:10 AM
  #16  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK, please help me understand this.

Someone is suing TA, a US company, for libelous statements it "published" in the UK? So, then, the contention is that a website can be sued in any country for libel, and the owners of the site must respond to the suit or ... what, exactly?

What if TA said "screw you" and didn't respond to the suit? Is there a stipulation in UK law that websites can be blocked under such circumstances? Would there be an uncollectable judgment brought against TA?

Someone, please explain.

There have been several landmark cases in the US where courts have ruled that websites aren't responsible for anonymous postings by non-employees. Fodor's would be a good example. Is the law different in the UK? And if the company in question isn't UK-based, how is punishment brought to bear?
k9korps is offline  
Old Sep 25th, 2010, 03:11 AM
  #17  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
k9 is spot on.

It is one thing if a local jurisdiction allows court action against parties not domiciled under their jurisdiction.
And another thing how a potential fine is executed.
To my knowledge, TA has no legal domicile or subsidiary in England.

"Forum shopping" only works when you have some power to execute the punishment. And when you have inter-state agreements to execute punishment from country A in country B. If there is no such agreement, a court decision from country A is as relevant as toilet paper in country B.

Otherwise you could only (in this case, for example) block access to that website (quite easily, so no UK ISP would let through the TA website/s), or - which would probably be quite excessive - arrest any TA legal representative (usually the CEO or other CxOs) in case they should ever put their foot on English soil until the fine had been paid.

Other companies, like for example Google, have subsidiaries in most countries they do business. Therefore they are as easy to prosecute as any other local businesses.

Therefore I assume that this Kwickcheck company will take TA to court in Massachussetts. And try to prove that the anonymous comments are libel/slander under the Digital Millennium Act. Probably not an easy case. But a great publicity stunt for KwickCheck.
Cowboy1968 is offline  
Old Sep 25th, 2010, 05:11 AM
  #18  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,395
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 4 Posts
"Any US law faculty that gives a good degree to someone who doesn't understand the difference between "truth is an absolute defence" and "in a case of defamation, the plaintiff has to prove the truth of the defamation" is defrauding its customers."

Well, you can blame me rather than the school, because it's been a good while since I graduated, but I see the difference as a matter of burden of proof, not as whether truth is an absolute defense. The two statements quoted above are not mutually inconsistent. Once the truth of an allegedly defamatory statement has been proven, the suit for defamation fails.
Nikki is offline  
Old Sep 25th, 2010, 05:40 AM
  #19  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, I'm a Scots lawyer not an English one- and yes the laws are different. But certainly a pursuer (plaintiff) here has the right to select from three jurisdictions assuming always that they are different. One is the place of domicile of the pursuer; one is the place of domicile of the defender and the third is the place the alleged delict took place. There is a complicated private international law system as to which is chosen if there is a dispute.

So someone defamed in England by something published in England can CERTAINLY sue the publisher in England and obtain a judgement. Whether or not they can enforce it is another matter, but there are systems set up to achieve that too.

I might add that whilst being in good faith does not reduce culpability, it might well reduce the sum awarded. There are many, some famous, cases where the plaintiff has been awarded a farthing- and had to pay their own legal costs.
sheila is offline  
Old Sep 25th, 2010, 06:00 AM
  #20  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Perhaps TripAdvisor are unaware of the process known as "extraordinary rendition".
chartley is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -