Restaurant sues blogger over bad review

molinari

molinari

molinari

Soldato
Joined
6 Jan 2003
Posts
5,279
A French blogger has been fined over a bad review of a restaurant, because it appeared too highly in Google search results! Article here, and the review is translated to English here.
I can't believe that the judge has done this :eek:. As a result of this, the restaurant is getting slated on other review sites, and I can understand why. The fact is that there are worse reviews for the restaurant on sites like Trip Advisor, and that has more visitors than the blogger does. Let's hope it's just a one off.
 
Last edited:
In a slight defence for the judge, he asked the reviewer to change the title, not the content.

To remove the restaurant name from title and perhaps he knows this will go viral and make it worst for the actual restaurant owner; judge trolling? Then again, he is asking the accused to pay €1500... maybe not then.
 
It wasn't the bad review that the judge ruled against, it was the wording of the title that caused it to appear in the top results on Google when searching just for the restaurant name.

I guess fundamentally the end result is the same, but a very different ruling than simply condemning the bad review itself.
 
ci_newman said:
It wasn't the bad review that the judge ruled against, it was the wording of the title that caused it to appear in the top results on Google when searching just for the restaurant name.
Click to expand...
I should have mentioned that specifically, but is still makes no sense. The title of the review was "the place to avoid in Cap-Ferret: Il Giardino". So it has the name of the restaurant, the location, and what she thinks of it. Just like all my reviews of restaurants. I'll be in that region next week, but won't be visiting that restaurant obviously. Hope the restaurants that I do visit will be up to scratch :D.
 
molinari said:
I should have mentioned that specifically, but is still makes no sense. The title of the review was "the place to avoid in Cap-Ferret: Il Giardino". So it has the name of the restaurant, the location, and what she thinks of it. Just like all my reviews of restaurants. I'll be in that region next week, but won't be visiting that restaurant obviously. Hope the restaurants that I do visit will be up to scratch :D.
Click to expand...

You should pop in and make a point of saying that you won't be eating there due to the owner's actions towards the blogger :)
 
To be fair, a single individual's experience of a restaurant appearing at the top of search results does have a skewed effect on that business's profile.

It's not like it's one of many results on tripadvisor, where balance is provided by a number of responses.

(ps.the reviews on Tripadvisor, 19 of them from before this blew up, seem to average around 3.5 stars. The overall is showing as 1.5 due, presumably, to internet recriminations)
 
The title is going to be a classic case of defamation. Why is it the place to avoid, what proof is there that is must be avoided, are there no other places to be avoided? I'm sure the blogger would be fine if the title was "The restaurant I avoid in..." as a subjective opinion.
 
D.P. said:
The title is going to be a classic case of defamation. Why is it the place to avoid, what proof is there that is must be avoided, are there no other places to be avoided? I'm sure the blogger would be fine if the title was "The restaurant I avoid in..." as a subjective opinion.
Click to expand...

That isn't what is being reported. And there doesn't seem to be any deformation anyway.
 
D.P. said:
The title is going to be a classic case of defamation.
Click to expand...

I do not see how it is defamation, for it to be defamtion surely the title and article would have to be proven to be false but how can you prove it was false (or alternatively true) because unless you video your entire meal how could you prove bad service nevermind how you prove how the food tasted (which is subjective anyway).

Why is it the place to avoid?
Click to expand...

The food and/or service is terrible.

what proof is there that is must be avoided
Click to expand...

The food and/or service is terrible.

are there no other places to be avoided?
Click to expand...

Yes restaurant X,Y or Z because the food and/or service is terrible.

I'm sure the blogger would be fine if the title was "The restaurant I avoid in..." as a subjective opinion.
Click to expand...

If the name of the place was removed from the title of the article it may mean it doesn't show up so highly on google but how does that in anyway effect defamation? As regardless of title the main review is still going to be terrible.
 
Glaucus said:
That isn't what is being reported. And there doesn't seem to be any deformation anyway.
Click to expand...

From what I read the content of his review can remain in place, only the title has to be changed. Presumably because the review detail why the review personally had issues and offered evidence to that extent. The title in itself is presented as an objective fact but there can be no proof to that
 
Greboth said:
I do not see how it is defamation, for it to be defamtion surely the title and article would have to be proven to be false but how can you prove it was false (or alternatively true) because unless you video your entire meal how could you prove bad service nevermind how you prove how the food tasted (which is subjective anyway).



The food and/or service is terrible.



The food and/or service is terrible.



Yes restaurant X,Y or Z because the food and/or service is terrible.



If the name of the place was removed from the title of the article it may mean it doesn't show up so highly on google but how does that in anyway effect defamation? As regardless of title the main review is still going to be terrible.
Click to expand...


Non of that is evidence that is should be avoided. The proof is that a majority of reviewers had an acceptable experience and the restaurant has presumably passed all relevant health and safety inspections such that there can be no objective evidence to state that it should be voided, let alone the fact that there is no proof it should be the only place avoided.


The main review likely doesn't making any such stand alone claims but describes a personal experience.



Put it this way, If I paid every single major newspaper in the UK to put a large title page article with prominent headline that stated "Avoid Overclockers UK at all costs" it would be defamation. If the article described my dislike of OCUK because they didn't give me Haribo in my last order so I will never shop there again then the article body is fine but OCUK would have a legal right to challenge the headline title because it damages their business and is not based on object provable facts.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
From what I read the content of his review can remain in place, only the title has to be changed. Presumably because the review detail why the review personally had issues and offered evidence to that extent. The title in itself is presented as an objective fact but there can be no proof to that
Click to expand...

The articles say nothing off this. Its all to do with Google ratings, which is insane. Zero to do with deformation etc.
 
Glaucus said:
The articles say nothing off this. Its all to do with Google ratings, which is insane. Zero to do with deformation etc.
Click to expand...

perhaps, but defamation isn't a legal term, various common laws are used to protect entities from defamation. So this is really an argument of semantics.

The reviewer stated something which had a negative impact on a business and the courts have deemed that statement not to be fair.
The google ranking is important due tot he level of publication of a false statement. You can expect a different legal response if you pay to publish on the front page of every newspaper vs a postit note on a lamppost.

In common speech that is a case of defamation, the actual names of laws used may be anything.


You have to consider that France has much stronger libel laws and rulings against hatred speeches etc that impinge of freedom of expression much more than the UK.
 
Last edited:
It isn't semantics. Nowhere at all is saying, what you say. It is littleraly to high in the rankings and thus affecting their business. Which has never been a crime until now.
 
Glaucus said:
It isn't semantics. Nowhere at all is saying, what you say. It is littleraly to high in the rankings and thus affecting their business. Which has never been a crime until now.
Click to expand...

It is semantics, defamation has no legal meaning.

The simple fact is a reviewer stated something false about a restaurant with no proof, this got highly publicized because of google's search algorithms and the result was loss of business to the restraint. That is defamation.



If the result wasn't highly rated by Google then there would be no loss of business and there would be no libel case. If the statement was based on an objective fact (failed to pass health and safety inspections), there would be no case


The judge specifically asked that the part of the title "place to avoid" needs to be changed
 
Last edited:
That isn't what the judge said at all. No where does he state this. He simply states it's to high in the rankings. Again this is not semantics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom