Skip to main content

NEVER Read the Comments!

The Federal Court this week delivered their judgement on Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Service Seeking Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1040 going all out by handing out whopping fines, legal costs orders and ordering Service Seeking Pty Ltd to establish a, undoubtedly expensive, compliance system to be monitored by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). 


What did they do that was so bad? 

According to the Federal Court of Australia, they created a system in which businesses could write their own customer reviews. 

With a rating system less defined than what constitutes a 5-star rating in an Uber trip, businesses could write a review, assign a star rating and send it off to their customer for approval. If the customer didn’t respond or even open the email containing the review, then the review was automatically published online after a set period. By estimates of the Court, approximately 80% of the reviews published on the website for the period that this scheme was in place were written via this method. 

The parties agreed that by publishing the reviews on the website, Service Seeking was making a false or misleading representation themselves as well as the businesses that published them. Therefore, they were culpable for allowing these reviews to exist on their platform as well as playing a role in the creation of the reviews as well. 

Regulatory Perspective

From a regulatory perspective, this ruling is less than surprising and is reflective of the age that we are living in with respect to online commentary. There are more and more cases every year for defamation regarding online reviews and the push to de-anonymise the internet has arisen with these. If everyone is to be responsible for what they say online, any comment which is even inferred to be from a person will need to have that person’s consent. That way, a person remains responsible for what they post and the website owes a duty to help identify that person.

This was proven in Kabbabe v Google LLC [2020] FCA 126, where Google was ordered to provide the user information of someone who had left a false negative review of a dental surgeon. A recent South Australian case, Cheng v Lok [2020] SASC 14 awarded a lawyer $750,000 in damages for a fake review.

It may even be extended to holding the group admins on Facebook pages responsible for the defamatory posts of members of the group. 

Both of the above cases highlight the uncompromising nature that the courts are taking with respect to online commentary which is, you are responsible for the content that you post online and if that content is false or misleading or defamatory, then you are responsible for that as well. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

OFF-BRAND - How a high-fashion brand and a local ice cream shop have come to blows over intellectual property

OFF-BRAND  How a high-fashion brand and an ice cream shop have come to blows over intellectual property In the various industries that are out there, not too many are as different as fashion and ice cream. One is involved in providing happiness, comfort and everything nice in this world and that other provides a sharp reminder that maybe that extra scoop of ice cream was too much. But suffice to say, a rift between the two industries is not something that you would expect to find.  But as hype culture and the obsessive fandom on the internet have grown, the industries have been growing closer and closer together. But sadly, not in the way you think, we are still a few years off wearable ice cream. Instead, there is now a good chance that your local ice creamery sells merchandise. Less impressive, for sure. But this has become a staple for restaurants with even just a modicum of goodwill attached to their name and why not? If customers are willing to pay an extra $50 so that people will

Green Eggs and Hamm

  Green Eggs and Hamm How a crotch shot of John Hamm and Dr Seuss have sparked the most intense debate on fair use dealing in copyright in the last ten years.  In 2013, John Hamm was in full swing, sipping cocktails and filming the wildly successful  Mad Men  however in years to come he may be remembered for something much more different. One uneventful day, John Hamm was photographed going commando and, thus changed how we see intellectual property rights on the internet forever.  Like all paparazzi photos, it was promptly uploaded to the internet and licenced for use. Unbeknownst to the photographer, the image was then used in an article by the Huffington Post, titled "25 Things You Wish You Hadn't Learned In 2013 And Must Forget In 2014." The writer of the piece turned the photo into a humourous GIF with the intention of mocking people who would want to see the picture and satirising the idea that it was news at all.  The photographer later registered the photo's

Woman Wins Copyright Case Against Adult Film Studio Who Recorded Videos In Her House.

A recent case in the United States District Court of Massachusetts has seen a woman whose house was used as a film set for adult videos without her knowledge be awarded damages… but not for what you think. In  Bassett v Jensen,  Ms Bassett, the owner of the property, signed an agreement with a renter to lease her Martha's Vineyard property for seven months for the sole use of Mr Spafford and his family. Spafford had moved to Martha's Vineyard to work as a photographer and cameraman for an adult film director. Throughout the lease, Ms Bassett claims that 21 different videos were filmed at her property. Following the end of the Lease, Ms Bassett had to stop renting out the property as there was significant damage caused to the building and later due to the publicity that the property was used in filming the videos. Ms Bassett then argued that not only did the video showcase her property but they had infringed her copyright on numerous of her self-made artworks which were hanging