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

How to Register a Trademark: Understanding Trademark Classes

How to Register a Trademark: Understanding Trademark Classes When registering a trademark, it is important to understand the different classes of goods and services that the trademark will apply to. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has designated 45 classes under the Nice International Classification of Goods and Services, with classes 1-34 for goods and classes 35-45 for services. To ensure the success of a trademark application, it is essential to choose the appropriate class of goods or services that accurately represents the scope of the trademark. This means finding the right balance between a class that is too broad and one that is too narrow. It is also important to note that trademark protection only extends to the specific class of goods or services listed in the application. The 45 trademark classes cover a wide range of goods and services. Class 1 includes chemicals used in industry, while class 2 includes paints and varnishes. Class 3 covers cleaning and ...

Some of the Most Influential Cases in US History

 Introduction The legal system is a fundamental aspect of any society, responsible for maintaining order and justice and protecting individual rights. Throughout history, many influential legal cases have shaped the legal system as we know it today. In this article, we will explore the most influential legal cases in history and their impact on the development of the legal system. Marbury v. Madison (1803) Marbury v. Madison is one of the most significant cases in American legal history. It established the principle of judicial review, which grants the Supreme Court the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. The case arose when William Marbury sued Secretary of State James Madison for failing to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace. In 1801, President John Adams appointed a number of justices of the peace and judges for the District of Columbia. Before he left office, Adams signed the commissions, and they were sealed by the Secretary of State, John Marshal...

Surviving and Thriving: Ten Tips for In-House Lawyers in Times of Change and Uncertainty

Get accustomed to change. The economy can be unpredictable, and the good times never last. It's essential to be vigilant and prepare for tough times, whether self-inflicted or imposed by external forces. Embrace uncertainty as an opportunity and consider what steps you will take if things go sideways. Focus on the four keys to success in difficult times. These include staying sane, making yourself indispensable, making the business love you, and adding value. By answering these questions, you can determine what actions you need to take to ensure your success during challenging periods. Maintain a sense of humor. Humor is an essential tool that can help you keep a positive outlook during even the most challenging situations. It is important to strike a balance and know when humor is appropriate or not. When calibrated correctly, humor can boost morale and make you more approachable to colleagues and clients. Keep up with the industry. Staying informed and up-to-date on the latest in...