SINGAPORE: For many diners, choosing where to eat is as simple as checking a Google rating.
But what happens when those ratings are suddenly flooded with negative reviews, including from people who have never set foot in the restaurant?
Cantonese restaurant Eat First recently found itself at the centre of such a backlash after an article by Mothership on Sunday (Apr 12) reported that the Geylang eatery had charged a family S$2 (US$1.60) for bringing their own bottle of water, in line with its no-outside-food-and-drink policy.
Eat First’s Google rating plunged from 4.2 to 2.5 within 24 hours, with scores of one-star reviews criticising the policy.
By Wednesday night, the rating had recovered slightly to 3.2 stars, with some newer reviews supporting the restaurant’s right to enforce its policies and criticising the online pile-on.
The episode raises questions about whether such review bombing – particularly from people who have not patronised the business – could have legal consequences.
Lawyers told CNA that whether such reviews amount to defamation depends on whether the statements are opinions or assertions of fact.
“The law won’t protect a business from a bad review. You are entitled to your opinion. However, you are not entitled to your own facts,” said Ivan Lee, partner in the litigation and dispute resolution practice at Tito Issac and Co.
“Harsh critiques like ‘the food was bad’ or ‘the service was slow’ are generally safe. These are opinions, even if blunt or exaggerated.”
However, a review crosses the line when it presents a false statement of fact.
“For example, claiming a restaurant ‘gave me food poisoning’ or ‘served raw chicken’ – when that is untrue – can be defamatory because it alleges something concrete that can seriously harm the business.”
Mr Jonathan Tan, special counsel for dispute resolution at Withers KhattarWong, said a person can avoid liability for defamation if the statement is true, or by relying on defences such as fair comment or qualified privilege.
However, these defences may fail if the statement was made with malice, such as if the person did not honestly believe it to be true or intended to harm the business.
“If such statements are untrue, made recklessly without any honest belief in its truth, or made with a motive to cause damage to a person or a company, then such statements will cross the line and the statement maker could be held liable for defamation,” Mr Tan said.
More at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/eat-first-negative-google-reviews-defamation-6058551
But what happens when those ratings are suddenly flooded with negative reviews, including from people who have never set foot in the restaurant?
Cantonese restaurant Eat First recently found itself at the centre of such a backlash after an article by Mothership on Sunday (Apr 12) reported that the Geylang eatery had charged a family S$2 (US$1.60) for bringing their own bottle of water, in line with its no-outside-food-and-drink policy.
Eat First’s Google rating plunged from 4.2 to 2.5 within 24 hours, with scores of one-star reviews criticising the policy.
By Wednesday night, the rating had recovered slightly to 3.2 stars, with some newer reviews supporting the restaurant’s right to enforce its policies and criticising the online pile-on.
The episode raises questions about whether such review bombing – particularly from people who have not patronised the business – could have legal consequences.
Lawyers told CNA that whether such reviews amount to defamation depends on whether the statements are opinions or assertions of fact.
“The law won’t protect a business from a bad review. You are entitled to your opinion. However, you are not entitled to your own facts,” said Ivan Lee, partner in the litigation and dispute resolution practice at Tito Issac and Co.
“Harsh critiques like ‘the food was bad’ or ‘the service was slow’ are generally safe. These are opinions, even if blunt or exaggerated.”
However, a review crosses the line when it presents a false statement of fact.
“For example, claiming a restaurant ‘gave me food poisoning’ or ‘served raw chicken’ – when that is untrue – can be defamatory because it alleges something concrete that can seriously harm the business.”
Mr Jonathan Tan, special counsel for dispute resolution at Withers KhattarWong, said a person can avoid liability for defamation if the statement is true, or by relying on defences such as fair comment or qualified privilege.
However, these defences may fail if the statement was made with malice, such as if the person did not honestly believe it to be true or intended to harm the business.
“If such statements are untrue, made recklessly without any honest belief in its truth, or made with a motive to cause damage to a person or a company, then such statements will cross the line and the statement maker could be held liable for defamation,” Mr Tan said.
More at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/eat-first-negative-google-reviews-defamation-6058551
