A debt recovery firm is taking legal action against the review website Trustpilot in relation to 20 different reviews left which include allegations of fraud and harassment.
BW Legal Services Limited, which is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and Solicitors Regulation Authority, is suing for libel over the comments posted between February 2020 and January 2021.
The action – one of the first cases where a firm has brought proceedings against a review site – came to light in a judgment following a hearing last May. Mrs Justice Tipples DBE went through each of the 20 reviews in turn to establish their meaning, and made clear that the court was not, at this stage, adjudicating on any other issue. The defendant, a Danish company which owns and operates the Trustpilot website, has not yet been required to file a defence.
The court heard that the first review referred to the firm as ‘absolute liars’ and an ‘absolute disgrace’, with the firm submitting that it had been accused of harassing a client and falsifying transcripts of telephone recordings to deceive the SRA. The firm said that ‘at the heart of this review’ was an unequivocal allegation of dishonesty.
The defendant suggested there was nothing in the review which could be understood that the firm had harassed a customer. Allegations concerning the firm’s imputed intentions were ‘unsustainable’, Trustpilot said.
Further reviews referred to the firm as ‘total scumbags’ and later as a ‘legal vile robo firm of solicitors’ who relied on ‘bullying tactics’ to force people pay penalty notices.
The firm maintained that the defendant presented information to users on the Trustpilot website as a trusted source of information in relation to those companies or organisations that it profiles, and that was endorsed by the use of the word ‘Trust’ in its name.
Trustpilot submitted that the natural and ordinary meaning of each statement contended for by the firm was ‘far removed’ from how the ordinary reasonable user of the site would understand the reviews. In particular, the claimant’s pleaded meanings adopted an ‘overly lawyerly’ analysis of the reviews.
The judge said each review’s meaning was defamatory at common law and consisted of a mixture of statement of fact and expressions of opinion.
She added: ‘The Trustpilot website is an open platform on which anyone can write a review of their experience of the claimant and, in doing so, rate the claimant’s performance. They do so in their own words and the language used, and the tone of that language, will no doubt reflect the quality of that experience.
‘The narrative provided by reviewers in these circumstances is one that the reasonable reader will understand as factual and when the reader sees that the claimant is described as a ‘scumbag’ or ‘absolutely shocking’ or ‘run by parasites’ the reasonable reader will understand that as the reviewer’s opinion of the claimant, based on the facts relating to their experience.’
In response to the ruling, a spokesperson for Trustpilot said: 'Trustpilot continues its efforts to protect consumers and freedom of expression by robustly defending the claim brought against it by BW Legal - and in a reassuring sign for both consumers and platforms, we are pleased to have received a positive judgment at the preliminary hearing.
'Context is key when determining whether online review content is defamatory. It is not reflective of a consumer’s experience to read only the black and white text of a review - which BW Legal put to the judge - and it is more important to consider the reality of how consumers come to find reviews. In this case, consumers would have searched for the business online, or for reviews of the business on Trustpilot, and in doing so would have been able to see all feedback from all reviewers.
The company said the judge also 'broadly accepted' its argument that critical words on the Trustpilot platform - such as "scam" or "fraud" - should generally be understood as opinion not fact, expressed on a medium where people tend to post in less inhibited ways.
The case will now proceed to a substantive hearing.
