Legal issues regarding reviews

I started writing reviews a few months ago and I really enjoy it. I have a lot to learn still, writing style, pictures, etc... Here's the thing, I send copies of my reviews to my family and friends when they get posted and sometimes they acompany me (read: put up with me) when they eat with me. My mom and my sister keep asking, "Are you sure this is legal?" "We don't want you to get in any trouble". I've always replied that as long as I don't commit libel, I'm okay. I'm just giving my opinion on a particular establishment and providing the factual info that I can glean from the staff/owner(s), menus and websites when available. I don't see any legal issues arising from me taking photos or writing about a place. If an owner of an establishment objects as I am eating there, I would respect their wishes. Has the question of legal issues, being sued ever come up before at Roadfood? I always hope that I'm going to enjoy where I am eating and can write good things about it, but I want to be true to myself and write about the not so good aspects of a particular place if they present themselves when I am there. Obviously, I wouldn't submitt a review of a place I thought was terrible (or should I?). Would that be helpful to others on the site? Thanks in advance for any info.

I know we have a few lawyers here, who know better than I do, but my opinion...

When I decided to deride a restaurant all over the internet a few months ago I had the same question. I poked around and it seems libel is a case where it is upon the defendent (you) to prove that your statement is true, as opposed to the accuser (the restaurant) proving it is NOT true.

I decided the bad PR of going to court to publicly fight about whether or not they have roaches, or a crazed chef, or whatever, would not be worth it for most restaurants, and I decided to tell my story.

But if you are saying, "It is my opinion that their hollandaise has too much lemon in it" how can anyone argue with your palate?

I think right now,you are relatively safe in your reviews.Sadly,someday some restaurant will sue a writer or their publication(probably has already been done)because the repercussions of the review in some way horribly hurt their business.I do not think you have to worry-as yours is an opinion review.We have a restaurant reviewer at our local newspaper that goes incognito,so as not to be recognized,and has done restaurant critiques for years without a lawsuit.Again,as Eliset said-its your opinion you are writing about.Keep them coming!!!

An item on legal aspects of reviews from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/dining/07lega.html?_r=1&ref=dining&oref=slogin

The article riterates the need for opinion,and dont misrepresent what you are eating.Pretty simple guidelines..

GordonW - very interesting article. I think it highlights the main issues. In order to be libel a statement must be untrue. Therefore, opinion may not be libel. Where there is room for interpretation whether a statement is one of fact or opinion, IMO the U.S. cases mentioned in the article point to a tendency in many courts to view statements in critical writings as opinion.

Typically, in modern times where reputation is not paramount and duelling has fallen out of fashion, it is difficult to succeed in a case of defamation. It is the burden of the plaintiff to show that the statement is false, although with such evidence the defendant would then have to counter with contradictory evidence. But, law and its interpretaions do vary by state, and in a few, Texas I understand being one, the law is a bit more sympathetic to claims of tarnished reputations than in others.

Also, libel cases are frequently in tension with the First Amendment. All of the cases mentioned in the article involve statements made in the recognized press. Although food criticism may not seem essential to democracy, First Amendment law tends to hold opinion and critical press to be highly protected. The question might be, do statements published on Roadfood or in a personal blog rise to the level of the "press?" I'd guess that's already been answered with some mixed results, anyone know?

I think the larger concern that both the article and Elise have touched on is not so much the possibility of a successful libel suit, but the possibility that someone could be so incensed and irrational as to press a suit which could simply be beyond your means or willingness to fight. Remember, a court can't throw a case out without at least partially hearing some of the facts, which can quickly mount up to big money and time. Hopefully, you just don't happen to cross that person's bad side, but to me that is the greatest concern.

I'm sure some of the other journalism, legal and food types here have other opinions and concerns to add. Let's hear 'em and give Billyboy something to work from.

The truth is an absolute defense against libel. Even if something turns out not to be true -- say a reviewer claims that there was no saffron in a dish as stated on the menu but it is later proven that there was saffron -- an absence of malice on the part of the reviewer is protection against a charge of libel.

I recall Michael and Jane writing a review that caused a restaurant owner so much distress that he disappointed his bride on their wedding night ...

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Hoffman

The truth is an absolute defense against libel. Even if something turns out not to be true -- say a reviewer claims that there was no saffron in a dish as stated on the menu but it is later proven that there was saffron -- an absence of malice on the part of the reviewer is protection against a charge of libel.

Mr. Hoffman is correct, but please allow me to add the Supreme Court's view on libel (at least as of the 1980s). In order for a person to be convicted of libel, the plaintiff must prove that three elements exist:

1) The printed statement is false.
2) The person who wrote the statement is aware that it is false.
3) The person who wrote the statement did so with an intent to damage the reputation of the individual about whom he was writing.

The third element is exceedingly difficult to prove, but as Mr. Hoffman said, the most basic part of this situation is that truth is an absolute defense for the defendant. Write something that is true--at least to your knowledge and belief--and it would be virtually impossible to convict you of libel.

Tedbear: Thanks. I forgot to mention the requirement that the writer be aware that a statement is false.

quote:

Originally posted by wheregreggeats.com

I recall Michael and Jane writing a review that caused a restaurant owner so much distress that he disappointed his bride on their wedding night ...

That's what the guy claimed. Around the same time, when we were reviewing restaurants for the Hartford Courant, a restaurateur tried to get a bill introduced in the state house that all restaurant reviewers would be required by law to have either been a chef or gone to culinary school. We also got on the local Ku Klux Klan's hate-mail list. These are just a few reasons we much prefer writing about restaurants we like!

The above comments and references have been interesting to me. Now if I could learn to use that little digital camera. I feel I'd be reasonably safe from a libel suit.Like Mike stated review restaurants you like. Besides, the type eateries I like to check out don't appear to be able to afford a lawyer to sue me.

I usually will only write positive comments though I did feel a couple of establishments were overrated for pork tenderloin sandwiches. I use a 1 to 5 piggies rating system in my Pork Tenderloin Sandwich Blog but a 1 piggie is simply, "Been there, done that, moving on." Fortunately, so far, I have never gagged on a tenderloin. You can take that for what it is worth. I do use a digital camera. There have been many restaurants I have eaten at since starting posting on Roadfood.com that I have never mentioned (and probably never will). In effect I will not contribute to influencing anyone to go there one way or another.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Stern

quote:

Originally posted by wheregreggeats.com

I recall Michael and Jane writing a review that caused a restaurant owner so much distress that he disappointed his bride on their wedding night ...

That's what the guy claimed. Around the same time, when we were reviewing restaurants for the Hartford Courant, a restaurateur tried to get a bill introduced in the state house that all restaurant reviewers would be required by law to have either been a chef or gone to culinary school. We also got on the local Ku Klux Klan's hate-mail list. These are just a few reasons we much prefer writing about restaurants we like!

Michael, that is unbelievable about that restauranteur and the bill he or she was pushing...I wonder if he or she would require the same for each and every patron of a dining establishment? A customer could not truly appreciate the dining experience and comment on it without being a chef or a culinary school graduate, right?
This is all so much to do about nothing...if critics are presenting themselves as regular patrons of a restaurant, then their experience should mimic what the general public might experience, on that given night. Could it be a particularly off night for the kitchen and front of the house staff? Of course! That is why all reviews are subjective, to some extent. Consumers need to look carefully at the reviews, and make up their own minds. Similar to movie reviews; many's the time I have ignored a bad review, and seen a move I enjoyed, because I came to know the reviewers own personal biases and preferences which would naturally color the review. Why not do the same with restaurant reviews?

Hey everybody,

Thanks so much for all of the great advice!

How would any Restauranter, upset with your review, know who you are?

Very interesting thread. On Roadfood, I try to keep things positive and genteel for the most part as that is how I interpret the mission of the site. I view the site as a celebration of quickly disappearing food-ways that will totally disappear if sites such as Roadfood fail to keep them alive. In this regard keeping positive is important. For me it has a lot to do with keeping that old diner with the flashing neon sign urging you to "eat here" open.

This is not to say I am fearful of giving my unvarnished opinion on the web. I do it all the time, bare-knuckled with the gloves off. When in attack mode I do it on my own sites and blogs taking no prisoners. I am careful to have my facts straight, easily confirmed and I try not to write in the heat of the moment. One thing bloggers do not have that newspapers do is editors. As a result I have to wear two hats and have to wait until both give the nod to publish. My current targets are media icons and mass media itself, mainly because I am tired of having no viable entertainment I could possibly enjoy over the publicly owned airwaves anymore.

I was disappointed to learn in a previous post that the code duello was no longer in effect. I guess this means I have been wasting my time keeping my pistols and swords in pristine shape for nothing. It is of no matter however, in this brave new age wit and keyboard will suffice.

quote:

Originally posted by Tedbear

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Hoffman

The truth is an absolute defense against libel. Even if something turns out not to be true -- say a reviewer claims that there was no saffron in a dish as stated on the menu but it is later proven that there was saffron -- an absence of malice on the part of the reviewer is protection against a charge of libel.

3) The person who wrote the statement did so with an intent to damage the reputation of the individual about whom he was writing.

The third element is exceedingly difficult to prove, but as Mr. Hoffman said, the most basic part of this situation is that truth is an absolute defense for the defendant. Write something that is true--at least to your knowledge and belief--and it would be virtually impossible to convict you of libel.

I agree that may be next to impossible to prove, but what if the reviewer says something that is actually true which still could very well hurt his/her business anyway, even if the "true fact" had nothing to do with the business?

Until last year here in Virginia we had a locally based website about local media issues. For years the owner of a popular restaurant here had commericals he did air on local radio. Popular family restaurant. Well the guy who ran the site somehow managed to find the restaurant owner's profile on an adult website complete with nude pics and "broke the news" on his site. It really affected his business. Could the website be sued for that?

Also what if a restaurant does NOT want to be reviewed? I know this may be rare but I have met those who do NOT want their name mentioned anywhere online such as parents when it comes to their kids.

Can a restaurant or any other business have any legal say for as much as mentioning them online or in print? I know freedom of speech and press, but still I have heard their are ways for a business to force one to not mention them.

quote:

Originally posted by Tedbear

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Hoffman

The truth is an absolute defense against libel. Even if something turns out not to be true -- say a reviewer claims that there was no saffron in a dish as stated on the menu but it is later proven that there was saffron -- an absence of malice on the part of the reviewer is protection against a charge of libel.

Mr. Hoffman is correct, but please allow me to add the Supreme Court's view on libel (at least as of the 1980s). In order for a person to be convicted of libel, the plaintiff must prove that three elements exist:

1) The printed statement is false.
2) The person who wrote the statement is aware that it is false.
3) The person who wrote the statement did so with an intent to damage the reputation of the individual about whom he was writing.

The third element is exceedingly difficult to prove, but as Mr. Hoffman said, the most basic part of this situation is that truth is an absolute defense for the defendant. Write something that is true--at least to your knowledge and belief--and it would be virtually impossible to convict you of libel.

Lots of good information passing through this thread. I think the rule above could use a bit of clarification.

Last I checked, under the Sullivan Rule, "actual malice" could be found in elements 2 and 3 above, or in "reckless disregard" for the truth of the statement. It's still a high standard, but it does not require actual intent or direct knowledge that the statement is false.

Also, the rule first applied only to public officials and was later expanded to public figures. States may still apply a negligence standard to libel suits brought by "private" persons. Negligence typically looks to what a "reasonable person" would or should have done in a situation and does not require intent or malice.

As a result, many libel cases now hinge on whether the plaintiff is "public" or "private." I don't know if a standard applies to restaurants or if this would be a case-by-case determination.

Anyone know differently?

Sounds like a morality issue. (Assuming) the adult site is legal and he's not harming anyone, it doesn't seem to me that its anyone's business where the owner had a profile. Its like the craigslist guy who outed lots of people who posted on there in adult rooms. He did it just for kicks. Not to right some wrong or for some sense of justice. If a restaurant didn't want me to review them, I wouldn't even if I really wanted to. It wouldn't be worth the potential headaches for me.

quote:

Originally posted by chriscubva

quote:

Originally posted by Tedbear

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Hoffman

The truth is an absolute defense against libel. Even if something turns out not to be true -- say a reviewer claims that there was no saffron in a dish as stated on the menu but it is later proven that there was saffron -- an absence of malice on the part of the reviewer is protection against a charge of libel.

3) The person who wrote the statement did so with an intent to damage the reputation of the individual about whom he was writing.

The third element is exceedingly difficult to prove, but as Mr. Hoffman said, the most basic part of this situation is that truth is an absolute defense for the defendant. Write something that is true--at least to your knowledge and belief--and it would be virtually impossible to convict you of libel.

I agree that may be next to impossible to prove, but what if the reviewer says something that is actually true which still could very well hurt his/her business anyway, even if the "true fact" had nothing to do with the business?

Until last year here in Virginia we had a locally based website about local media issues. For years the owner of a popular restaurant here had commericals he did air on local radio. Popular family restaurant. Well the guy who ran the site somehow managed to find the restaurant owner's profile on an adult website complete with nude pics and "broke the news" on his site. It really affected his business. Could the website be sued for that?

Also what if a restaurant does NOT want to be reviewed? I know this may be rare but I have met those who do NOT want their name mentioned anywhere online such as parents when it comes to their kids.

Can a restaurant or any other business have any legal say for as much as mentioning them online or in print? I know freedom of speech and press, but still I have heard their are ways for a business to force one to not mention them.

Sounds right to me. If the guy actually put his personal information on a public website and a local newspaper reported it, it's his stupid.

I think we'll all be signing off of Roadfood, now, and shutting down our computer accounts right?