Bad Google Yelp Reviews Were Defamation Bc Court

Longhouse Specialty Forest Products sued Tyler Ginther for $675,000 based on the contents of two reviews he posted in 2017 and 2018, claiming they damaged the business’s reputation and caused it financial losses. In a ruling posted online Wednesday, the judge ruled that Ginther’s posts about a family lumber business were defamatory because they were both untrue and malicious. “The revisions say that the plaintiffs are fraudulent and fraudulent and that they defrauded Mr. Ginther by charging him for a product he did not order and created false invoices to support their fraud,” the court said. Ginther refused to remove them when asked, and the reviews remained online until 2021, after legal action was taken.

THE REVIEWS

Google’s initial review urged prospective customers to beware, saying their products and services were poor, delivery was slow and the company overcharged Ginther’s Visa. “I would strongly caution anyone against using Longhouse cedar products, but if you decide to risk using them…. Do not prepay this company a nickel and take every precaution to protect yourself and your credit, they are deceitful, deceitful and deceitful and it starts at the top!!!,” a transcript reads. The Yelp post made the same categories but was significantly longer. In it, Ginther claimed it was the first time he had posted a bad review online. “This company is not someone to do business with, in all my years of doing business I have never come across someone who is incredibly rude, scams their customers with the original order, adds a fake order and then to create a series of fake invoices to cover his lies. BEWARE and DO NOT TRUST THEM,” it read.

THE CRASH

In 2015, Ginther was building a house in White Rock. He placed an order for a crib and cedar and paid a down payment of $7,500. A few months later, two invoices were generated and Ginther’s credit card was charged $14,428.62 for the order. When the soffits were delivered, Ginther was unhappy with them and sent them back. They were repainted, re-delivered and finally installed despite Ginther telling the court he was still “very unhappy”. Immediately after that, Ginther told company owner Brian Jenkins that he never ordered the investment and asked for the charge to be reversed. He also asked for a $1,000 refund because of his dissatisfaction with the lofts. Ginther said if the refund was not processed, he would report the charges as fraud to his credit card company, the court heard. “Things got worse from there,” the judge wrote. “The two men had a heated exchange of messages, which quickly escalated into crude insults. Everyone gave as good as they got.” When the cedar was delivered later that week, Ginther refused to accept delivery and was returned to the company. When Ginther followed through on his threat to report the transaction as fraudulent, the credit card company rejected his complaint. The first negative review came 16 months later and the next was posted three months later.

THE DEFENSE

Ginder’s defense was that everything he said was true. The judge disagreed. “The only evidence supporting Mr. Ginther’s allegations of fraud is his own,” Judge Nitya Iyer wrote. “I find that Mr. Ginther was not a credible witness.” Specifically, the court found that the statements in the revisions accusing the company of fraud, deceit, and fraud were simply not supported by the evidence presented. The judge also found it implausible that Ginther never received the attached emails confirming the details of the purchase.

THE DECISION

Since the negative reviews remained online for several years and would have been seen by anyone doing an online search for the business, the judge found that they could deter potential customers and harm co-owners Brian and Moila Jenkins and the reputation of the business . Iyer noted that Ginther admitted to posting the reviews to try to discourage others from doing business with the company. However, he disagreed with the company’s claims about the extent of the financial and reputational damage. “Mr Ginther has accused Mr and Mrs Jenkins of deception and fraud. These are very serious allegations aimed at damaging the plaintiffs’ reputation as honest business people. They are long-standing members of a small community. There is no doubt that his statements caused to Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins great personal distress,” Iyer wrote. “The ubiquity of online reviews is now a fact of business life. While negative reviews may discourage potential customers, a range of reviews is common and a reasonable reader will exercise judgment in evaluating them,” he added. The company’s owners sought $250,000 in general damages which Iyer said were “excessive”. Instead, it awarded $60,000. While the owners claimed they saw a 10 percent drop in revenue as a result of the revisions and asked to be awarded $200,000, Iyer said financial records did not support that claim. Year-to-year fluctuations in revenue, according to the court, “suggest that other factors influenced the changes.” The company was awarded $20,000.

WICKEDNESS

The judge found that Ginther’s actions were motivated by malice, which “suggests malice or ill will.” In cases where this is the motive, aggravated damages may be awarded. The judge found that Ginther was motivated by malice and ordered him to pay $5,000 to each of the two owners. “He admitted that his intent was to harm the plaintiffs’ business,” Iyer wrote. “Whatever Mr. Ginther’s reason for posting the Google review, the only logical explanation for his decision to post the more detailed and damaging Yelp review two months later is that he wanted to do more to hurt the business of the plaintiffs.”

title: “Bad Google Yelp Reviews Were Defamation Bc Court Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-06” author: “John Finnerty”

Longhouse Specialty Forest Products sued Tyler Ginther for $675,000 based on the contents of two reviews he posted in 2017 and 2018, claiming they damaged the business’s reputation and caused it financial losses. In a ruling posted online Wednesday, the judge ruled that Ginther’s posts about a family lumber business were defamatory because they were both untrue and malicious. “The revisions say that the plaintiffs are fraudulent and fraudulent and that they defrauded Mr. Ginther by charging him for a product he did not order and created false invoices to support their fraud,” the court said. Ginther refused to remove them when asked, and the reviews remained online until 2021, after legal action was taken.

THE REVIEWS

Google’s initial review urged prospective customers to beware, saying their products and services were poor, delivery was slow and the company overcharged Ginther’s Visa. “I would strongly caution anyone against using Longhouse cedar products, but if you decide to risk using them…. Do not prepay this company a nickel and take every precaution to protect yourself and your credit, they are deceitful, deceitful and deceitful and it starts at the top!!!,” a transcript reads. The Yelp post made the same categories but was significantly longer. In it, Ginther claimed it was the first time he had posted a bad review online. “This company is not someone to do business with, in all my years of doing business I have never come across someone who is incredibly rude, scams their customers with the original order, adds a fake order and then to create a series of fake invoices to cover his lies. BEWARE and DO NOT TRUST THEM,” it read.

THE CRASH

In 2015, Ginther was building a house in White Rock. He placed an order for a crib and cedar and paid a down payment of $7,500. A few months later, two invoices were generated and Ginther’s credit card was charged $14,428.62 for the order. When the soffits were delivered, Ginther was unhappy with them and sent them back. They were repainted, re-delivered and finally installed despite Ginther telling the court he was still “very unhappy”. Immediately after that, Ginther told company owner Brian Jenkins that he never ordered the investment and asked for the charge to be reversed. He also asked for a $1,000 refund because of his dissatisfaction with the lofts. Ginther said if the refund was not processed, he would report the charges as fraud to his credit card company, the court heard. “Things got worse from there,” the judge wrote. “The two men had a heated exchange of messages, which quickly escalated into crude insults. Everyone gave as good as they got.” When the cedar was delivered later that week, Ginther refused to accept delivery and was returned to the company. When Ginther followed through on his threat to report the transaction as fraudulent, the credit card company rejected his complaint. The first negative review came 16 months later and the next was posted three months later.

THE DEFENSE

Ginder’s defense was that everything he said was true. The judge disagreed. “The only evidence supporting Mr. Ginther’s allegations of fraud is his own,” Judge Nitya Iyer wrote. “I find that Mr. Ginther was not a credible witness.” Specifically, the court found that the statements in the revisions accusing the company of fraud, deceit, and fraud were simply not supported by the evidence presented. The judge also found it implausible that Ginther never received the attached emails confirming the details of the purchase.

THE DECISION

Since the negative reviews remained online for several years and would have been seen by anyone doing an online search for the business, the judge found that they could deter potential customers and harm co-owners Brian and Moila Jenkins and the reputation of the business . Iyer noted that Ginther admitted to posting the reviews to try to discourage others from doing business with the company. However, he disagreed with the company’s claims about the extent of the financial and reputational damage. “Mr Ginther has accused Mr and Mrs Jenkins of deception and fraud. These are very serious allegations aimed at damaging the plaintiffs’ reputation as honest business people. They are long-standing members of a small community. There is no doubt that his statements caused to Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins great personal distress,” Iyer wrote. “The ubiquity of online reviews is now a fact of business life. While negative reviews may discourage potential customers, a range of reviews is common and a reasonable reader will exercise judgment in evaluating them,” he added. The company’s owners sought $250,000 in general damages which Iyer said were “excessive”. Instead, it awarded $60,000. While the owners claimed they saw a 10 percent drop in revenue as a result of the revisions and asked to be awarded $200,000, Iyer said financial records did not support that claim. Year-to-year fluctuations in revenue, according to the court, “suggest that other factors influenced the changes.” The company was awarded $20,000.

WICKEDNESS

The judge found that Ginther’s actions were motivated by malice, which “suggests malice or ill will.” In cases where this is the motive, aggravated damages may be awarded. The judge found that Ginther was motivated by malice and ordered him to pay $5,000 to each of the two owners. “He admitted that his intent was to harm the plaintiffs’ business,” Iyer wrote. “Whatever Mr. Ginther’s reason for posting the Google review, the only logical explanation for his decision to post the more detailed and damaging Yelp review two months later is that he wanted to do more to hurt the business of the plaintiffs.”