A California courted ruled this week that dentist Yvonne Wong can continue her lawsuit against a couple who posted a negative review about her services on Yelp. Wong is suing for libel and emotional distress.
Libel law is a familiar friend of mine, as it was a key portion of my media law courses and I have even had the pleasure of being personally threatened with libel and defamation suits myself. Only threatened because libel can be hard to prove, journalists have the right to report the truth and I got a picture of the guy clearly breaking the law.
If anyone needs a refresher on libel law, here is a definition: Libel is an untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or another form of media broadcast, that injures that person’s reputation or standing within the community. It is a civil wrong, so the injured party has the right to file a lawsuit against the person making the “wrongful” statements.
This pertains to online media as well, especially for review sites and blogs, not just print media.
With that being said, it is a law that protects citizens’ reputations and helps prevent others from casting a false negative light on others. However, when libel law crosses over in First Amendment rights, you find yourself on a slippery slope.
The couple who posted the negative review on Yelp did so after their son left Wong’s dentist office with alleged lightheadedness from too much laughing gas and received a filling contaminated with mercury.
Lightheadedness from laughing gas? Of course, he was on laughing gas, which makes people loopy and keeps them from caring about the painful procedure they are just about to undergo. The couple’s son may just have a very low tolerance. However, a mercury contaminated filling is something to complain about, especially in a child’s mouth.
I’m not sure how the couple determined that the filling was contaminated with mercury, but if it is indeed contaminated, this is of public importance. The couple plans on appealing the judge’s ruling and will try to get the case dismissed under California’s anti-SLAPP law (definition).
Here is Dr. Wong’s Yelp page. I couldn’t find the review the couple posted, but there are some comments defending Wong’s expertise.
Whether this dentist is wrong or right to sue this couple depends on whether there actually was mercury in the filling, and this will be decided in court. A ruling that has already been made is that the dentist’s lawsuit against Yelp was dismissed as the site is protected by the federal Communications Decency Act.
This is good news for online review sites and sites that allow for user comments. I am pleased to see that part of this case was thrown out so quickly and that the Internet can remain an open source of information sharing. I’m eager to hear how the libel case is judged and will post a follow-up once the case is closed.
