Sponsored by
Sponsored by
Sponsored by
Sponsored by
Increasingly, the line between genuine reviews and actionable defamatory claims has become more important. A single vitriolic review can have long-term, damaging effects, as potential customers see the review in isolation and believe it.
However, taking legal action is not an easy choice to make. Rushing to court can actually amplify the claim, and draw more negative media attention, creating more long term financial and reputational issues.
How does the law pin-point where an online review crosses from honest opinion into defamation? What evidence does the court need to assess the financial damage? And how are commercial lawyers, like those at Ashfords, managing reputation risks in an era shaped by algorithms and AI?
For a claim to be defamatory, there must be a statement which is untrue, published to a third party and which lowers the subject’s reputation in the minds of “right-thinking people”. For corporate entities, the Defamation Act 2013 outlines that there must be serious harm before they can bring a defamation claim, by proving the publication caused or is likely to cause serious financial loss. Courts must also distinguish between allegations and genuine opinions, to protect customers’ rights
Register to unlock the intermediate and advanced analysis, the full article breakdown, and questions to take into your next interview.
