TR Forums

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1265490/eBay-buyer-sued-defamation-leaving-negative-feedback-auction-site.html

I guess feedback is more risky than I thought.

Foreign (non-US) sites are blocked for me at work, but if that's in the UK, it's probably due to UK libel laws. In the US, for example, to charge someone with libel or slander the person suing you has to prove that your comments are libelous and defaming their character. In the UK, on the other hand, it works the exact opposite. The person accused of libel has to prove their innocense. As an example:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/201 ... l-suit.ars

So it's kind of like the DMCA; it's really easy to just pop up a lawsuit (ala DCMA takedown notice) without any real risk of backlash--you don't have to prove anything and the person you're prosecuting has all the burden upon them.

Scrotos wrote:

Foreign (non-US) sites are blocked for me at work, but if that's in the UK, it's probably due to UK libel laws. In the US, for example, to charge someone with libel or slander the person suing you has to prove that your comments are libelous and defaming their character. In the UK, on the other hand, it works the exact opposite. The person accused of libel has to prove their innocense. As an example:

While the website is from the UK the case is in the US.

The U.S. has some funky lesser known "gotchas" concerning libel (written) and slander (spoken) defamation. What it appears to boil down to is two things; truth and intent. If the defamation is true, it can't be slanderous of libelous. However, if the intent was malicious, it may still apply. How they go about judging something like that I can't fathom.

Probably have to prove financial gain or loss tied into slander against your reputation.

Scrotos wrote:

Probably have to prove financial gain or loss tied into slander against your reputation.

But suppose the libel or slander is true, could you not then claim that the truth of the statements made led to the loss of revenue, for example, and not your malice? Malice seems to be a side effect as much as loss of money is given that the statements made are true. I can't think of an example where something is both true and not malicious. The exposure stemming from the libel or slander is what the person wanted, to make a point or otherwise educate the masses; I don't see how you can do that without being malicious because you want a particular thing changed. The rest just seems like after-effects.

Oddly enough, it sounds like the seller may have a case. According to the article, the angry buyer wrote "'bad seller, he has the ethics of a used car salesman". That goes a little beyond what was relevant to the auction (a problem with the purchased equipment) or any facts that the seller could have conclusively established, and was awfully hot-headed considering that the buyer had already gotten his money refunded through eBay's buyer protection.

But suppose the libel or slander is true, could you not then claim that the truth of the statements made led to the loss of revenue, for example, and not your malice? Malice seems to be a side effect as much as loss of money is given that the statements made are true. I can't think of an example where something is both true and not malicious. The exposure stemming from the libel or slander is what the person wanted, to make a point or otherwise educate the masses; I don't see how you can do that without being malicious because you want a particular thing changed. The rest just seems like after-effects.

AFAIK malice is a mainly about your intent, usually demonstrated by actions that go above and beyond the truth of the matter. For example, most of the US has laws that favor armed self defense. But if your attacker is down or has turned to run, and thereby no longer poses an immediate threat, and yet you finish unloading the clip into him, your intent will probably be considered malicious and the self defense claim will correspondingly fail.

Isn't the point of leaving feedback to describe the experience with the seller and their merchandise? The tiring thing is that eBay already has mechanisms in place (and usually weighed in favor of the seller) to respond and argue about such criticism. Amusing thought - has anyone been taken to court over an inflammatory use-net post?

I'm guessing this post will be the push into R&P, but here we go anyways.......

Imagine the flood of lawsuits that will follow this decision if it's held up in a court. Anyone saying anything bad about a person on the intarweb will be held liable for their comments for the undue emotional pain & suffering it will cause. This will just lead to more frivolous lawsuits in the millions of dollars just because someone called someone a name. Geez people have we grown up at all in life?

The point I was strictly arguing is that the entire purpose of making a statement that could be considered defamation (even if it's true) is that they wanted to negatively impact this person/business so that others wouldn't suffer the same pitfalls.

How do you quantify malice?

I'm hoping what we see here is a verdict that falls in line to the tune of the spirit of the law vs the letter of it. "I'll know it when I see it" and all that jazz.

I agree with you Pete, but all it takes is one jackass of a judge to feel sorry for the guy & he'll get what he wants.

All a person needs to know about the legal ramifications (or not) of this case is that the seller apparently posted a blanket character assassination rather than a factual description of the transaction, and then apparently stated to the press that he intended to cause harm to the other party's business while defending against an active defamation suit alleging the same. Meanwhile, the actual transaction agent -- eBay -- had already given him the dispute resolution that he wanted. Anyone lacking good judgment to that degree deserves to be slapped with the stupid stick a few times. It's quite possible the seller is the actual victim here.

Hoser wrote:

Geez people have we grown up at all in life?

We have, but the prospect of money talks. Lawsuits aren't always a matter of maturity.