This Guy May Get Sued Over an Amazon Review

And he could lose his case, if legal history shows us anything.

National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Matt Vasilogambros
May 7, 2014, 10:32 a.m.

UP­DATE: The com­pany that threatened to sue the neg­at­ive re­view­er just lost its Amazon ac­count.

The next time you write an on­line re­view, be care­ful. You might get sued.

That’s what could hap­pen to a Flor­ida man who left a neg­at­ive re­view about an In­ter­net router he pur­chased. Ac­cord­ing to his Tues­day post on Red­dit, where he’s ask­ing for leg­al ad­vice, he re­ceived a let­ter from a law firm in Phil­adelphia threat­en­ing to sue him for an “il­leg­al cam­paign to dam­age, dis­cred­it, de­fame, and li­bel” the com­pany that makes the router.

“Your state­ments are false, de­fam­at­ory, li­belous, and slan­der­ous, con­sti­tute trade li­bel and place Me­di­abridge and its products in a false light,” the verb­ose let­ter from the law firm reads in part.

In his re­view, which has since been ed­ited, the man made sev­er­al al­leg­a­tions, in­clud­ing that many of the pos­it­ive re­views about the product on Amazon might be fake and that the router it­self was “identic­al” to a router from a dif­fer­ent com­pany.

If the man doesn’t take down his re­view with­in three days, cease all In­ter­net con­ver­sa­tion about the product, and agrees to nev­er buy the com­pany’s products again, the law firm will sue him, ac­cord­ing to the let­ter. But by go­ing to Red­dit and not keep­ing quiet, the man might have already sealed his fate.

Com­pan­ies, it turns out, have every right to sue people who write re­views on web­sites that they may feel are li­belous or de­fam­at­ory.

While there is a level of leg­al pro­tec­tion that third-party web­sites (in this case, Amazon) have from be­ing sued, which come from Sec­tion 230 of the Com­mu­nic­a­tions De­cency Act — the same sec­tion that pro­tects web­sites that show re­venge porn — the au­thors of those re­views are not pro­tec­ted. 

Neither the let­ter nor the user can be con­firmed. Still, this isn’t the first time that someone has taken leg­al heat for on­line re­views.

In 2012, a Vir­gin­ia court sided with a con­tract­or who re­ceived a neg­at­ive re­view from a wo­man on Yelp, claim­ing de­fam­a­tion. The wo­man who wrote the re­view said the ser­vice was poor and ac­cused the con­tract­or of steal­ing her jew­elry. She was sued for $750,000.

In 2011, a book au­thor sued a man, though un­suc­cess­fully, who wrote neg­at­ive re­views about his book on Amazon. And in 2006, a wo­man in Flor­ida won $11.3 mil­lion in a law­suit res­ult­ing from de­fam­at­ory re­marks on an In­ter­net mes­sage board.

So while Amazon states in its terms of use that sellers “may not ask buy­ers to re­move neg­at­ive re­views,” these com­pan­ies do have leg­al pro­tec­tions to go after com­ments they may deem li­belous.

While the In­ter­net al­lows users a cer­tain amount of an­onym­ity be­hind re­views on Amazon or Yelp — where a neg­at­ive or pos­it­ive re­view can de­term­ine a com­pany’s suc­cess — there is still a danger that com­pan­ies will take leg­al ac­tion against these re­views. For this Flor­ida man, his gripes with this com­pany will only grow.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.