There’s still plenty of  “grey areas” in Internet law. Hopefully, the Supreme Court of Canada will provide more definitive guidance for legal practitioners and website operators in the growing area of online reputation management. In the meantime, website operators should seek legal advice prior to hyperlinking to any potentially defamatory materials on the Internet.

To prove defamation, a claimant must demonstrate that a defendant “published” defamatory words. Currently in Canada it’s clear that a person who posts defamatory comments about another person or business on a discussion board can be liable for defamation.  It’s also clear, as I’ve mentioned in a previous post, that a person or business may be liable in certain circumstances if they hyperlink to defamatory content on another website.  But what about defamatory comments made by others on your website? The answer is less than clear, primarily because of two generally competing public policy views. One view is that website operators should not be liable for defamatory content posted on their discussion boards because the task of monitoring is too onerous for most businesses; and that website operators aren’t “publishing” the defamatory content but are merely “distributing” (which generally doesn’t attract liability for defamation). The other view is that website operators should be liable because the potential for instantaneous and severe damage to claimant’s reputations caused by online defamation should compel website operators to monitor, and be responsible for, their discussion boards.

After American courts struggled with these competing public policy views, the U.S. Congress passed legislation granting immunity to businesses that operate website discussion boards, regardless of the level of control that website operators may have regarding posted comments.  The case of Finkel v. Facebook is a recent example of the immunity that can be provided to U.S. based companies. There is no similar “immunity” legislation in Canada, and the specific issue has not yet come before a Canadian court.  Of course, each case is decided on its own facts, and one would anticipate that key factors a Canadian court would consider would be a website’s Terms of Use, the degree of control and content monitoring by a website operator, and any actions a website operator took (or didn’t take) in response to a notice from a third party regarding defamatory comments.

This is a rapidly emerging area of law, and businesses should consult a lawyer with relevant expertise to assist in drafting adequate Terms of Use and to discuss potential risks prior to launching, or continuing to host, a website discussion board.

A key hurdle that claimants must prove in defamation lawsuits is that defendants “published” defamatory words. Internet defamation is no different, and in the Crookes case, the court concluded that providing a hyperlink does not necessarily equal the “publishing” of defamatory content. If a website simply provides a hyperlink, or describes a hyperlink’s content in a neutral manner, then according to the court in Crookes, the hyperlink is not adopting the offending words as its own and is not indirectly “publishing” them. However, if the linking website endorses the content of the hyperlink material or encourages the reader to click the hyperlink to the website that contains defamatory material, the defendant may be just as liable for defamation as the original author of the offending material.

The Crookes case provides useful guidance, but businesses should be reminded that each Internet defamation case will turn on its own specific facts, and factors that will be considered include the wording, tone and placement of hyperlinks. To help minimize the risk of being sued for the publication of defamatory comments, business owners should seek legal advice prior to hyperlinking to any potentially defamatory materials on the Internet.

It seems that website operators are being increasingly asked, or ordered, to reveal the identity of  anonymous commentators or bloggers, many of whom have likely presumed that their identity would never be disclosed. However, Northwestern University law professor and First Amendment scholar Martin Redish tells the Daily Herald, “[a]ssume a worst-case scenario”. “Proceed on the assumption that your identity can be revealed.”

Americans are very fond of their First Amendment right to free speech (in Canada we call it Freedom of Expression). However, this right does not protect writers whose comments are defamatory. As I’ve said before, this is a rapidly emerging area of law and it’s becoming increasingly important to stay on top of developments.

The Lawyers Weekly

“On the heels of a recent New York state court decision that ordered Google Inc. to reveal the identity of an anonymous blogger in a defamation suit, a Winnipeg business lawyer has asked the California-based online search engine giant to do the same and out a blogger on behalf of an Ottawa-area resident. Brian Bowman, a partner with Pitblado LLP in Winnipeg who specializes in privacy, access to information, online reputation management, intellectual property and technology matters, says that his client was defamed on a site appearing on Google-operated blogspot.com (also known as Blogger.com).”

“The New York court decision and the Canadian case raise “one of the fundamental legal questions of our time over the appropriate balance between legitimate, anonymous Internet speech versus the right for people to protect their reputations,” says Bowman, who expects more of these situations will emerge in the near future.”

Read the full story here.

In general, the defamation (written and spoken) of a business occurs when a party lowers the reputation of a business in the estimation of other members of society or an industry.  Since a business doesn’t have “feelings”, defamation cases related to businesses focus on the damage to a business’ reputation or goodwill due to the comments of another party.   The following court cases are worth checking out, both of which confirm that a business can be defamed and, as a result, is entitled to receive monetary compensation.

In Barrick Gold v. Lopehandia, the defendant was found liable for a massive online defamation campaign initiated by the defendant against the plaintiff.  The defendant had posted comments on gold and mineral investor related online forums defaming the plaintiff.  The Ontario Court of Appeal noted that Internet defamation is different than traditional written forms of defamation since online defamation, or “cyber libel”, is often taken at face value, and is capable of instantly reaching an unlimited number of persons around the globe.  The plaintiff corporation was awarded $75,000 in general damages for damage to its reputation and goodwill, $50,000 in punitive damages, and a permanent injunction to prevent further postings.

In WeGo Kayaking Ltd. et al v. Sewid, the British Columbia Supreme Court awarded $250,000 in general damages to the plaintiff corporation in relation to “review” comments posted online that incorrectly and intentionally classified the plaintiff as a “bad” tour company.

Defamation doesn’t just happen to individuals.  These cases serve as a reminder to businesses that they are capable of being defamed and, as a result, should diligently protect their online reputations.