The firm failed to show how the bad reviews caused serious financial loss
The U.K. High Court struck out a libel claim from Leeds-based firm BW Legal, which claimed it lost a potential £3.7 million contract due to defamatory online reviews, which The Law Society Gazette reported.
BW Legal had sued the review website Trustpilot over 20 hostile reviews that allegedly lowered its overall rating and resulted in financial loss.
Judge Lewis, sitting as a judge of the High Court in BW Legal Services Ltd v Trustpilot A/S, granted summary judgment in favour of Trustpilot. The judge ruled that BW Legal failed to show how the bad reviews caused serious financial loss.
“Given the volume of negative reviews published on the defendant’s website at the relevant time, it seems improbable that the claimant will be able to show that any loss (or likely loss) it has suffered was caused by a specific publication,” Judge Lewis said.
BW Legal sought damages ranging from £10,000 to £50,000, an injunction, and an order for Trustpilot to publish a summary of the court’s judgment. Trustpilot's defence maintained that it was not a publisher, that each review was based on honest opinion and was a matter of public interest, and that none of the 20 reviews caused serious harm to BW Legal’s reputation.
The court heard that telecoms company Three cited concerns about feedback on Trustpilot as one reason for not selecting BW Legal’s bid. However, when BW Legal requested a review of the decision, Three did not mention the online reviews further and was complimentary about BW Legal's credentials. The defence noted that only three of the 20 reviews in question had been published when Three made its tender decision, and there was no evidence that anyone at Three had read those specific reviews.
BW Legal’s witness statement claimed that publishing defamatory statements would damage its reputation and that a firm’s reputation is crucial to its commercial success. However, the judge ruled that BW Legal had not proven a link between Three’s decision and the reviews. Judge Lewis emphasized that even if BW Legal could show a real and substantial chance that Three would have acted differently, it would still need to prove on the balance of probabilities that one of the three reviews caused it to lose that chance.
Following the ruling, Barry Coulter, counsel representing BW Legal, expressed disappointment with the decision but highlighted that the court acknowledged Trustpilot’s reviewers were neither clients nor customers of BW Legal. He stated, “BW Legal firmly believe that businesses and individuals in their situation, who do not subscribe to Trustpilot services, are left in an impossible position when false and defamatory statements are published online. However, we are pleased to note that HHJ Lewis found that Trustpilot’s anonymous reviewers were neither clients nor customers of BW Legal, which was BW Legal’s position from the outset as it goes against Trustpilot’s own guidelines.”
Coulter also indicated that BW Legal is considering its next steps, including a potential appeal.
