B.C. company wins defamation case against customer who posted bad Google, Yelp reviews

The Yelp website on a computer screen in Los Angeles, March 17, 2010. (AP / Richard Vogel)

A "disgruntled customer" who posted reviews on Google and Yelp accusing a B.C. business of fraud has been ordered to pay $90,000 worth of damages for defamation by the province's Supreme Court.

Longhouse Specialty Forest Products sued Tyler Ginther for $675,000 based on the contents of two reviews he posted in 2017 and 2018, arguing they damaged the business's reputation and caused it financial losses.

In a decision posted online Wednesday, the judge ruled that Ginther's posts about a family-run lumber business were defamatory because they were both untrue and malicious.

"The reviews say that the plaintiffs are fraudulent and deceitful, and that they scammed Mr. Ginther by charging him for a product he did not order and made up fake invoices to support their fraud," the court heard.

Ginther refused to take them down when asked and the reviews remained online until 2021, after legal action was launched.

THE REVIEWS

The initial Google review urged prospective customers to beware, saying their products and service were bad, delivery was late and that the company overcharged Ginther's Visa.

"I would strongly caution anyone from using Longhouse cedar products but if you do decide to risk using them…. Do not prepay this firm a nickel and take every precaution to protect yourself and your credit, they are fraudulent, cheating and deceitful and it starts at the top!!!," a transcript reads.

The Yelp post made the same accusations but was significantly longer. In it, Ginther claimed it was the first time he had ever posted a bad review online.

"This company is not someone you can do business with, in all my years of doing business I have never come across someone who is unbelievably rude, cheats their customers on initial order, adds a fake order and then makes up a series fake invoices to cover his lies. BEWARE and DON’T TRUST THEM," it read.

THE CONFLICT

In 2015, Ginther was building a home in White Rock. He placed an order for hemlock soffits and cedar siding and paid a deposit of $7,500. A few months later, two invoices were generated and Ginther's credit card was charged $14,428.62 for the order.

When the soffits were delivered, Ginther was dissatisfied with them and sent them back. They were re-stained, re-delivered and ultimately installed despite Ginther telling the court he was still "very dissatisfied."

Soon after that, Ginther told the company's owner Brian Jenkins that he never ordered the siding and demanded the charge be reversed. He also demanded a refund of $1,000 due to his dissatisfaction with the soffits.

Ginther said if the refund was not processed, he would be reporting the charges as fraud to his credit card company, the court heard.

"Matters deteriorated from there," the judge wrote. “The two men had a heated text exchange, which quickly escalated to crude insults. Each gave as good as he got.”

When the cedar siding was delivered later that week, Ginther refused to accept the delivery and it was returned to the company. When Ginther followed through on his threat to report the transaction as fraudulent, the credit card company dismissed his complaint.

The first negative review came 16 months later, and the next one was posted three months after that.

THE DEFENCE

Ginther's defence was that everything he said was true. The judge disagreed.

"The only evidence supporting Mr. Ginther’s allegations of fraud is his own," Justice Nitya Iyer wrote.

"I find that Mr. Ginther was not a credible witness."

In particular, the court found the statements in the reviews accusing the company of fraud, deceit and scamming were simply not supported by the evidence presented. The judge also did not find it believable that Ginther never received the email attachments confirming the details of the purchase.

THE DECISION

Given that the negative reviews stayed online for several years and would have been seen by anyone doing an internet search of the business, the judge found that they could have deterred prospective customers and harmed the co-owners Brian and Moila Jenkins and business's reputation.

Iyer noted that Ginther admitted to posting the reviews to try to discourage others from doing business with the company. However, she disagreed with the company's claims about the extent of the financial and reputational damage.

"Mr. Ginther accused Mr. and Ms. Jenkins of deceit and fraud. These are very serious allegations that aimed at undermining the plaintiffs’ reputations as honest business people. They are long-standing members of a small community. There is no question that his statements caused Mr. and Ms. Jenkins great personal distress," Iyer wrote.

"The ubiquity of internet reviews is now a fact of business life. While negative reviews may deter potential customers, a range of reviews is common and a reasonable reader will exercise judgment in assessing them," she added.

The company's owners asked for $250,000 in general damages which Iyer said was "excessive." Instead, she awarded $60,000.

While the owners argued they saw a 10 per cent decline in revenue as a result of the reviews and asked to be awarded $200,000, Iyer said the financial records did not support this claim. Annual fluctuations in revenue, the court heard, "suggests that other factors affected the changes."

The company was awarded $20,000.

"We were blindsided by the postings. We and our Longhouse crew take pride in our work and these posts affected our employees and families at Longhouse also," a statement from the company shared to CTV News Vancouver through its lawyer said.

"This is our 40th year in business manufacturing value-added specialty softwoods and we have employees that have been with us for over 20 years and customers that are second generation. All of us were deeply affected by the defamatory allegations against us."

Longhouse's statement went on to say it supports "stronger laws against defamation" because of the financial and psychological impacts false statements can have.

"Fortunately, we had the resources and means to defend ourselves through the court process whereas many small businesses do not," the statement said.

MALICE

The judge found that Ginther's actions were motivated by malice, which "connotes spite or ill-will." In cases where this is the motivation, aggravated damages can be awarded. The judge found that Ginther was motivated by malice and ordered him to pay the two owners' $5,000 each.

"He admitted that his intention was to harm the plaintiffs’ business," Iyer wrote.

"Whatever Mr. Ginther’s reason for posting the Google review, the only reasonable explanation for his decision to post the more detailed and damaging Yelp review two months later is that he wanted to do more to damage the plaintiffs’ business."