Slashdot Mirror
French Blogger Fined For Negative Restaurant Review
An anonymous reader sends an article about another case in which a business who received a negative review online decided to retaliate with legal complaints. In August of last year, a French food blogger posted a review of an Italian restaurant called Il Giardino. The restaurant owners responded with legal threats based on the claim that they lost business from search results which included the review. The blogger deleted the post, but that wasn't enough. She was brought to court, and a fine of €1,500 ($2,040) was imposed. She also had to pay court costs, which added another €1,000 ($1,360). The blogger said, "Recently several writers in France were sentenced in similar proceedings for defamation, invasion of privacy, and so on. ... I don't see the point of criticism if it's only positive. It's clear that online, people are suspicious of places that only get positive reviews."
When are these businesses going to learn that when you lawyer up against negative reviews, it suddenly becomes *newsworthy* and only makes the situation that much worse. Maybe if they spent their legal fees on training for their waitstaff, they wouldn't get those negative reviews to start with. Crazy thought, I know.
... is a completely unknown concept in France. This is not news. Noam Chomsky paid the price when he defended Robert Faurisson, not for the content of his book, but to denounce the Government legally imposing historical truth. France (and Europe in general ?) has strictly no culture of natural Rights.
The more seriously slander and libel are punished, the more damage a single act of slander or libel can do. Things are so bad these days that most people are inclined to believe practically everything they read/hear and even fair criticism is subject to legal action.
Wouldn't it be nice to have some form of "free speech" which, if guarded carefully, would require people to actually think for themselves and always consider the reputation of a source alongside its content.
But my mom said "if you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all". And it seems the courts agree with her.
So I want to stress that the road in front of their entrance is really tidy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Or I will sue you! If it's not suing, companies find ways such as sending discount coupons and freebies (bribes) to online reviewers. On Amazon, eBay and AliExpress, I've had sellers contact me to remove my 2/5 review of their product, offering me upto full refund. Since I am not that kind of person, I did not accept. Maybe they will try blackmail next (which I hope is illegal, even in China).
This case also makes you wonder what will happen to negative reviews posted on Amazon? Should these be removed too, especially those tagged with votes like 100 out of 110 users found this useful?
The Law should be on the side of impartial reviews but somehow this is not the case in France.
I am so fucking glad that I am an American! There is a fuckload to bitch about in my country, but damn it's good to be a U.S. Citizen.
I don't know about your country, in mine a boss is not allowed to say anything bad about you in a job reference. He can't say you're a drunkard. So he'll write "he was working hard to keep the spirits up". Too stupid to get anything accomplished? "He was very good at trying to get his assignments done". Didn't do ANYTHING? "He was known to be very punctual."
Euphemism and "secret" code has developed due to a culture that disallows bad reviews. I guess the same will happen here sooner or later. We'll just have to be able to understand idioms like "The service was one of a kind" (read: no other restaurant that is still in business has that kind of crappy service). "The food was something we remembered for a long time" (read: We spent a long time on the can with diarrhea). Or how about "Every time we discover something new" (read: No matter what you order, you'll certainly get whatever they have to get rid of quickly).
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
At least France is a western country.
Just wait until ICANN goes full international. The fun will really begin.
Thanks liberals!
Does France have anything analogous to the Fair Comment defense found in Commonwealth countries? I see it apparently still occasionally works in Canada and the UK.
We once received an application that included a reference letter with only one substantive comment: "She always keeps her desk neat and tidy". But really, that's not a secret code or anything, it is entirely clear: do not expect this person to do any work. The fact that the person actually included this letter of reference with her application made it doubly damning, because she apparently did not understand what it said.
On the subject of TFA: I do hope some French /.ers will chime in with the local interpretation of this ruling...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Here's some TripAdvisor's reviews on that particular restaurant.
Mod me up! (Or I might sue yer ass.)
Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
How about leaving a review which essentially only states: "I cannot complain about the service nor the food."
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
According to some sources, she refused to be represented by a lawyer. Never a good idea in court.
Reading few analysis about the judgement : the court did not make the condemnation for the article but only for the title ("A place to avoid in Cap-Ferret : Il Giardino"). The court did not order a single modification to the article content, only of its title (plus the fine). The author of the post also decided to not be defended by a lawyer during the court audition (which would have probably changed the outcome of the judgement according to other specialized lawyers). Also, this decision could have been broken in a second court if the author made the decision. Instead she voluntarily removed the article from her blog. Finally, this decision can not be referred to for future cases in France (do to the nature of the case).
So yes, of course, seemingly against free-speech decision but not really as dramatic as many of you try to depict it.
No effort... and remarkably eloquent; perhaps with a link to the court case...
Nous condamnons par faible éloge.
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
I am not allowed to complain about the service nor the food.
That would be more clearer.
Mod parent up. Still I think the judge an idiot for ruling like he did. The reason for not having a lawyer and just paying whatever fine would apparently be the blogger was scared of any extra costs the lawyer would have brought in face of the non-certainty of winning (which still might have been more expensive than what she paid now if the procedure was lengthier but in the end still not in her favour). The restaurant owner was trolling, there's just no better word for it. By awarding even this tiny win the judge is inviting his whole judicial system to similar crap (and threats to ordinary citizens). On the other hand, wasn't there a public lawyer she might have used?
It's easy to make up a story about going to some restaurant, and maybe you even actually went there, and if you did, who knows if you had a great service or not, maybe you were off your meds, and then for the hell of it, you write a scathing review. Or a great one as a prank for your friends.
On the internet, anybody can be a blogger and there's no quality control, just look at the kind of comments we get on Slashdot at -1. So while blogging is great and all, and saying whatever you like as a blogger is also great, if you're a blogger you should still put your neck on the chopping block like any normal journalist.
If you're going to say something, you'd better have definite proof, not just some random opinion. And if you get sued once in a while, accept it. It happens to professional journalists a lot. The trick is to back up your blogging claims with proper facts that you can actually show to a judge if asked.
I'm currently deleting all my online accounts. Pseudonymity isn't an option in the age of Big Data and governments that have access to almost all online traffic. To preserve freedom of speech, we have to give up identity.
How stupid does ANYONE have to be to believe a positive (or, for that matter, negative) review online?
There's an ad on TV for a referral site for various services that claims that only "members" can post reviews. How many of the "members" are paid shills?
Did the restaurant attempt to address the complaints? Did they release a statement giving their perspective of events? I imagine there isn't much recourse to the customer when it's a service like a restaurant. But self-serve centres like Google play reveal that most customers are rather stupid. I'm amazed at the number of people who want to play chess but don't know the all the rules: Little wonder issues like abortion and gay marriage gain so much attention. I imagine that the software developer (or restaurant, to extend the principle) can't answer every complaint. When customer care fails at the basic step of 'the customer is always right', the software developer (restaurant) cannot demonstrate their actions were correct.
Don't write a court review.
This is not the sig you're looking for.
:) Here goes for French and there so called freedom of speech. hAh, people having fought for liberty, fraternity and equality, now they can't even "rate" or 'criticise" a restaurant. That Judge is a dick head. :) Yeah, I challenge him to sue me now for saying that his decision is like that of a child.
A blog is a personal space. You are free to read it, or ignore it.
Anyways, here's an archive of the Article in question: http://web.archive.org/web/201...
Use google translate if you don't understand French.
It mostly is about aperitif not being queried for, not served on time, bad waitressing, lack of good PR by the owner, bad wine serving abilities etc...
Good read if you like food.
My opinion about this, someone went to a restaurant counted what she experienced at the restaurant, and she got fined for counting her experience. Dafuq.
"Within the French judicial system, personal and honest reviews have been sued by the restaurant owners - as such I am unable to leave an honest review of this establishment without risking legal action."
"Unable to leave an honest review"
You're not saying the restaurant is bad, just that you're unable to leave a review.
Would you remove your appendix yourself ? Don't go in court without a lawyer, specially when the other part has one. That's a stupid move.
Did somebody let dice have a go at the codebase? Seriously, it is strange. Even the logo is missing at the top. I checked my script blocking, and fsdn and slashdot are allowed. Only google and rpxnow are blocked. What gives?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
According to some online french media The blogger chose to defend herself without a lawyer. The other side had a competent lawyer who chose to attack on some particular points of the blog post, including the title. The judge (no jury) chose to follow the lawyer, probably because he had no time to spare for a naive defendant. The decision is a "refere", meaning a quick decision which will not set a precedent. The blogger can of course appeal, but she probably will not. At this stage, an appeal would probably cost quite a bit of money and the fine money is to be paid anyway.
Had the defendent decided to take a lawyer, she would have most probably won, and the restaurant would have been forced to pay the court fees. So memo: next time take a lawyer.
One thing to know is that she thought she could defend herself without an attorney. If she had one, she probably would have win the case... For those speaking french : http://www.lexpress.fr/styles/...
Why does iHerb have so many positive reviews? I have tried some of their products, but many of them are not much better than eating grass from your backyard.
Is it that the customers "want" the products to work ("hey, I paid money for this, am excited about it, and want it to work"), and thus create a confirmation bias and placebo effect in their mind?
Is it that people want to praise a product when it works for them, but don't as often bother to write when they come across a negative experience? So that some of the positive reviews would actually be true, but we do not hear enough about the disappointments.
As quick as slashdotters are to point out the France's "lack of freedom expression", the situation is a bit more subtle than this. The blogger was not fined for of a negative restaurant review. She was fined for saying that people should avoid that place, which is slightly different. According to french law, you may say that you did not like the service or the food, which may be indirectly detrimental to the restaurant's reputation and success. However, you may not directly call for people to boycott a place.
Call it stupid if you want, that's how it is. Never ever have negative reviews been forbidden (unless outright slanderous). Directly attacking some shop's reputation is.
If you go thru the links you will find the following :
http://www.sudouest.fr/2014/07/10/une-blogueuse-condamnee-a-bordeaux-pour-une-critique-culinaire-1611693-3246.php
Roughly translated : 1) the blogger was not asked to change the negative content or even remove it, but the title of her blog simply
2) the blgoger went to the court and defended herself. One things valid in probably msot court of the world, is that if you want to lose, defend yourself. Even in the US it is dimly viewed really.
So as usual it is not as straightfoward as put as the article summary and the onlish translations.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
http://www.tripadvisor.fr/Restaurant_Review-g776256-d3188457-Reviews-Il_Giardino-Lege_Cap_Ferret_Gironde_Aquitaine.html
Voila !!!
Those statements are factually incorrect.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
she was'nt fine for the review. she's fined for the title of the review.
Who on Earth goes to a restaurant that has "giardia" in the name so obviously?
You'd have to consider yourself lucky to only get bad tasting food.
Il Giardino, 71 Bd Beach, Cap-Ferret meet Streisand
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
... and praise them into high heaven.
Just as it will cause your offspring to look at his/her current boy/girfriend with a suspicious eye, so will possible customers.
Just lay it on thick enough. :-)
My company would be named "Bad Service Company" and give shitty service and food or other products. Then if somebody writes a review then I can sue them and get my money =)
So new business model has been found in France! Does it spread to other countries too?
So that Anton Ego never writes a bad review, Gusteau doesn't die as a result of said bad review, and Remey never realizes his dream of being a chef.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
The French are well known for being overly precious and up themselves when it comes to accepting criticism. Especially when it comes to food. Hence the CAP, which is designed to tax other nations to preserve frenchness.
It's not safe to give negative feedback when I company calls regarding someone who gave you as a reference. The safe thing is to say you know them you don't have anything to say about the person. This is essentially giving a bad reference without saying anything specific to be taken to court over it.
In the original article an ArretSurImages.fr, the blogger details in her interview that she decided not to hire a lawyer, instead simply complied immediately and did not defend her position. She was not required by the court to remove her post, but she did so of her own accord.
A commenting lawyer interviewed for the article indicated that the case shows more the necessity of getting legal advice, rather than any evolution of rights on the Internet.
Yes it's sad that she was attacked for her criticisms, but it's sadder that she did not take responsibility, or stand her ground.
-- "Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability." --Dijkstra
Clearly the best choice for when you have a bad restaurant experience is now to sue the restaurant.
It's clear that people are already fighting this with sarcasm. There are a couple famous products on Amazon with comments that laud them and praise them so much, you would have to be a total idiot to not understand they mean the exact opposite.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
As if it doesn't suck enough when it's about real majesties, now we got lèse-majesté for corporations.
The restaurant's personnel made two mistakes (the first one being asses, and the second one being dicks about being asses), and they're paying the full price.
But WHAT ABOUT THE JUDGE ? His (or her) name is nowhere, but he (or she) should SUFFER too ! This is a breach of ethics, at least. There should be an inquiry as to WHY he (or she) made that insane verdict !
Source of endless facepalms.
And now what comes up in Google when you search for this restaurant... a ton of negative press about the restaurant suing over a bad review. I think that is way worse than a negative review!
because I read a positive review, can I sue the blogger for the cost of the meal?
You can not blog or cook!
Actually, I'd like to see stats on that
For every lawsuit like this that gets bad publicity, whose to say there aren't tens or hundreds more that go through without notice. Beyond that, while the base of potential "customers" who may read about the lawsuit and skip dining is somewhat limited, I'd imagine this is getting more notice amongst those that would do restaurant reviews, and possibly chilling speech amongst those that don't wish to be sued.
I call bullshit on the Barbara Streisand effect. Most people probably already forgot (if they ever even cared to know) what information she was trying to suppress.
Does anyone really think that in another month anyone is going to remember this?
In August of last year when visiting France I went to a restraint called II Giardino at least that's what my friends tell me. I don't remember anything about the event as my few remaining functioning brain cells were thoroughly scrambled after being in a "self-induced" comma for 3 months as I recovered from food poisoning and extreme despair brought about by poor judgment and lack of common sense.
Don't let this happen to you. Stay away from II Giardino and stay (or get) the hades out of France as quickly as you possibly can.
There is so many laws so many statutes that more or less if you are sued, better get a lawyer to defend yourself, because on the OTHER side it will most probably a professional one, if not a team of them. Heck *most* advice asked on slashdot ends up with "ask a real lawyer +5 insightful". Why would it be different here ? Defend yourself and risk missing a statue or law and find yourself in hot places.
It is not much different from other works, really. If you want to construct stuff, ask an architect or a builder firm, if you want to heal a sore, ask a doctor or nurse. Why suddenly because it is "law" it should be different and everybody should be able to do it oneself ? For better or good laws and status have become far too complicated to the average persons. This story is not an example of censure, it is an example of what happens if you think you can defend yourself before a court of law.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I'd like to know so I can never go there.
I own a shop and I can tell you from experience that the vast majority of people who leave negative reviews are clueless, petty, psychotic assholes who have no idea what they're talking about. This one 70 year old bitch left a review saying that after I had to reset Windows 8 to factory default state (after her nephew used it and wouldn't tell them the main login password) that her wireless didn't work and her printer no longer printer. Um yeah, that's what happens when you reset windows. It forgets your wifi passwords and uninstalls your printer software. But try explaining that to her. She was screaming at me on the phone that I don't know what I'm doing and need to give her a refund etc. What a useless waste of space. Those are the people get write negative reviews.
Woohoo, won they're liable case.., I'm sure all this negative publicity will have they're resturant packed out! Not!
Would you remove your appendix yourself ? Don't go in court without a lawyer, specially when the other part has one. That's a stupid move.
In most civilized countries, the government covers the cost of removing your appendix.
Like the Eurovision Song Contest...
Here's an idea: Instead of posting a negative review, write this instead -- "I choose to refrain from writing a review for this restaurant."
For non-USA citizens: The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens from self-incrimination, so instead of answering a question in court that may be an admission of guilt, you may choose not to answer it and it can't be held against you.
Yes it's sad that she was attacked for her criticisms, but it's sadder that she did not take responsibility, or stand her ground.
The original attack was sadder, and even sadder is for the courts to punish her for it, whether she hired a lawyer or not. Sounds like she's just an average person expressing an opinion that doesn't want to deal with a court hassle for something so mundane. I think you're unfairly blaming the victim here.
Just post your negative reviews from Starbucks (after creating an account on the review site as well as a new email account from Starbucks as well).
I can honestly say they could not serve a better meal. I have never tasted food of such quality in a restaurant. The service was unlike any I have ever experienced. The wine was, well, what can I say, incomparable. The owner could not be more welcoming. The place was such that I would like to keep it my little secret.
There's something missing to this OP story. Truth is a defense to slander or libel in the US. Unless the law is different in France, if the writer was telling the truth and not using his publication to maliciously and/or unfairly damage the restaurant, the writer should have been protected by privilege. That's if French law is similar to US/British law. I'm guessing it is and there is more to the story. If the writer went beyond expressing his/her opinions and/or made up things in his/her review that were not true, then he/she would be liable for damages. Do a little googling if you are interested. I'll bet there's more to this story.
We have no freedom of speech in Greece either, we cannot take photos of people without their permission, that's censorship. Anthony David Photography Greece