Avoiding libel while naming names

[Cloud]

Let's say I want to start a consumer-oriented blog for a particular industry, to include reviews of specific people and places. Can I do this and avoid liability for libel if there's a negative review?

I'm not asking for a legal opinion--just what you think.

For instance, I've seen sites and blogs with all sorts of reviews for specific products and for services and providers like hotels, auto repair shops, etc. I'm wondering how they do that without getting into legal trouble. Maybe:

--identify all as opinion
--stick to first person reviews (not necessarily my own first person, but first-person reviews)

[glatt]

Cloud, you know the answer more than anyone here, with your paralegal background.

Anyone can sue anyone else for anything. Doesn't mean they will win. But if you are being sued, you still have to deal with the hassle of responding to it, frivolous or not. Why paint a target on yourself?

If what you have said in your blog is obviously the truth, that will increase your likelihood of winning any lawsuits that might be filed against you, and will also tend take the wind out of the sails of anyone who might be thinking of suing you.

Having said all that, Angies List makes a good case study. At least one contractor with negative reviews has sued the reviewer.

[Clodfobble]

The article does note, however, that the website is (somehow) protected, the guy had to sue the individual who made the anonymous post. And given the other details, I'd bet anything he won't win. But like glatt said, you have to respond to crap lawsuits, even if they're crap.

[Sundae]

All I can say is, steer clear of McDonalds.
The McLibel trial lasted two and a half years.

[Cloud]

a little research shows that's it's a developing area of the law . . . and a minefield.

I'd have to think carefully about what would be allowed. Maybe a system of star ratings without comments. I.e., rate cleanliness, customer service, expertise, etc. with just stars.

[Sundae]

Funnily enough I think McDonalds wound their neck in a bit after the trial. Talk about negative publicity - I know many people who still refuse to eat there on principle.

I'd love to have my own mystery shopper site. With full reviews, hidden camera videos and copies of responses to complaints letters from the Manager. Vindictive? A little. I abhor bad service, especially when I know it is consistent and not just a bad day one off. Don't get me started on Co-op... ooh I could go on all night! Hideous, hideous place (closest supermarket to home and work - great ethical policies, staff recruited directly by Satan to test the patience of a saint).

I think the idea is a wonderful one. I understand your concerns, but as long as you vet for hyperbole you should be okay, surely? I know your libel laws are much more lax than ours.

[Perry Winkle]

I wouldn't worry about it. Just link to your terms of use from the comment form and include something like Amazon does in theirs: "Amazon takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any content posted by you or any third party."

[Cloud]

Unfortunately, just saying you assume no liability doesn't make it true under the law.

I'm thinking a system of rating stars with no comments might be feasible. I.e., every place gets rated the same way with the same criteria. No room for people to make defamatory comments.

Just playing around with the idea, though.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I never trust stars. They are too general and I wonder what reasoning/experience is behind them.

[robsterman1]

Its all in the wording...just present the facts as they are. If you are for or against something, make sure you have the facts and proof to back up your assertions. Doing research before you post something that can be construed as defamatory goes a long way.