French court forces blogger to pay damages over negative restaurant review

[Justin Kahn]

A French judge has ruled against a blogger forcing her to alter a post and pay damages to a local business. After visiting a restaurant called Il Giardino in southwestern France, blogger Caroline Doudet posted a negative review upon receiving what she felt was poor service. The restaurant than took her to court for damages and a judge has ruled in its favor.

The blog post in question was entitled "the place to avoid in Cap-Ferret: Il Giardino" and appeared as the fourth result when searching for the restaurant on Google. The judge ruled that Doudet must change the title of her post so that "the place to avoid" wasn't visible in Google search. 

The court also pointed out Doudet's fashion blog, which has around 3,000 followers, suggesting it felt the number was high and of influence. Doudet told the BBC that the "decision creates a new crime of being too highly ranked." 

"What is perverse, is that we look for bloggers who are influential, but only if they are nice about people," Doudet said.

While it likely seems absurd that a restaurant review would be censored by a court of law, the restaurant owners argued that there is a respectful way to do it and that this "was not the case." The blog post "showed in the Google search results and did my business more and more harm, even though we have worked seven days a week for 15 years," an Il Giardino owner said. "I could not accept that."

Reports suggest, the decision is not likely to set any kind of legal precedence. Under French law, a judge can issue an emergency order to protect victims in situations of this nature but the decision can be overturned if the parties end up in a full hearing. But Doudet says she would rather have this whole situation end rather than go through the anguish of appeal. 

The court has not only forced her to change the title of her content, but also to pay €1,500 ($2,000) in damages as well as another €1,000 to cover Il Giardino's legal fees.

Image via Shutterstock

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/57450-french-court-forces-blogger-to-pay-damages-over-negative-restaurant-review.html

 

[VitalyT]

Struck by the sword of a thousand truths

 

[GhostRyder]

What???????

How in the.... Why was writing a review precedence for a law suit. Unless it was a flat out lie (am I missing something?) then it should be the restaurants faults for providing poor service.

 

[cliffordcooley]

She was probably a ***** and had high expectations for service to begin with. And if people had any sense, they would find out for themselves and not take a bloggers word for it.

 

[davislane1]

She was probably a ***** and had high expectations for service to begin with. And if people had any sense, they would find out for themselves and not take a bloggers word for it.

The TS article doesn't mention that the restaurant in question was already unpopular in reviews prior to this blogger's review. She was simply targeted because she has influence. At least, that's how it appears according to the stories listed on Google.

Fittingly, this lawsuit has impacted them far more than her review.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

The blog post "showed in the Google search results and did my business more and more harm, even though we have worked seven days a week for 15 years," an Il Giardino owner said.

Here's the line that stuck out to me. He's worked a lot and therefore doesn't deserve a bad review? Where does the actual performance fit in to this? We teach kids that hard work is important because it is, but in the real world how well you do is more important than how hard you work.

If the real world rewarded only hard work, American Idol would have 10,000 winners every season.

 

[mailpup]

So prominent reviewers can only write positive reviews without risk of lawsuits? If the reviewer was truthful, isn't that the point of reviews?

 

[cliffordcooley]

I personally think the issue is that the reviewer didn't just stick to the facts. The reviewer advertised it to be a place to avoid, instead of simply stating how they were treated. The reader should make that call on their own after reading the review.

 

[mailpup]

I think the reviewer is entitled to profer an opinion based on the facts as he/she experienced it. Don't movie reviewers ever give opinions as to whether a movie or a play is worth seeing even though, ultimately, it is up to the consumer to make up their own minds, as always. The same goes for reviews of cars, computer hardware/software and anything else. Nothing particularly unusual about that.

 

[cliffordcooley]

And in the end. If the restaurant was worth it, the one review would not have a negative impact.

 

[Guest]

Just look some hinnen tape from theire kitchen and you never ever go to any restorant.

 

[wastedkill]

And in the end. If the restaurant was worth it, the one review would not have a negative impact.

Unless the reviewer was the only customer they had hence the lawsuit to get back the money they lost because she didnt spent money at their place... suing your customers is a sure way to bankrupt your business and ruin your whole reputation as a whole.

Or am I missing the fact that the population of where the restaurant is located is 3,001 hence no customers... would explain the lawsuit tbh.

 

[sdms96825]

She was probably a ***** and had high expectations for service to begin with. And if people had any sense, they would find out for themselves and not take a bloggers word for it.

cliffordcooley, nonsensical statement -- don't you read the reviews on TechSpot?

 

[cliffordcooley]

don't you read the reviews on TechSpot?

That is a broken analogy. Unless I missed Techspot's reviews on customer service with the hardware that they have sampled.

When it comes to customer service, everyone has different mileage. Anyone can call a company twenty times, and have twenty different customer service experiences. There may even be a different experience with the same person on the other end. One review (especially from the same person) will never sway my judgement, where customer service is concerned.

 

[bielius]

Love is blind...

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

Maybe the reviewer was upset that the fly in her soup wasn't properly done and she had to keep sending it back until she was satisfied.

 

[Emexrulsier]

I think after everyone reads this and other similar articles they should boycott the restaurant all together cause blatantly its managers have their heads shoved so far up their own asses they don't deserve customers!!!

 

[Guest]

Troll-court! Damn. I would take the resolution to a higher instance, if I was mistreated and I wanted to publicly write about it I thought we had the liberty of speech.

 

[Guest]

The legal fee in the US would have been six figures I'm sure.

 

[Guest]

What if the blogger's review was true?

 

[cliffordcooley]

What if the blogger's review was true?

Then you would find out, when you went and wouldn't go back.

 

[Guest]

"But Doudet says she would rather have this whole situation end rather than go through the anguish of appeal. "

And people wonder why we stereotype the French for raising a white flag to any conflict.

 

[nestorius]

The review should have read, The restaurant is easy to find but the service is as shitty as the food! Please do not avoid this restaurant but also don't call me if you get sick!

 

[davislane1]

What if the blogger's review was true?

Then you would find out, when you went and wouldn't go back.

The whole point of reading restaurant reviews is to determine where to go and where to avoid. A rational person wouldn't drive down a road that dead ends just to confirm what the road sign says. Why would a rational person read over reviews only to ignore them?

 

[cliffordcooley]

The whole point of reading restaurant reviews is to determine where to go and where to avoid. A rational person wouldn't drive down a road that dead ends just to confirm what the road sign says. Why would a rational person read over reviews only to ignore them?

Well for one a dead end road is fact. Many times customer service reviews are 90% opinion and quite honestly completely different with a different customer service representation. If your dead-end road could be used as an example, it wouldn't be a dead-end next time someone drove down it.