Online reviews are crucial to most business’ online presence. While some reviewers openly share their identity along with their comments, many choose to remain anonymous. In the case of false, misleading or defamatory online reviews, this can create a host of issues for businesses seeking to remove the review or commence legal proceedings against a reviewer. This was evident in the recent case of Kabbabe v Google LLC [2020] FCA 126.
Background to the unmasking of the anonymous reviewer
Dr Matthew Kabbabe is a Melbourne based dentist, who relies on the internet to attract customers. Dr Kabbabe received an anonymous, negative Google review about his dental practice, which included claims that the experience was “extremely awkward and uncomfortable” and the procedure was “a complete waste of time”.
Initially, Dr Kabbabe requested Google remove the review, however when they declined, Dr Kabbabe requested Google provide the reviewer’s personal details so he could commence defamation proceedings. In response to Dr Kabbabe’s request, Google tried to avoid revealing the user’s details and argued they “did not have any means to investigate where and when the ID was created”.
Dr Kabbabe subsequently applied to the Federal Court to force Google to provide the personal information of the reviewer. He argued the review had a profound, negative impact on his business.
Findings
Federal Court Justice Mr Bernard Murphy had to consider whether Google could be served in accordance with a treaty known as the Hague Service Convention (Convention) of 1965. Ordinarily, this process would take several months due to the requirement to lodge and process the documents in two (2) countries.
However, Dr Kabbabe’s lawyer found a loophole in article 10(a) of the Convention which allows originating documents to be sent by international registered post. This right is reinforced in rule 10.43(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The loophole was significant in speeding up the proceedings and forcing Google to comply because the United States is a party to the Hague Convention.
Accordingly, Justice Murphy granted leave for Dr Kabbabe to serve Google via international registered post, seeking information about the anonymous reviewer. Google was subsequently required to provide the reviewer’s name, phone number, IP address, location and other relevant metadata.
In coming to this conclusion, His Honour also found that:
- publication of the allegedly defamatory review is taken to have occurred where the words were heard, read or downloaded, and therefore the defamation occurred in Australia (no surprises here);
- Google is likely to have or have had control of the reviewer’s information;
- Dr Kabbabe had a prima facie case for defamation against the reviewer; and
- Dr Kabbabe had taken all other reasonable inquiries or steps to ascertain the reviewer’s information.
Dr Kabbabe will be able to use the information obtained from Google in legal proceedings against the anonymous reviewer.
Implications for online conduct against businesses
Dr Kabbabe’s lawyer said that Google has a duty of care to protect small businesses, and that anonymous profiles could be easy to detect if Google invested time and effort to reveal fake or malicious reviewers.
However, Google has previously suggested that defamation laws and cases such as this could lead to a “suppression of information”. There are concerns that unmasking anonymous reviewers means there’s no protection for those who want to provide information about a business, but are afraid to. If the number of negative reviews making it online declines due to a fear of a lawsuit, then others will be less informed with only the positive reviews to go on.
Nonetheless, as these cases become more common online giants such as Google are likely to face further Court orders forcing them to identify people behind potentially defamatory or misleading statements made on their websites.
Takeaways
Anonymous online reviewers are not exempt from legal proceedings. The Courts are increasingly willing to exercise their power to force online giants like Google to disclose anonymous reviewers’ personal information, for the purpose of legal proceedings.
Links and further references
Legislation
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Cases
Dow Jones & Co v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56
Kabbabe v Google LLC [2020] FCA 126
Further information about copyright infringement
If you need assistance with any aspect of copyright infringement, please telephone me for an obligation free and confidential discussion.
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Related insights about copyright infringement
-
Federal parliament passes cyber security laws
On 25 November 2024, the Australian Parliament passed a suite of legislation, collectively referred to by the Australian Government as the Cyber Security Legislative Package 2024. The purported impetus for this legislation was a series of high-profile data breaches in 2022 and 2023.
-
The Digital ID Bill 2023 (Cth)
On 30 November 2023, the Digital ID Bill 2023 (Cth) and the Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 (Digital ID Bills) were introduced in the Australian Senate. Digital IDs are designed to provide individuals with a convenient way to verify their identity when completing certain online transactions and dealing with government and certain…
-
Misinformation and Disinformation Bill 2023 – exposure draft
The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 (Cth) (Misinformation Bill) was announced by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication and the Arts (DITRDCA) in January 2023. The Misinformation Bill is aimed at restricting the flow of misinformation and disinformation by providing the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with increased…
-
National Classification Scheme – proposed federal reforms
Albanese Government announces intention to reform National Classification Scheme, proposing R18+ for games simulating gambling and M for computer games with paid loot boxes/in-game purchases linked to chance. Learn more about proposed reforms and if simulated gambling needs to be addressed.
-
Australian legislation addresses loot boxes in video games
The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Loot Boxes) Bill 2022 (Bill) has been tabled in the House of Representatives on the 28 November 2022. The private member’s Bill acts in response to growing support for the regulation of features and elements within video games which appear to simulate gambling.
-
Digital Games Tax Offset proposed by Albanese
The Albanese Labor Government has proposed a Digital Games Tax Offset (DGTO) of 30%, encouraging the growth of the digital games industry in Australia. Learn more about the DGTO and how it will create more jobs and international competitiveness.
-
Influencers finally regulated when promoting therapeutic goods
The Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code 2021 (Cth) (2021 TGA Code) brings regulations for social media endorsements of therapeutic goods. Learn more about the changes and how to ensure compliance before they take effect on 1 January 2022.
-
Registration of .au domain names – what does this mean for businesses?
There is only seven (7) days left to make your priority application for your .au domain name. From 21 September 2022, anyone can apply to have your .au domain, and you don’t want that! Any person with a verified connection to Australia will be able to apply for a domain name ending in .au, also…
-
Cryptocurrency and hacking offences introduced to Parliament
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Ransomware Action Plan) Bill 2022 is set to revolutionize the way cybercrime is prosecuted. Learn more about the changes it brings and the implications they have.
