In the recent unreported case of Moy v Isaac & Smith, featured in an article published by the Courier Mail on 15 November 2020, two online trolls were ordered to pay $150,000 to a wedding planner after creating a number of defamatory Facebook posts about her business.
Background to the defamatory social media slurs
Tristan Moy (Moy) is an Australian wedding planner who moved to Indonesia in 2014 to run a business planning weddings in Bali for Australian tourists. Stacey Lee Isaac (Isaac) owned and operated a bridal Facebook page and worked as a makeup artist in Melbourne. Kellie Maree Smith (Smith) is based in Queensland.
Between 2017 and 2018, Isaac shared four (4) Facebook posts about Moy and her business. The posts alluded to Moy having attempted to ‘sabotage’ previous weddings, and that Moy had caused Isaac to be deported from Bali. Smith shared four (4) Facebook posts which directly accused Moy of ruining Smith’s own wedding by trying to have the venue cancelled. Crucially, Smith had never met or been a client of Moy – so the statements were simply untrue. Isaac did Moy’s hair for her Bali wedding in 2010, but she was never a client of Moy’s. In an added twist, Isaac had started her own wedding business in Bali just two (2) months prior to the first Facebook post, which begs the question whether the motive for the posts was to further Isaac’s own business.
Represented by Australian Law Partners, Moy commenced proceedings in the Magistrates Court of Queensland on the basis that the Facebook posts were defamatory and had ‘irretrievably damaged’ her established reputation in Indonesia and Australia. In her affidavit, Moy explained that the posts had caused a flow on effect, which resulted in further defamatory comments and reviews by strangers who had read the posts. Moy argued that this had caused her enormous embarrassment, stress and anxiety, and resulted in thousands of dollars in lost income.
Moy was seeking $A285,000 from the two (2) women over the Facebook posts. Moy made numerous attempts to settle the matter prior to proceeding to trial, all of which were declined by Isaac and Smith.
The Court’s findings
With respect to the basis for damages for defamation, Magistrate Smith referred to the case of Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [1998] 43 NSWLR 158 (Marsden) at [165], stating:
“The court awards damages for defamation for three purposes. Firstly, the damages serve to give the person who has been defamed some consolation for the personal distress, embarrassment and hurt caused by the publication. Secondly, the damages are reparations for the injury done to the personal and business reputation of the person defamed. Thirdly, the damages serve to vindicate the reputation of the person defamed.”
His Honour emphasised the fact that Isaac’s posts were not made privately on her own Facebook page, but instead were shared to the numerous bridal groups that she operated, resulting in a ‘grapevine effect’. This was supported by the contents of Moy’s affidavit. With respect to this, His Honour again referred to Marsden, which states at [205] that:
“The so-called “grapevine” effect recognises that the dissemination of defamatory material is rarely confined to those to whom it is immediately published. The harm caused to reputation does not come to an end with the publication. Past observations that it is “impossible to track the scandal, to know what quarters the poison may reach” are apt to describe the effect of publication of defamatory matter on social media, where the defamation tends to spread very rapidly and might emerge “from its lurking place at some future date”, when, again, it has “a tendency to spread.”
His Honour also referred to Justice Bradley’s decision in O’Reilly v Edgar [2019] QSC 24 at [228]-[230] that:
“In the circumstances, it is not appropriate to identify the hurt and damage occasioned by each post. Rather, it is sensible to take account of the aggregate “harm” suffered by Mr O’Reilly by reason of all the defamatory publications taken together.”
On the basis of this, Justice Smith considered damages in a single sum, despite there being a combined total of eleven (11) posts by Isaac and Smith.
In order to compensate Moy for “the injury to her feelings, the stress, embarrassment, humiliation and the damage to her reputation”, His Honour awarded $100,000 against Isaac for general and aggravated damages and $50,000 against Smith for general damages.
Takeaways
This decision serves as a clear warning to those using Facebook or other social media platforms who think that it’s okay to post defamatory posts and that nothing can be done about it. Should users post anything defamatory about a business online, they may be liable for serious consequences including significant damages.
Links and further references
Legislation
Cases
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marden [1998] 43 NSWLR 158
O’Reilly v Edgar [2019] QSC 24
Further information about online business
If you need advice on protecting your business online, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free 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 for online businesses
-
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.
-
Domain name disputes – a summary of the process
A domain name is a string of text that maps to an alphanumeric IP address, enabling users to access websites through client-side software.[1] Domains can be valuable business assets, and they frequently become the subject of disputes regarding the legitimacy of their registration among organisations with competing rights.
-
Misuse of confidential information in source code
In Australia, computer code can amount to confidential information as well as being subject to copyright protection. In some cases the two things overlap as was the case in decision of the Court in Optus Networks Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2010) 265 ALR 281; [2010] FCAFC 21.
-
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…
-
What are adequate cyber security measures?
The adequacy of cyber security measures was considered in the case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v RI Advice Group Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 496 (ASIC v Ri Advice Group). One of the issues raised was whether the respondent had adequate cyber security and cyber resilience in place across its network of financial advisors. …
-
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.
