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
-
Hermès sues artist over NFT “Birkin” bags
Explore the implications of virtual artworks created with the help of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and how this has caused a legal battle between a renowned fashion house and an American artist. Learn more about the copyright and trade mark infringement issues, and the implications of this case for the future of digital art.
-
The new Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill 2021
The Australian Government has introduced a Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill 2021 to protect Australians who use social media. Find out what measures are included in the bill and how it could help protect you from online trolls.
-
7-Eleven customer survey: implied consent?
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner found 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd are in breach of the Australian Privacy Principles (APP’s). Learn more about the findings, implications, and how businesses can comply with the APP’s.
-
Can social media chat logs be documents in Federal Court?
The Federal Court has addressed the hearsay rule exception of using a log from an instant messaging platform to prove the identity of the sender, date, time of the message, and contents of the statement.
-
Swiss company hands over user data
A Court order in Switzerland raises questions about Australian law enforcement’s ability to access encrypted data. This article explores the legislative perspective on accessing private or business communications, and the steps taken to protect transmitted information.
-
Online business promotion and liability for third-party comments
Businesses hosting online discussion forums must be aware of the potential for hefty damages claims if they fail to remove defamatory comments made by third parties. Find out more about the implications of the High Court case of Australian New Channel Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27.
-
The Australian Cyber Law Map – overview
The Australian Cyber Law Map provides clarity on ever-changing legal landscape, covering commercial enterprises, cyber offences, infrastructure, international law, national security and personal rights. A source for understanding laws and providing safety/security in the digital age.
-
Explaining Australia’s Media Bargaining Code
The News Media Bargaining Code (NMBC) is quickly moving through Parliament and looks likely to become law. It requires digital platforms, such as Facebook and Google, to negotiate remuneration with News Companies for providing their media services. Non-compliance could result in hefty civil penalties.
-
Kogan fined $310k for Spam Act breaches
Kogan Australia Pty Ltd has been issued a hefty penalty and an enforceable undertaking for not complying with the Spam Act 2003 (Cth). Find out what this means for your business and what the consequences are for failing to comply.
