Minnesota high court urged to shield negative Google reviews from defamation suits

Though the underlying suit was tossed, the court will decide if such reviews qualify for increased free speech protections that speed up litigation and force losing plaintiffs to pay legal fees.MINNEAPOLIS (CN) — Minnesota Supreme Court justices grappled Thursday with whether negative online business reviews should be awarded heightened free-speech protection against defamation suits.While the reviewer, Robinet Productions LLC, paints the case as an attack on a small business owner attempting to warn others, the contractor, Paragon Restorations LLC, insists it is a simple dispute over unpaid, defective work that was weaponized to damage its reputation.The feud stems from a failed commercial contract between the two parties. After Paragon refused to pay for promotional video work, Robinet’s owner posted a one-star Google review, claiming it was denied payment and urging others to avoid working with Paragon.Paragon then sued Robinet, claiming defamation and arguing the review was false as the production company did not fulfill its contract obligations.Robinet moved to dismiss the claim under Minnesota’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act — an anti-SLAPP statute designed to protect critics from “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” which are “baseless” claims intended to silence speech through litigation.“Paragon never expected to win a monetary judgment,” Robinet’s attorney, Vince Reuter, said. “It instead sought to punish Mr. Robinet for refusing to take down his business review, or through litigation, to force him to decide how much money he wanted to spend to protect his own free speech.”Anti-SLAPP laws grant defendants fast-tracked judicial timelines, and granted motions force plaintiffs to pay attorneys fees and litigation expenses. Crucially, the act does not apply to purely private disputes, but rather “matters of public concern.”While the lower court notably dismissed Paragon’s defamation claim — finding the core statement that Robinet was denied payment technically true — it did so without applying the act, blocking the company from receiving attorneys fees.The Minnesota Court of Appeals later agreed Robinet’s review was not a public concern — but rather a personal grievance based on a private transaction.Robinet argues that reading cripples small business owners who lack the time and money required for litigation — noting the owner chose to forgo legal action in favor of an online review warning others against doing business with Paragon.“This Google review is an express warning to others,” Reuter said. “Mr. Robinet used his experience to tell others about Paragon’s unprofessionalism and ultimate refusal to pay him anything for the hours of work that he provided.”The Minnesota Supreme Court has an established constitutional test evaluating the content, form and context of a statement to determine whether it addresses a matter of public concern for First Amendment defamation purposes — which the lower courts use as a strict gatekeeper to evaluate anti-SLAPP protection.Reuter argued this framework forces everyday consumer reviews through a system designed for high-stakes defamation, counter to the legislature’s intent to protect public commentary.“The purpose of this law is to expand and broaden free speech,” he said.Paragon’s attorney, Samuel Johnson, cautioned the court that opening the door to qualify business reviews as matters of public concern would bypass context and broaden the act’s intended reach.“If the legislature did what appellants say it would do, by making all ratings and reviews of businesses occupy that highest rung of First Amendment protection, that would invade the role of this court to decide what constitutional protections exist,” Johnson said, arguing the only purpose of the review was to express anger over unpaid services.Justice Anne McKeig pushed back on Johnson’s stance.“It seems the secondary purpose was to actually warn others,” she said, though Johnson argued there was no evidence anyone responded to Robinet’s review, meaning the speech had little to no social or political impact.The bench was highly skeptical of this “community connection” argument, questioning whether that’s a fair way to measure impact or public concern.“Should we be a little bit worried that we’re creating or adopting a test that sort of privileges popular statements and disadvantages unpopular statements?” Justice Karl Procaccini asked.If the court sides with Robinet, negative online business reviews, consumer complaints and other warnings about bad business practices will have a clearer path for anti-SLAPP protection, which Robinet argued is essential.“The issue is, they get the advantage of these five-star reviews, but if somebody has the audacity to give them a one-star review on true facts and an honest and personal opinion, that person is dragged through the mud in a defamation claim,” Reuter said.Justice Paul Thissen countered that a lot of people are harmed by defamation suits, but that may not necessitate heightened protection.“It could be that it’s really just, we want to protect those very highest levels of constitutional speech, and so the fact that maybe only 2% of business reviews are subject to the anti-SLAPP act may be exactly what the legislature intended,” he said.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads