Restaurant Reviews and Liability

Whoa, Royals doesn't serve chicken quarters anymore? That's insane! That's what hot chicken is!

[Robin Garr]

Whoa, Royals doesn't serve chicken quarters anymore? That's insane! That's what hot chicken is!

I was just gonna say!

Insider Louisville has just posted that Joella's owner is threatening a lawsuit. http://insiderlouisville.com/lifestyle_culture/dining/joellas-owner-asks-louisville-chef-to-apologize-for-review-threatens-lawsuit/

When Royal's first opened I posted a comment here wondering if the prices they were charging were sustainable, and got rather snarky responses from the owner as well as a couple of other posters. Just sayin'.

Three things I'll never pay someone to make me are grilled cheese, steak, and chicken tenders. I don't care what kind of sauce you're putting on them.

Insider Louisville has just posted that Joella's owner is threatening a lawsuit. http://insiderlouisville.com/lifestyle_culture/dining/joellas-owner-asks-louisville-chef-to-apologize-for-review-threatens-lawsuit/

I can't comment on the merits of the lawsuit, but....

At the end of the review, Weston said the column did not reflect the opinion or views of Kitchen Banter. “All words in this column belong to Marcus, and Marcus alone,” he wrote.

That comment is not correct. If the C-J publishes a libelous piece, they can't just say, "Hey, not our fault. We didn't write the thing."

Insider Louisville has just posted that Joella's owner is threatening a lawsuit. http://insiderlouisville.com/lifestyle_culture/dining/joellas-owner-asks-louisville-chef-to-apologize-for-review-threatens-lawsuit/

I can't comment on the merits of the lawsuit, but....

At the end of the review, Weston said the column did not reflect the opinion or views of Kitchen Banter. “All words in this column belong to Marcus, and Marcus alone,” he wrote.

That comment is not correct. If the C-J publishes a libelous piece, they can't just say, "Hey, not our fault. We didn't write the thing."

It's not libelous without harmful intent. It's just an opinion and apparently one that is shared by several people on this very board. If Griffin had worked for Tony G or was opening a restaurant in direct competition, I could see it. As is... "Nah". lol

[Robin Garr]

That comment is not correct. If the C-J publishes a libelous piece, they can't just say, "Hey, not our fault. We didn't write the thing."

Not entirely the case. The reviewers are hired by the CJ on a free-lance basis, and there's plenty of case law that would allow the paper to separate itself from the writer, even if the work was edited by staff. They wouldn't do that because it would look bad, and also because, as has already been pointed out, there's no case here, since criticism is abundantly protected. But the publisher may have protection from legal exposure. Ditto online. An early case against AOL made clear that if any of you guys get sued for a libelous post, I can cut and run. (Like Griffin, I won't, but we're talking about the law.)

Again, not getting into the merits of this case, but.....

Not entirely the case. The reviewers are hired by the CJ on a free-lance basis, and there's plenty of case law that would allow the paper to separate itself from the writer, even if the work was edited by staff.

I'm busy, but if you need more cases in which both the writer AND the paper/blog/website have both been sued, I'd be happy to post them in a day or two. A freelancer typically has shallow pockets, so it makes more sense to include the publisher in the suit. Off the top of my head.... JK Rowling didn't just sue the writer, she sued the writer and the Daily Mail. Hulk Hogan, not just the writer, but also Gawker.

Again, not saying that his suit has merits, but that Griffin, as a publisher, cannot publish any articles on his website by a freelancer, articles that he chooses to post, and be immune from the possible legal consequences. He could "apologize" to make it go away. If not, he could have a small, money-sapping battle on his hands.

[Robin Garr]

Again, not getting into the merits of this case, but.....

Not entirely the case. The reviewers are hired by the CJ on a free-lance basis, and there's plenty of case law that would allow the paper to separate itself from the writer, even if the work was edited by staff.

I'm busy, but if you need more cases in which both the writer AND the paper/blog/website have both been sued, I'd be happy to post them in a day or two.

Sure, Silvio! I'm always eager to learn more about this. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been in media most of my adult life, both as a writer working for publishers and as a writer and digital publisher, and I've followed a lot of the landmark cases. My memory of the AOL case, in particular, was that the digital publisher could not be held accountable for posts by individuals using the service. But tell me more! I'm definitely interested and will not have my feelings hurt if you prove me wrong.

When Royal's first opened I posted a comment here wondering if the prices they were charging were sustainable, and got rather snarky responses from the owner as well as a couple of other posters. Just sayin'.

Facebook post from Royals.

Hi Sherlease, I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. Unfortunately the bone in chicken is the only thing we removed from the menu and it's because it didn't sell. It only represented 17% of our total fried chicken sales which was unsustainable for us as a business. In the best interests of staying in business we had to remove it from the menu, and that's allowed us to stay open throughout the day, later at night, and has allowed us to now take online orders so that people can skip the line.

[Robin Garr]

Hey, gang! Griffin just posted a new video, and it's both a firm and a gracious response: If Tony P is willing, they drop the suit and duke it oug with a hot-chicken throwdown instead, charge admission, and give all the proceeds to charity. I've suggested APRON.

Facebook link to the video:
https://www.facebook.com/griffin.paulin ... 0888584138

I don't know, I'm thinking that the more he talks the worse his case becomes, especially framing it as "restaurateur vs. restaurateur." Still, if Tony P had just left it alone it would be forgotten in a week.

I don't see any upside for Tony to participate in this; it's just free publicity for Mr. Paulin. It's kind of an interesting case study in marketing, though.

Sure, Silvio! I'm always eager to learn more about this. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been in media most of my adult life, both as a writer working for publishers and as a writer and digital publisher, and I've followed a lot of the landmark cases. My memory of the AOL case, in particular, was that the digital publisher could not be held accountable for posts by individuals using the service. But tell me more! I'm definitely interested and will not have my feelings hurt if you prove me wrong.

I think cases like that applied to people posting on an unmoderated discussion board. In the Joella's case it's pretty clear the review was commissioned.

I have read the review over and over, and although I may have a different opinion on Joella's, the reviewer didn't misrepresent any of his opinions as facts. His points of contention weren't stated as facts, but just brutally worded negative opinions. In libel and slander cases you have to prove the defendant actually stated something that was not true. You can prove if something stated as a fact is true or false, you can't do that with an opinion. The lawsuit will get dismissed.