Ron Johnson wrote:The story is pretty accurate. I've always felt that a lawsuit would be without merit unless the reviewer stated something as fact that was not true, such as the restaurant was not accessible to the disabled when it did have an ADA approved ramp. Then there would be an issue of fact as to whether that was a malicious statement. Riegler would regularly say things in her review like the kitchen used microwave ovens. If, in fact, the kitchen did not use a microwave, I think she could've been in trouble. As long as critics stick to opinions, they are on solid ground.
andrew mellman wrote:It's easy enough to avoid trouble! Just say things like, "it tasted as if it was finished in a microwave"
Robin Garr wrote:
"If it wasn't finished in a microwave, they did a remarkably good job of replicating the effect."
andrew mellman wrote:It's easy enough to avoid trouble! Just say things like, "it tasted as if it was finished in a microwave" and "I didn't see a handicapped ramp" rather than giving a definitive statement.
Ron Johnson wrote:e.g. the last caesar salad I had at Vincenzo's featured romaine lettuce so brown that it could've easily come from the compost pile behind a Macaroni Grill. something like that . . .
John R. wrote:Yeah, it just perpetuates the predilection to be substandard. I can see a future where litigation has dictated the graffic design of everything. Where you have no idea what the product is because of the warnings. And food critics will have to have a 1000 word preamble cleaning theirs and their publishers hands from responsibility, followed by their 200 blurb review. The plantiffs in these cases only prove to me that the reviewer is correct. They would rather spend huge amounts of money on lawyers, instead of making their products ethereal.
Users browsing this forum: SemrushBot and 19 guests