Ok, there’s quite a bit wrong with the above quote. It’s probably not a fine, but a civil judgement (I hope!). It seems to be an interim order (?) that the title of the blog review be changed, but somehow costs were ordered? Is this even a final judgement, and what was the cause of action?
It sounds bad, but I can’t read French, so I can’t tell what actually is happening, and if I know legal reporting, the article has probably mangled the case horribly. Any French legal dopers know what’s going on with this?
Yes, she was ordered to pay damages and court costs, not fined. The French newspaper articles hint, but do not explicitely state that calling the restaurant manager a “diva” constitutes slander in the eyes of the court.
Thanks for the little bit of clarity. I’d still like to know on what grounds damages were awarded, though, “bad review” isn’t a tort as far as I’m aware…
I read the original critic. It’s pretty bad, but nothing extraordinary. Although she’s calling the owner a “diva” and a waiter a “harpy”.
What I gather from the linked article in French : she was sued on the basis that she wrote with a malicious intent. The ruling was following an emergency procedure, typically used when sustained damages are incurred or when there’s a risk of irreversible damages, to stop these damages temporarily pending a definitive ruling. She didn’t have a lawyer (her main fault according to the article) and didn’t appeal.
So, I can imagine something like that :
-The restaurant owner notices that her critic comes on top on google and is pissed.
-She sues, requesting an emergency decision due to the loss of income she’s incuring as a result of the article, and arguing that it isn’t a legitimate food critic, but was published only to harm her financially.
-The sued party is unable to present properly her side or doesn’t show up (or the court finds that it wasn’t indeed a legitimate critic, based on what she says). The court orders a change in the title of the article, and provisionally fines her for maliciously denigrating the restaurant.
-Out of ignorance, she doesn’t request a final judgement.
There’s apparently a lawyer/blogger who criticized the decision, but I didn’t find his article yet.
You can read the underlying article here. Google Translate does a reasonable job if you’re not good with la Francais. They cite a lawyer in that article, clairobscur, but weirdly don’t give his/her name. She wasn’t “fined”. She was sued and ordered to pay damages and court costs. As for why she lost, it seems to be because she didn’t have a lawyer.*
The article refers to “emergency proceedings”. I expect the owner asked for something akin to a temporary injunction but wound up successfully arguing for a permanent one because the blogger didn’t know enough to contest it.
*this is a bit weird because France has a mostly Napoleonic (civil) system in which the judge plays a more active role.
Is it normal for temporary injunctions to have damages components, though? That bit seems really odd to me. I could understand costs and the order to change the title of the post, but damages? Surely that would need a final judgment?
It’s not normal in common law jurisdictions, and I very much doubt it’s normal in France. That’s why I think the opposing attorney pulled a fast one - requested that the judge award damages at the temporary hearing and won because the blogger didn’t know enough to object. Of course, this is all based on me (and others) reading a blog post in what is essentially my fourth language (and one I am certainly not fluent in) written by a non-lawyer about a legal proceeding.
It’s like playing the telephone game with the news. First I have to translate from French to English. Then from non-lawyer to lawyerspeak. Then make some guesses about French civil procedure. So take whatever I said with a grain of salt.
ETA: Now that I think about it some more, she may not have been assessed damages at all, but required to post a bond to cover damages if a final judgment is ultimately entered.
Even if opposing counsel didn’t object, I would have thought that the judge would decline to make such an order. How was damages even assessed without any evidence or a hearing?!
According to precedents, she shouldn’t have had to pay damages, the malicious intent requiring to be recognized that she has some interest in causing harm to the restaurant owner.
-He thinks the court erred, sanctioning what was just, in fact, a food critic by an unhappy customer.
-She made a naive € 2500 mistake by not hiring a lawyer who would just had to quote a ruling of the “cour de cassation” (highest court of appeals in France for non-constitutional issues) directly contradicting this court’s ruling.
-The ruling being provisional doesn’t create a precedent. But the fined woman doesn’t seem to want to pursue the matter. So, the provisional ruling will be enforced.
-The content of the ruling makes apparent that the court doesn’t understand internet, and in particular the fact that a blogger has no control over the google rating of an article she published.
-Bloggers would be well advised to buy a €50/ year legal insurance and use it to hire a lawyer if/when sued.