Sea Marine's Difficult Attempt at Proving Defamation in Washington
Sea Green Partners LLC v. Gail, No. C20-5142 BHS, 2023 WL 256362, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8769 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 18, 2023).
Author: Ann-Kathryn Dartez
Defendants, Margene Marine, LLC and Western Waters, LLC successfully argued its motion for partial summary judgment against Plaintiff, Sea Marine, in federal court in the Western District of Washington. In addition to its maritime lien for alleged money owed, Sea Marine asserted three claims against Defendants: libel, false light invasion of privacy, and defamation. Sea Marine’s claims arose from negative online reviews that Defendants posted after it contracted Plaintiff to perform repair and upgrade work on the BARBARA GAIL. Plaintiff conceded its invasion of privacy claim. The District Court dismissed its libel claim as Washington has no individual claim for libel. Thus, Judge Settle analyzed only the remaining defamation claim.
Defendants convinced the court that Plaintiff could not meet its burden of establishing three of the four required elements of defamation: (1) the reviews were not statements of objective fact, but mere opinions; (2) they were privileged; and (3) Plaintiff cannot prove that it suffered damages. Defendants, therefore, only conceded the “fault” element.
The motion was granted, in large part, based on established jurisprudence in Washington regarding defamation claims stemming from online business reviews. The trial judge applied Washington state law though the basic claim asserted admiralty jurisdiction. Judge Settle agreed that “Washington courts have consistently concluded that such reviews are non-actionable opinions about the quality of service provided by the business rather than factual statements supporting a defamation claim.”1 When considering whether a statement is an objective fact or a mere opinion, Washington courts look to the Dunlap factors, which are usually conclusive when it comes to defamation through online reviews cases. These factors consider the context, medium, and audience of the reviews in question; the Court agreed with Defendants that the present case’s reviews are not objective statements of fact but were rather a “rhetorical hyperbole.”2
Sea Marine’s evidence (additional online reviews) in support of its argument were insufficient as none of these reviews were in its original nor amended complaint. Thus, the court did not consider any of them. Sea Marine also failed to cite any jurisprudence, from Washington or elsewhere, in support of its contention that online reviews were not mere opinions, but instead objective statements of fact. Finally, Plaintiff’s failure to hire a forensic accountant to prove damages contributed to the Court’s conclusion.
Remaining are Plaintiff’s maritime lien and breach of contract claims against Defendants.
1 Sea Green Partners, 2023 WL 256362, at *7.
2 Id. at *8.
