A California court has ordered employer ratings site Glassdoor to hand over the identities of users who say they had negative experiences working for New Zealand toy giant Zuru.
In a decision that could cause concern for online platforms that rely on anonymity to attract candid reviews, Glassdoor was ordered to provide the information so Zuru could take defamation proceedings against the reviewers in New Zealand.
Glassdoor is an international website where people post anonymous reviews of their current or former employers. Zuru is an international toy manufacturer that was founded in New Zealand and now has a turnover of billions of dollars.
After an anonymous person or people wrote reviews claiming that Zuru was a “toxic” workplace, the company launched a defamation lawsuit against them – but first it had to discover their identities.
California District Court Judge Alex Tse wrote in his ruling that the reviews referred to Zuru as “[b]urn out factory” with a “toxic culture” where an “incompetent” management team “consistently talks[s] down’ to employees and treats them like ‘dirt’.
The judge wrote that the reviews made Zuru “sound like a terrible place to work.”
Zuru says these and similar claims in the reviews are false and have cost them financially.
The company claims it “had to spend money, time and resources fighting negative publicity, negative perception and harm to [Zuru’s] reputation that [r]eviews have caused”,
She wants to sue the reviewers for defamation in New Zealand, the country where the company was founded and where the reviewer or reviewers worked.
Tse ruled that New Zealand defamation laws were applicable in this case and ordered Glassdoor to hand over identifying information.
New Zealand has stricter libel laws than the US, where there are far greater protections for free speech.
Tse wrote: “There is good reason to be dismissive of the application of American free speech principles abroad. Our country’s commitment to freedom of speech is not shared by all; and even in other countries that protect free speech, a different balance is often struck between the right to free speech and the right to protect one’s reputation.
“Glassdoor wants to protect anonymous speech on its website. Zuru wants to protect his reputation. Both interests cannot be accommodated simultaneously.
Many online organizations—including giants like Yelp, Google, and Reddit—rely on anonymous business reviews as a central part of their model.
Asked if the prospect of a lawsuit would be enough to discourage people from posting anonymous reviews, Wellington media lawyer Stephen Price said it was unlikely.
He said the costs of defamation suits were often high for companies or individuals – and some would be put off by the prospect of drawing more attention to defamatory comments.
Zuru did not respond to a request for comment, but in a statement provided to Businessdesk, a spokesperson said the company agrees with the court’s decision.
“These proceedings were initiated following a series of false reviews posted publicly on Glassdoor. We are glad that this spam has now been removed,” she said. “We cannot comment further on pending litigation.”
On its website, the company says that “the owners of Zuru greatly value each and every one of our employees, as well as their own family … with whom they happen to work.”
Glassdoor released a statement saying it was “deeply disappointed by the court’s decision, which was effectively decided under New Zealand law.”
“In this and many other cases around the world, Glassdoor has fought vigorously to protect and defend our users’ rights to share their opinions and speak freely and authentically about their workplace experiences.”
Glassdoor said it has fought a number of defamation cases and they “prevail in the vast majority of these types of cases.”
“To date, we have been able to protect the anonymity of our users in more than 100 cases brought against our users,” the announcement said. Glassdoor did not respond to questions about whether it plans to appeal or whether it has disclosed the identities of the affected reviewers.
The judge ruled that Glassdoor was not required to identify the number of people who saw or engaged with the reviews, which it said it could not do without undue burden and expense.
Add Comment