Amaro v. DeMichael
2024 Ohio 3290
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Amaro Law Firm (plaintiff), a Texas personal injury law firm, claimed Patrick and Ronald DeMichael (defendants) posted approximately 100 fake, negative reviews on the firm’s Google My Business (GMB) page between February and June 2022.
- Each review falsely stated or implied a negative experience with Amaro, despite the reviewers never being clients; the reviews allegedly caused material harm to the law firm's business reputation and client inquiries.
- Plaintiff traced the IP address posting the reviews to the Defendants’ residence and argued the content violated Google’s policies requiring honest, experience-based reviews.
- Amaro sued for defamation, invasion of privacy/false light, libel, and tortious interference, all arising from the publication of these fake reviews.
- The trial court dismissed the claims under Ohio Civil Rule 12(B)(6), finding the reviews to be constitutionally protected opinions, not actionable false statements of fact.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that many of the reviews were verifiable statements of fact, not protected opinion, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the fake reviews actionable as defamation/fact? | Reviews are false statements of fact; | Reviews are constitutionally protected opinion; | Reviews with verifiable, factual assertions are actionable |
| they describe events that never happened | GMB is an opinion forum | under defamation; not all reviews are actionable | |
| and can be proven false. | |||
| Must defamation plead publication to 3rd party? | Only general publication required under | Publication must be alleged to a specific third | Plaintiff need not allege specific 3rd-party publication |
| Ohio law. | party. | if broad public dissemination occurs (per Ohio Supreme Ct.) | |
| Are the invasion of privacy, libel, and tortious | Claims survive if defamation survives. | Claims are derivative; fall if defamation fails. | Dismissing derivative claims was error; must be reinstated |
| interference claims actionable if defamation claim is? | in light of partial reversal on defamation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Chem. Soc. v. Leadscope, Inc., 2012-Ohio-4193 (elements of defamation under Ohio law)
- Scott v. News-Herald, 25 Ohio St.3d 243 (factors to determine if statement is fact or opinion)
- Vail v. The Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 279 (opinion generally immune from liability)
- Wampler v. Higgins, 93 Ohio St.3d 111 (verifiability distinguishes fact from opinion)
- State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey County Bd. of Commissioners, 65 Ohio St.3d 545 (standard for motion to dismiss in Ohio)
- York v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (the standard for sufficiency under 12(B)(6) dismissals)