Kenneth Seaton v. TripAdvisor LLC
728 F.3d 592
6th Cir.2013Background
- Grand Resort Hotel in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee sues TripAdvisor for defamation and false-light invasion after being listed as '2011 Dirtiest Hotels.'
- TripAdvisor removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Plaintiff sought to amend to add trade libel/injurious falsehood and tortious interference claims.
- District court granted dismissal, holding the list is protected opinion and denying amendment as futile.
- Seaton appeals, challenging the district court’s defamation and related claim rulings.
- Court analyzes whether TripAdvisor’s list constitutes actionable defamation or nonactionable opinion under First Amendment and Tennessee law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Dirtiest Hotels list is defamation. | Seaton argues list asserts actual facts about Grand Resort. | TripAdvisor contends list expresses user opinion and is not factually false. | No defamation; list is protected opinion. |
| Whether Seaton stated a plausible false-light claim. | Seaton alleges Grand Resort was placed in a false light. | False-light requires personal naming and a recoverable privacy interest, which do not apply to a business entity. | False-light claim dismissed; cannot recover as business non-personal false light. |
| Whether trade libel/injurious falsehood is plausible. | Alleges false statements about Grand Resort’s quality. | Publication of false fact required; list is opinion. | Pleading fails; protected opinion defeats falsity requirement. |
| Whether tortious interference with prospective business relationships is plausible. | Relies on the defamatory nature of the list to disrupt relationships. | Interference claim depends on defamation; since defamation fails, so does this claim. | Dismissed; improper means reliance on nondefamatory opinion bars claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (opinion can be protected when not stating facts about a person)
- Greenbelt Coop. Publ’g Ass’n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (U.S. 1970) (hyperbole negates defamatory meaning)
- Compuware Corp. v. Moody’s Investors Services, Inc., 499 F.3d 520 (6th Cir. 2007) (subjective ratings cannot be proven false)
- Trau-Med of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 S.W.3d 691 (Tenn. 2002) (improper means include defamation)