Law Offices of David Freyd v. Victoria Chamara
24 F.4th 1122
7th Cir.2022Background:
- Attorney David Freydin posted offensive Facebook comments about Ukrainians; third parties responded by leaving one-star ratings and negative reviews on his law firm’s Facebook, Yelp, and Google pages.
- Reviews included allegations and insults (e.g., “racist,” “hypocrite,” “no right to practice law”) though none of the reviewers were former clients.
- Freydin and his firm sued multiple reviewers under Illinois law for libel per se, false light, tortious interference (contractual and prospective), and civil conspiracy; defendants moved to dismiss.
- The district court dismissed all claims: it characterized the reviews as defamatory per se but held they were non-actionable opinions; other tort claims failed for missing elements; leave to amend was denied.
- The Seventh Circuit found the district court’s refusal to enter a separate Rule 58 judgment did not defeat appellate jurisdiction, and it affirmed the dismissal and denial of leave to amend.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Libel per se (defamation) | Reviews accused Freydin of conduct prejudicial to his profession and were defamatory per se | Reviews are expressions of opinion and protected by the First Amendment | Statements were non-actionable opinions; libel claim dismissed and affirmed |
| Opinion vs. factual assertion | Phrases like “terrible experience,” “no right to practice law,” and one-star ratings implied false facts (e.g., reviewer was a client; attorney unlicensed) | Context, lack of verifiable factual content, and ordinary meaning show subjective opinion | Applying Solaia factors and context, comments are not factually verifiable; opinion defense applies |
| Civil conspiracy | Reviewers conspired to harm Freydin’s business | Conspiracy requires an underlying viable tort | Conspiracy claims fail because no independent tort survived; dismissal affirmed |
| Denial of leave to amend | Plaintiffs sought chance to amend to cure defects | Plaintiffs never proposed or attached a concrete amended complaint or explained cures until reply brief | Denial was not an abuse of discretion because plaintiffs failed to show how amendment would cure defects and raised it too late |
Key Cases Cited
- Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 852 N.E.2d 825 (Ill. 2006) (defines defamation per se categories and tests opinion defense)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (opinion v. fact distinction in defamation law)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard and plausibility review)
- Kimzey v. Yelp! Inc., 836 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 2016) (one-star ratings generally non-actionable opinion)
- Kolegas v. Heftel Broadcasting Corp., 607 N.E.2d 201 (Ill. 1992) (interpreting opinion vs. verifiable assertion under Illinois law)