397 P.3d 780
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Terry R. Spencer (attorney) represented Stephen M. Glover in divorce; Glover later posted a negative review on Yelp criticizing Spencer's work and billing.
- Glover’s review included hyperbolic language (e.g., "Worst ever"), allegations about billing practices, that Spencer told him to "GOOGLE IT!", and that Glover filed a Utah Bar complaint and was considering suing.
- Spencer demanded removal; Glover refused; Spencer sued for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with prospective economic relations.
- The district court granted defendant Glover’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, holding the Yelp review was "mere opinion" (protected) and that underlying factual assertions were not defamatory; it dismissed the other tort claims as dependent on defamation.
- Spencer appealed only the tort claims tied to the alleged defamatory review; the appellate court reviewed whether the statements were actionable as defamation under Utah law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Yelp review is actionable defamation | Spencer: review contained false assertions that injured his reputation and are verifiable | Glover: review is nonactionable opinion/hyperbole; certain allegations are true or nondefamatory | Held: Review is protected opinion; most statements nonverifiable opinion; verifiable statements (bar complaint, telling him to "Google it", considering suit) are not defamatory |
| Whether review implied false, defamatory facts | Spencer: opinion disguised actionable factual assertions (billing scheme, incompetence) | Glover: alleged facts are either true, not defamatory, or purely subjective | Held: Underlying factual claims either nondefamatory or true; none expose Spencer to public hatred/contempt |
| Whether plaintiff’s IIED claim survives dismissal of defamation | Spencer: review caused severe emotional distress | Glover: publication of a critical online review is not "outrageous" conduct | Held: Dismissed—online critical review not outrageous absent defamatory finding |
| Whether tortious interference claim stands | Spencer: review interfered with prospective economic relations | Glover: posting a nondefamatory review is not an improper means | Held: Dismissed—no improper means where review not defamatory and no other impropriety shown |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Thomson Newspapers, 872 P.2d 999 (Utah 1994) (opinion/fact distinction and contextual factors for defamation analysis)
- Brehany v. Nordstrom, Inc., 812 P.2d 49 (Utah 1991) (truth is an absolute defense to defamation)
- Jacob v. Bezzant, 212 P.3d 535 (Utah 2009) (court independently determines whether statement is susceptible to defamatory meaning)
- Seaton v. TripAdvisor LLC, 728 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2013) (consumer-review superlatives are nonactionable hyperbole)