From today's NYTimes, this article.
This is just goofy.

Serving You Tonight Will Be Our Lawyer
By ADAM LIPTAK

THE review, published last month in The Philadelphia Inquirer, was three sentences long. It praised the crab cake at Chops restaurant in Bala Cynwyd, Pa., but said the meal there over all “was expensive and disappointing, from the soggy and sour chopped salad to a miserably tough and fatty strip steak.”

The resulting libel lawsuit was 16 pages long. It did not dispute that the steak was lousy. Rather, it said that Craig LaBan, a restaurant critic for The Inquirer, “ate a steak sandwich without bread, not a strip steak, and therefore had, and has, no personal knowledge of the quality of the Chops strip steak.”

By comparing “a $15 steak sandwich to an upscale dinner strip steak,” the suit said, Mr. LaBan and The Inquirer libeled the restaurant, hurting its reputation and business.

The suit joins a long line of court encounters between sharp reviews and the restaurateurial ego, and, if the earlier cases are a reliable guide, it is doomed.

Continue reading.

Sorry Irwin, but fair use doesn't include republishing other publications' articles i their entirety. Thanks for understanding.
-Rob

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Robert Taylor,

Ridiculous! If they don't like the review, then serve better food. Unbelieveable!

I'm shocked an American would resort to a lawsuit over something frivolous like these. We normally use the courts only as the last course of action when all else has failed.

While I don't believe a lawsuit is warranted (and, I agree with cdr this seems frivolous), I also do believe that critics wield a lot of power and that there are some who possess little food knowledge. Some, not all, are just as predisposed as the general public to hop on trends and give undeserving restaurants good reviews based on those trends. Others don't dare give a bad review to a restaurant owned by a group or chef who is viewed as powerful. If a chef or owner is on the bad side of a critic, lord help them.

A couple of interesting things I noticed in the article:
1) "...Mr. Valenzano, sounding weary but determined, said he filed suit 'in order to protect our reputation and the reputation of New Jersey wineries.'"

2) "...No matter how frivoulous a case may be, said David Snyder...who blogs as PhiaFoodie, the prospect of a suit chills at least amateur criticism...I don't have the Philadelphia Inquirer in my corner who is going to bankroll a First Amendment lawyer. These issues touch a nerve with food bloggers."
Now on the surface, that seems like it could affect we forumites as well, if a particular winery didn't like the tone of our tasting notes on WS. Opinions? Irwin?

I think that the concept itself has more than one side. A review is an editorial and no reporter would care to have his right to criticise abridged by the potential threat of a lawsuit. On the other hand, the enormous power wielded by critics must be wielded fairly and without bias, since they can literally destroy (or make) a restaurant. There are allegations in the Times article about bias against the owner, not necessarily the restaurant, being responsible for a review of "zero" stars. Whether there will be litigation or not is a question unanswered at present. One person who received a poor review took out a full page ad to refute it at his own cost. Just as frivolous lawsuits must be eliminated, irresponsible and destructive reviews when they occur must somehow be stopped.

Dick

Tough to respond to Mneeley490.
(rephrasing the question: Could a poster on WS who gives a poor restaurant review or wine tasting note be subject to a lawsuit?) the answer is -----
anyone can sue.

But, the law is different in different states, and while the 1st amendment applies all over the US, it may be interpreted slightly differently. I am not an expert in the 1st amendment or defamation law. I would recommend that people stick to opinions and, as rbond444 just noted, reviews should be responsible and non-destructive.

I don't believe there are any First Amendment implications at all in this.

The First Amendment protects free speech from government intervention. Not from private intervention. Many people forget that. For example, you have no First Amendment right here at WS. If they want to censor you, or control what is said here, WS is free to do so.

This really falls under slander/defamation law.

The lawyers must be running out of things to sue- I mean do. Can you imagine?

The lawsuit stands zero chance of going forward, unless they shop a court in San Francisco - then we can expect the death penalty for thecritic for hurting someone's self-esteem.

Well I wouldn't eat there. Based on their own opinion they don't even make a decent steak sandwich.

quote:

Originally posted by cdr:
I'm shocked an American would resort to a lawsuit over something frivolous like these. We normally use the courts only as the last course of action when all else has failed.

Damn, that's the third sarcasm detector he's blown this week.

I despise most food critics. And I also seriously dislike amateur critics/bloggers.

quote:

Originally posted by grunhauser:
I despise most food critics. And I also seriously dislike amateur critics/bloggers.

This'll change your mind....

PH

*Board-O walks away, shaking his head*

Sorry man.... I shouldn't have did that....

PH

quote:

Originally posted by PurpleHaze:


This'll change your mind....

PH

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather be moping hamster vomit in a zoo.

What is there in a hamster's life that causes it to mope? How can you tell if the hamster is moping? Are there any hamster psychiatrists? Do they make psychotropic drugs in hamster doses? Are they expensive? Isn't it simpler to just microwave the hamster for 5 minutes?

quote:

Originally posted by cdr:
I'm shocked an American would resort to a lawsuit over something frivolous like these. We normally use the courts only as the last course of action when all else has failed.

At first, I thought you were serious. Then, I caught on to the sarcasm!!

Here is a good one for you. My wife and I, 2 friends and our respective 4 kids had dinner at a South Jersey (Somers Point) restaurant. The restaurant had a good reputation for food. Our experience was good with respect to the food, but the service was slightly a step up from what one would expect in a Turkish prison. I will not labor through the details, but the service was rude,condescending, slow and just horrible. I wrote a letter to the owner/manager outlining the problems. The server was fired. I was named in a lawsuit. The server's father and boyfriend were lawyers. It was tossed out; never even had to make a statement. The owner's lawyer represented me for free. BTY, Craig LeBan is excellent and quite fair.

ratso: Thanks for posting this. Remarkable.
All it takes to file a lawsuit is a filing fee and a typewriter. We lawyers sometimes fail to use our counseling skills to talk our clients out of crappy suits, and there are too many of us who will plunk down the filing fee just to make a point or something.
See, for example:
http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions152/Opinions/Knowlton0131.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:
What is there in a hamster's life that causes it to mope? How can you tell if the hamster is moping?

only such a frivolous lawsuit could come from the lackluster provincial city of Philadelphia.

(hope I don't get sued for calling it lackluster)

Philadelphia is the city of litigation. If someone hurts your feelings, Philly people will sue.