Kenneth Seaton v. TripAdvisor LLC
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17936, 2013 WL 4525870, 728 F.3d 592 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statement is a non-actionable, protected opinion under the First Amendment if it employs loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language and its general tenor negates the impression that the author is asserting an actual, provably false fact.
Facts:
- Kenneth Seaton is the sole proprietor of the Grand Resort Hotel and Convention Center in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee.
- TripAdvisor LLC operates a website that aggregates and publishes hotel reviews and surveys from travelers.
- On January 25, 2011, TripAdvisor published a list on its website titled the '2011 Dirtiest Hotels' list.
- TripAdvisor ranked Seaton's Grand Resort as number one on this list.
- The list explicitly stated it was 'as reported by travelers on TripAdvisor'.
- The entry for Grand Resort included a photograph of a ripped bedspread and a user quote stating, 'There was dirt at least 1/2" thick in the bathtub which was filled with lots of dark hair.'
- The list contained other dramatic and hyperbolic user quotes for the nine other hotels featured.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Seaton sued TripAdvisor LLC in the Circuit Court for Sevier County, Tennessee, a state trial court, alleging defamation and false-light invasion of privacy.
- TripAdvisor removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee based on diversity jurisdiction.
- TripAdvisor filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- Seaton filed a motion to amend his complaint to add claims for trade libel and tortious interference with business relationships.
- The district court granted TripAdvisor's motion to dismiss and denied Seaton's motion to amend as futile.
- Seaton, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a website's ranking of a hotel on a 'dirtiest hotels' list, which is based on subjective user reviews and employs hyperbolic language, constitute a protected opinion under the First Amendment and is therefore not actionable for defamation?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Karen Nelson Moore
Yes, a website's ranking of a hotel on a 'dirtiest hotels' list constitutes a protected opinion under the First Amendment. The court reasoned that the list is not capable of being defamatory because it cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts. First, the term 'dirtiest' is rhetorical hyperbole; it is the superlative of an inherently subjective concept and is not an objectively verifiable metric. Second, the 'general tenor' of the list makes it clear that it is a compilation of user opinions, not a scientific or objective study. TripAdvisor explicitly states the list is based on reports from travelers, and the accompanying anecdotal, and often dramatic, quotes from users for each hotel reinforce that the list is communicating subjective experiences rather than asserting provable facts. Therefore, the placement on the list is non-actionable opinion.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the First Amendment's fact/opinion distinction to the modern context of online, user-generated content and crowd-sourced rankings. The ruling provides significant legal protection for websites like TripAdvisor and Yelp that aggregate user reviews and publish subjective 'best of' or 'worst of' lists. It establishes that as long as such lists are clearly framed as compilations of subjective user opinions and use hyperbolic language, they are unlikely to be considered defamatory statements of fact. This decision makes it more difficult for businesses to succeed in defamation suits based on negative rankings on such platforms, thereby protecting a common form of online expression.
