Tender Care Veterinary Center, Inc. v. Jennifer Lind-Barnett
2023COA114 (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Online statements made primarily to air a private dispute or exact revenge against a business are not protected by Colorado's anti-SLAPP statute, even if they touch upon a general topic of public interest. To be protected, the speech must have a sufficient nexus to and genuinely contribute to a public debate, not be merely incidental to unprotected personal attacks.
Facts:
- In January 2022, Jennifer Lind-Barnett brought her puppy, Pinkerbell, to Tender Care Veterinary Center for emergency services.
- Dissatisfied with the care, Lind-Barnett took the puppy to a different clinic the next day, where it was diagnosed with pneumonia and successfully treated.
- Lind-Barnett requested a refund from Tender Care, which the clinic refused after conducting an internal review and concluding its standard of care was met.
- In March 2022, Julie Davis took her dog, Spicy, to Tender Care for ataxia and was similarly dissatisfied with the diagnosis and care provided.
- After her refund request was denied, Lind-Barnett posted numerous negative reviews about Tender Care on several Facebook pages.
- The posts accused Tender Care of malpractice, incompetence, dishonesty, and bullying, and called the clinic a 'scam'.
- Julie Davis responded to Lind-Barnett's posts with her own similar negative comments about her experience at Tender Care.
Procedural Posture:
- Tender Care Veterinary Center, Inc. filed a lawsuit for defamation per se against Jennifer Lind-Barnett and Julie Davis in El Paso County District Court, the trial court.
- In response, Defendants Lind-Barnett and Davis filed a special motion to dismiss the claims under Colorado's anti-SLAPP statute.
- The district court denied the defendants' motion, concluding that their online posts constituted a private business dispute rather than speech on a matter of public interest.
- The district court also held, in the alternative, that Tender Care had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its defamation claims.
- Defendants Lind-Barnett and Davis, as appellants, appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
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 series of negative online reviews, primarily focused on a personal dispute with a veterinary clinic and aimed at damaging its business, constitute speech made 'in connection with an issue of public interest' protected by Colorado's anti-SLAPP statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Dailey
No. A series of negative online reviews primarily focused on a personal dispute does not constitute speech made in connection with an issue of public interest protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. Although veterinary care can be an issue of public interest, there must be a sufficient nexus between the challenged statements and the public issue. The court must analyze the content, form, and context of the statements, including the speaker's purpose. Here, the court found the posts' primary purpose was not to contribute to a public debate about veterinary care, but to air a private grievance and exact revenge by putting Tender Care out of business. The vast majority of the statements were personal attacks, and any potentially protected speech about misdiagnosis was merely incidental to the unprotected conduct. Labeling a diatribe a 'warning' does not automatically confer anti-SLAPP protection.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the 'issue of public interest' standard within Colorado's anti-SLAPP framework, particularly for online consumer reviews. It establishes that courts must look beyond the general subject matter (e.g., veterinary care) and scrutinize the speaker's specific purpose and the overall context of the speech. The decision narrows the statute's protection, preventing its use as a shield for what courts perceive as personal vendettas disguised as public warnings. This ruling provides businesses with a clearer path to pursue defamation claims against highly personal and malicious online attacks, while cautioning individuals that their motives for posting negative reviews may be legally scrutinized.
