Judge fines $ 170,000 for ex-patient who slandered dentist in Google review

A Melbourne dentist has won a defamation proceeding in several 1-star Google reviews by a former patient. A Victorian court ordered her to pay $ 170,000 and legal costs after discovering that her review was damaging the dentist’s reputation.

A Victorian court has given Dr. Alison Dean worse damages from Melbourne-based Qing periodontal disease and dental implants in a proceeding against Catherine Playo.

by Someone blame, Puleio was a former patient who visited the clinic several times. However, the relationship ended after Puleio’s actions turned out to be difficult. The court found that Puleio had canceled six visits to the clinic.

In response, Puleio wrote and posted four negative Google reviews about Dean’s business under the pseudonyms Cat and Daniela.

In the first review on March 6, 2020, she tried to charge $ 20,000 despite knowing that Dean suffered from anxiety and constant illness, made mistakes, bullied, and couldn’t afford it. Insisted.

Epoch Times Photo
Google Maps and Review Shots in Sydney, Australia, July 20, 2021

The second review was uploaded on March 10, 2020. “Only beautiful / secular consulting rooms are given a 1 star. A non-professional, weakening service.”

Dean tried to solve the problem by refunding $ 725 to Puleio. However, Puleio demanded an additional $ 1,000, claiming that it was fair “given what damages would be incurred if we proceeded.”

Dean refused to pay for fear of further blackmail attempts. Puleio then uploaded two more reviews, but the court found Dean to be negligent, unethical, liar, and malicious against her.

Judge Julie Clayton found that these accusations undermined Dean’s reputation and said she was diligent and developed an extensive patient and referral network (450 dentists).

Clayton also reviewed the amount of exposure received in the fourth Google review, seen at least 1,300 times, and the term “non-professional weakening service” stands out when patients search for Dean’s service online. I noticed that it was displayed as.

“I admit that the defamation statement, especially the fourth Google review, was viewed by a large number of people, and somewhere near 100,000, said the review was” not an expert. ” You may have viewed an excerpt from. It spoils service, “she wrote.

“I further admit that the’grape vine effect’means that the influence of the publication is likely to extend beyond the people who viewed the actual page,” she added.

The Grapevine effect is similar to word-of-mouth, admitting that exposure to defamatory content is not limited to those who are immediately exposed. Clayton also said that Playo was not cooperative with Dean’s lawyer and did not appear in court.

“The defamation was widespread, the publication was seen in about 100,000 people and occurred over a long period of time. It has the taste of a campaign against’Vendetta’or Dr. Dean,” the judge ruled. “Given all the circumstances of this proceeding, I believe the appropriate amount of damages is $ 170,000.”

The findings follow a recent successful defamation slate of online social media posts.

In June, a former Brisbane-based employee Ordered to pay $ 82,500 after she was found to have defamed her former boss in an Instagram story post.

Posted on