{"id":1981,"date":"2013-10-01T14:00:25","date_gmt":"2013-10-01T14:00:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=1981"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:53:59","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:53:59","slug":"dirty-opinion-tripadvisors-dirtiest-hotels-ranking-is-protected-by-first-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/dirty-opinion-tripadvisors-dirtiest-hotels-ranking-is-protected-by-first-amendment\/","title":{"rendered":"Dirty Opinion: TripAdvisor\u2019s \u201cDirtiest Hotels\u201d Ranking is Protected by First Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"

Tuesday, October 1, 2013, by Amelia Serrat
\nOn August 28, 2013, the Sixth Circuit affirmed<\/a> that a Tennessee hotel\u2019s claim against TripAdvisor<\/a> for placing the hotel at the top of the site\u2019s annual \u201cDirtiest Hotels\u201d list is not actionable.\u00a0 Grand Resort Hotel and Convention Center<\/a> in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee brought suit against TripAdvisor for defamation and false-light invasion of privacy after the Grand Resort was ranked number one on the \u201c2011 Dirtiest Hotels\u201d list.\u00a0 The \u201cDirtiest Hotels\u201d list, which first appeared<\/a> in 2006, compiles user cleanliness rankings to list the top ten dirtiest hotels in the United States.\u00a0 The list also includes user comments and pictures.\u00a0 The Sixth Circuit held that TripAdvisor\u2019s \u201cDirtiest Hotels\u201d list is protected as opinion under the First Amendment and Article 1, Section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution.
\nTripAdvisor promises<\/a> visitors \u201cover 100 million candid reviews, opinions, and photos of hotels, restaurants, attractions, and more – all by travelers like you.\u201d\u00a0 The website boasts over 260 million unique visitors each month<\/a>, so it is easy to see why the folks at the Grand Resort got so upset about its number one ranking.
\nOn August 22, 2012, the District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted<\/a> TripAdvisor\u2019s motion to dismiss, finding that the list is protected opinion and thus not capable of being defamatory.\u00a0 A year later, the Sixth Circuit agreed and held that \u201c[p]lacement on the \u20182011 Dirtiest Hotels\u2019 list constitutes protected opinion because the list employs loose, hyperbolic language and its general tenor undermines any assertion by [Plaintiff] that the list communicates anything more than the opinions of TripAdvisor\u2019s users.\u201d\u00a0 Because the \u201c2011 Dirtiest Hotels\u201d list \u201ccannot reasonably be interpreted as stating, as an assertion of fact, that Grand Resort is the dirtiest hotel in America,\u201d the ranking of Grant Resort as the dirtiest hotel in America is allowed.\u00a0 In fact, the use of the word \u201cdirtiest\u201d is inherently subjective.\u00a0 The Plaintiff also challenged TripAdvisor\u2019s methodology of compiling user surveys and reviews to create its list, claiming that the methodology was flawed and arbitrary.\u00a0 The Sixth Circuit disagreed and stated \u201cthat the subjective weighing of factors cannot be proven false and therefore cannot be the basis of a defamation claim.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cPlacement on the \u20182011 Dirtiest Hotels\u2019 list constitutes protected opinion because the list employs loose, hyperbolic language and its general tenor undermines any assertion by [Plaintiff] that the list communicates anything more than the opinions of TripAdvisor\u2019s users.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Rankings listing the best or the worst in all sorts of categories are incredibly common.\u00a0 For instance, take a look at the Reader\u2019s Digest 100 Most Trusted People in America<\/a> list and Empire\u2019s 50 Worst Movies Ever<\/a> list.\u00a0 However, Jeff Hermes, Director of the Digital Media Law Project, believes that Seaton v. TripAdvisor <\/i>goes further than protecting lists like the \u201cDirtiest Hotels.\u201d\u00a0 He wrote<\/a> that \u201cTripAdvisor\u2019s analysis of crowdsourced data to reach systemic conclusions echoes important techniques for academic research and data journalism.\u201d\u00a0 While Hermes believes that the ruling \u201cprovides strong support for the publication of subjective conclusions based upon data from the crowd, the court\u2019s apparent need to tie its analysis to a lack of \u2018seriousness\u2019 weakens its value somewhat for opinions on matters of public concern.\u201d
\nSeaton v. TripAdvisor<\/i> is a definite win for consumer ratings websites.\u00a0 Under the Communications Decency Act, websites cannot<\/a> be held liable for the content of its users\u2019 statements.\u00a0 This ruling takes it one step further: Websites are now allowed to compile and build upon its users\u2019 statements and rankings to reach a subjective conclusion.
\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Tuesday, October 1, 2013, by Amelia Serrat On August 28, 2013, the Sixth Circuit affirmed that a Tennessee hotel\u2019s claim against TripAdvisor for placing the hotel at the top of the site\u2019s annual \u201cDirtiest Hotels\u201d list is not actionable.\u00a0 Grand Resort Hotel and Convention Center in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee brought suit against TripAdvisor for defamation …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1981"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1981"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1981\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7572,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1981\/revisions\/7572"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1981"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1981"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1981"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}