Court Tosses Prestigious Pets' $1 Million Defamation Suit Against Unhappy Customers
from the no-statute-of-limitations-on-the-Streisand-Effect dept
Prestigious Pets, a Texas pet-sitting company, has done a severe amount of damage to the "prestigious" half of its name over the past several months. After front-loading its inevitable reputational ruin by adding a KlearGearian "non-disparagement clause" to its service contracts, the company doubled-down with a $1 million defamation lawsuit after losing out on its small claims court bid to extract $6,766 from an unhappy customer for "lost work opportunities" and "libelous and slandurous [sic] harm."
The unhappy customers, whose Yelp review only stated the pet sitter Prestigious Pets hired had overfed their fish, were forced to defend themselves against a clearly baseless lawsuit. Fortunately, Chris Dachniwsky of law firm Thompson & Knight stepped up to represent the couple on a contingency basis.
Even better, Public Citizen's Paul Alan Levy is reporting the court has tossed the lawsuit and found [PDF] the non-disparagement clause Prestigious Pets deployed to its own detriment is unenforceable.
A state District Court in Dallas (Judge Jim Jordan of the 160th District) has struck down a lawsuit over a non-disparagement clause in a form consumer agreement, holding that it could not be enforced against a consumer who expressed dissatisfaction about the service provided by a local business. Although we have won default judgments in Utah against Kleargear and in New York against Accessory Outlet, this case represents the first time a company defended its non-disparagement clause with a brief, and thus the first time we have had a judge’s ruling refusing to enforce such a clause.
[...]
What the decision does make clear is that non-disparagement clauses in form consumer contracts are susceptible to attack in court and that businesses in states with anti-SLAPP statutes should act with care before suing to enforce them.
Any company seeking to enforce these stupid clauses is basically pointing a loaded gun at its own reputation when doing so. Taking someone to court over them is pulling the trigger. Suing unhappy customers has almost never worked out in favor of those filing lawsuits. Even if, by some off-chance, the court agrees with them, the public won't.
Unfortunately, the very short opinion doesn't necessarily say the court will never find these clauses enforceable. But this particular case is dismissed with prejudice, meaning Prestigious Pets can't drag the unhappy customers back into court over the same claims.
Here's the decision in full, which is greatly aided by the state's anti-SLAPP law. Legal fees will be paid by Prestigious Pets, which means Thompson & Knight's good deed is the rare kind that may go rewarded, rather than punished.
On July 29, 2016, the court heard Defendants, Robert Duchouquette and Michelle Duchouquette's, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Texas Citizens' Participation Act. Having considered the Motion, Plaintiffs' Response, Defendants' Reply, Plaintiffs' Sur-Reply, the supporting affidavits and exhibits of the parties and the argument of counsel, the court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all causes of action alleged in Plaintiffs' Original Petition are dismissed with prejudice and that Plaintiffs, Kalle McWhorter and Prestigious Pets, LLC, take nothing from Defendants, Robert Duchouquette and Michelle Duchouquette in this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, upon notice and hearing, Defendants are entitled to recover their court costs and reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees incurred in defending this action as justice and equity may require pursuant to § 27.009(a) of the TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE and recover sanctions against the Plaintiffs sufficient to deter them from bringing similar actions described in Chapter 27 of the TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICES AND REMEDIES CODE.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: defamation, gag clause, nondisparagement clause
Companies: prestigious pets
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"Consumer Alert: Questionable Legal Threats
This business may be trying to abuse the legal system in an effort to stifle free speech, including issuing questionable legal threats against reviewers. As a reminder, reviewers who share their experiences have a First Amendment right to express their opinions on Yelp."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That sentiment seems to pervade the thinking of those with power, that they are somehow more worthy than those who have tried before them.
They spend more time trying to make sure no one can harm their reputation, and no time on having a good reputation. Somewhere someone is getting paid for offering these 'services' to businesses... it'll save you from bad things, just pay us and it'll be fine....
Where have I seen this before?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Without a strong federal anti-SLAPP law lawsuits like this will continue to occur because beyond what I'm guessing is the minority of cases with a 'good ending' like this, they work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sheese, I need to proof read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't Trump this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three Hams
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iRpyVEMnYTc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]