Understanding the Legal Boundaries of Online Reviews

[김우석·이가영의 사건노트] is a segment where attorney Kim Woo-seok, a former chief prosecutor, analyzes hot legal issues and provides insights into investigations and court practices. In today's digital age, checking reviews has become a crucial part of online shopping and dining experiences. Negative reviews, such as complaints about defective products or unsanitary food, can deter potential customers. However, business owners sometimes struggle to accept these reviews, especially if they believe they are based on falsehoods or subjective opinions that harm their reputation.

Yet, reviews serve a vital function by informing other consumers. Is it wrong for someone who has used a product to share their opinion? In a country that values freedom of expression, do consumers not have the right to voice their experiences?

Let’s explore the legal definitions of 'freedom of expression' and 'defamation.'

### Distinguishing Between General Criticism and Defamation

**Q: Is it defamation if I speak negatively about a product or person? Would punishing all negative comments be excessive?**

**A:** Absolutely. If someone is merely expressing a legitimate critique or personal opinion, punishing them would undermine democratic values. Everyone is entitled to their thoughts, and expressing them is not a crime. Simple opinions and evaluations are not subject to punishment.

In cases of negative reviews, one might simply respond, “That’s your opinion!” However, when opinions are backed by factual evidence, they can have significant consequences. For instance, calling someone a “bad person” is different from accusing them of stealing. The former can be dismissed as mere opinion, while the latter can severely damage someone's reputation. If the claim of theft is false, it constitutes defamation, as it unjustly labels an innocent person as a criminal.

Reputation is crucial for social beings like humans. When someone faces public shame, it can severely impact their social and economic life. Therefore, defamation through false statements is a serious crime that is strictly punished.

### The Case of the Moldy Bread Review

**Q: In November 2023, a netizen was convicted for posting a review calling a bakery owner “the moldy bread lady” after buying moldy bread. Why was this deemed guilty?**

**A:** Under our criminal law, even truthful statements can lead to defamation charges. Humans are not perfect; everyone makes mistakes. If these mistakes are publicly exposed, the individual can suffer severe harm to their dignity. Even if the statement is true, verbally attacking someone can be considered a form of severe verbal abuse, which is unacceptable.

However, there is a distinction between defamation based on truth and that based on falsehood. While the latter should be punished, the former raises questions about whether it should always be penalized. Our law recognizes that if someone speaks the truth for the public good, it may not be deemed unlawful.

From this perspective, if a review states that a product was defective or unsanitary, and this is true, it is difficult to punish the reviewer, as they are providing valuable information to other consumers.

Nevertheless, revealing the truth with the intent to defame someone is not permissible, especially in the internet age where information spreads rapidly. The Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection penalizes those who disclose facts with the intent to defame others.

In the case of the “moldy bread lady,” the netizen had initially sought compensation from the bakery but became dissatisfied with the amount offered. They then posted inflammatory comments intending to harm the bakery’s reputation, which led the court to rule that the review was defamatory and not in the public interest.

### The Case of the Rude Restaurant Owner

**Q: In May of this year, a court ruled that a review calling a restaurant owner “rude” did not constitute defamation. Why was this found to be not guilty?**

**A:** The restaurant owner claimed that the review, which included statements like “the owner is rude” and “they refused an elderly couple’s request to use the restroom,” was defamatory. However, the court found it difficult to classify the review as containing false statements. The reviewer had sent a text message to family explaining the situation, which supported their claims.

Moreover, phrases like “rude” and “won’t last long” were deemed to be subjective opinions rather than factual statements, thus not qualifying as defamation.

This illustrates that simply expressing opinions and evaluations does not amount to defamation.

### Advice for Consumers Writing Reviews

**Q: What should consumers keep in mind when writing reviews?**

**A:** Reviews based on truthful experiences are generally acceptable. However, if someone allows their emotions to lead them to post defamatory comments, they could face legal repercussions. This could also include charges of obstructing business through the dissemination of false information. It’s wise to be cautious to avoid committing a crime due to a momentary lapse in judgment.