Case Studies on Cyber Law: Seaton vs. TripAdvisor and Pietrylo vs. Hillstone Restaurant Group

Running Head: CYBER LAW
CASE STUDIES
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

CYBER LAW1
SEATON vs. TRIPADVISOR
Facts:
The parties to the suit are the Kenneth Seaton, the sole proprietor of the Grand Resort
located in Tennessee and TripAdvisor, the worldwide company that conducts surveys of hotels
and restaurants and resorts all over the world.
In one of the surveys conducted by TripAdvisor, the plaintiff was ranked as one from
“2011 Dirtiest Hotels”. The plaintiff filed the suit for Defamation and Light Invasion of Privacy.
When the defendants moved a suit for the dismissal of the claim, the plaintiff amended
the complaint adding two more claims namely, the trade libel and tortious interference with
potential business relationships.
Issue:
The issue in the case is whether the defendants are liable for defamation, trade libel, light
invasion of privacy and tortious interference with potential business relationships.
The second issue in the case is whether the survey conducted by the defendants reliable
depending upon the verifiable data and methodologies.
The third issue in the case is whether the list issued by the defendants is subjective and
not misguiding the viewers or customers.
Arguments:
The plaintiff has claimed that the hotel has been in operation since 1982 and has justly
established confidence and goodwill of the public including the tourists. They further alleged that

CYBER LAW2
the defendant’s publication has resulted in public to cease from doing business with them and
has resulted in huge losses to the hotel proprietorship. It has caused irreparable damages to the
reputation of the hotel by misleading the public with false publication of statements. The further
allegations by the plaintiff included that the defendants used unverifiable methodology, which is
flawed and unsupported to designate the plaintiff as the dirtiest hotel. It was then alleged that the
defendants knew the nature of falsehood of the statement before its publication band hence, their
action could be held liable for defamation and negligence.
On the other hand, the defendants claimed that their survey was based on the subjective
methodology meaning the survey results was on the basis of users’ review and not the opinion
presented by the defendants. As for the unverified statements, it was argued by the defense that
the pictures of torn bed sheets and dirt and the bathtub as shared by the customers presented the
survey and its results and hence, the statements cannot be held false. Further, they contended that
their survey and its results were protected under the First Amendment and hence, they cannot be
held liable for the damages.
Rules:
It has been opined in Milkovich vs. Lorain Journal Co. that the First Amendment means
that the court has the duty to read the alleged defamatory documents, as an independent
evaluation to ensure that the expressions used does not constitute the forbidden intrusion on
matter of free expression. Stone, G. R., Seidman, L. M., Sunstein, C. R., & Tushnet, M. V.
(2016) opine that the records should be exclusive from any intrusions, which are forbidden with
respect to free expression, have further explained the same.