BMIS 570 Case Study: Legal Analysis of TripAdvisor and Hillstone Cases

This case study analyzes two legal cases: Seaton v. TripAdvisor and Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group. In Seaton v. TripAdvisor, the case revolves around defamation and the alleged "false light invasion of privacy" caused by TripAdvisor's ranking of a hotel as "dirtiest." The analysis examines the facts, issues, arguments, and the court's ruling, highlighting the complexities of online reviews and their impact on businesses. The case also delves into the implications of the ruling, particularly in the context of competitive business environments. In Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, the case involves employee privacy and the violation of electronic surveillance statutes. The analysis explores the facts, issues, and arguments related to the creation of a MySpace user group by employees and the employer's access to it. The study considers the rights of both employees and employers, the arguments presented, and the court's decision, emphasizing the importance of employee privacy on social media platforms. The study concludes by presenting the impact of the court's ruling on the society.

LAW
Module: Week 6

Case 1: Seaton v. TripAdvisor
Facts of the case
The parties to the case were Kenneth Seaton, the owner of the Grand Resort Hotel and
Convention Center located in the Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, and the travel website operator
TripAdvisor LLC. The main subject of the case was the defamation as was alleged by the
defendant and the “false light invasion of privacy (FindLaw, 2013)”. The issue started when
the travel website had ranked the above hotel as first in the “2011 Dirtiest Hotels” list. The
said rank was on the basis of the opinions of the said website users through reviews and
ratings. It was alleged by the owner of the hotel that not only the rankings were baseless, but
also that the flawed rating system comprised of the rumors. Additionally, the claim of the
defendant got extended to the tort law in light of the impact on the prospective business
relationships.
Discussion of the issues
Were the acts of the website operator TripAdvisor LLC were in the category of the
intrusion of privacy and thereby leading to the defamation of the owner and the business?
What were the bases behind the said rankings?
What actions can be taken by each of the parties in the case?
Discussion of the arguments
It was argued by the claimant that the TripAdvisor relied on the unverifiable data and
the result of such methodology leading to rank in such list was false. The conduct of the
website was further argued to be as negligent and reckless. In the response, the website stated
that the rankings were not based on facts or the opinion of the company, rather the same was
based on the collective traveller opinions. The website claimed that the name of the owner as
not published in the ranks, rather only the name of the hotel was mentioned (Stempel, 2013).
Though the TripAdvisor has a more compelling argument but the practice of false ratings and
travelers’ opinions are common in present times, if not then.
Conclusion
In the court ruling, it was held that the ranking does not includes the views of the
website and thus were in nature of the non actionable opinion. I partially agree with the said

decision because in the competitive business environment of present times, it would be wrong
to state that the traveller ratings and reviews are genuine. Sometimes the reviews serve as
competitor’s means to reduce the ratings in order to increase the market standing of self.
Further, anyone and everyone can post their opinions thereon and the ranks are generally
based on the average of such reviews. It must be noted that though such rank does not lead to
privacy breach. The impact on the society was that the hotels too started investigating the
ratings and address the genuine issues of the customers on one hand and the following up the
baseless ratings on the other.

Case 2: Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group
Facts of the case
The parties to the case were the employees Brian Pietrylo and Doreen Marino and the
organization Hillstone Restaurant Group. The MySpace user group was created for the
present and the former employees by Pietrylo, through personal time invitations. One of the
supervisors demanded the password to the said chat space through one of the hostess, to
which she agreed fearing the job security. The said fact was testified by the said employee
stating that the refusal of the same could have led the job into trouble (Hall, 2010). On
coming to know the things discussed over there through the supervisor, the employees
Pietrylo and Marino were fired and the reason cited was breach of the company’s policy of
professionalism and positive attitude.
Discussion of the issues
What are the rights and the arguments of the employees and the employers?
Discussion of the arguments
It is to be noted that the above mentioned group was created for the purpose of the
conversation between the employees only. However, the supervisor or the management of the
company coerced the hostess to give the details of the group, which she would not have given
otherwise. The other argument in the favor of the employees is that if the chat space was
password protected and the invitation was sent to the limited number of people, which means
the information there was supposed to be private (Baker Donelson, 2010). In contrast to this,
if the supervisors were also provided the access to the said chat space and the link, the issue
of the privacy would not be that serious and relevant. In addition the yet another argument in
favor of the employees is that there is a breach of human right of free speech by termination
of the employees, as the employees are free to discuss their opinions in the manner they like.
The employers do not possess any rights in this case, as the conversation took place on a
personal chat space.
Conclusion
I agree with the verdict of the court that upheld the verdict of jury stating the violation
of the parallel electronic surveillance statute and the Stored Communications Act in New
Jersey, and regarded the company liable for their conduct of the breach of the privacy. The

effect on the society from the judgment above is that the rights of the employees are
preserved and the significance of the same has been stated. Thus, a new path is set for the
employers to respect the privacy of the employees on the social media platforms.

References
FindLaw (2013). Seaton v. TripAdvisor LLC. Retrieved from:
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1643106.html
Hall, B. (2010). Court Upholds Jury Verdict in Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group.
Retrieved from: https://www.employerlawreport.com/2009/10/articles/workplace-
privacy/court-upholds-jury-verdict-in-pietrylo-v-hillstone-restaurant-group/
Stempel, J. (2013). UPDATE 1-Owner of America's 'dirtiest' hotel loses TripAdvisor lawsuit.
Retrieved from: https://www.reuters.com/article/tripadvisor-dirtyhotel-lawsuit/update-
1-owner-of-americas-dirtiest-hotel-loses-tripadvisor-lawsuit-
idUSL2N0GT1N020130828
Baker Donelson (2010). Remember That Post You Wrote About Me on MySpace? You're
Fired. Retrieved from: https://www.bakerdonelson.com/Remember-That-Post-You-
Wrote-About-Me-on-MySpace-Youre-Fired-01-06-2010