Justices of the Oregon Supreme Court

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, March 3, 2016, that an online reviewer's scathing critique of a wedding venue was protested free speech.

(Oregon Judicial Department)

The Oregon Supreme Court made it tougher Thursday for business owners who are angry at scathing online consumer reviews to sue for defamation and pursue the authors for thousands of dollars in damages.

The high court for the first time ruled on the issue of Internet reviews on websites such as Yelp, Google Reviews and Angie's List, saying members of the public who are trying to express their honest opinions about businesses are protected against defamation suits by the First Amendment.

Thursday's ruling amounts to a big win for consumers. Christopher Liles -- the online commenter who was sued in the case before the Oregon Supreme Court -- said the ruling takes a huge weight off his shoulders.

"We have freedom of speech: This is one of the beautiful things about this country," Liles, 31, told The Oregonian/OregonLive on Thursday. "You can say your opinion. And that should always be protected."

Liles' legal headaches began more than five years ago, after he attended the wedding of his sister-in-law at the Dancing Deer Mountain wedding venue northwest of Eugene. A few days after the event, Liles posted a highly negative critique of the venue and one of its owners, Carol Neumann, on Google Reviews.

Liles titled his post "Disaster!!!!!" and described Neumann as "two faced," "crooked" and "rude." The "bridal suite," he said, was a "tool shed that was painted pretty, but a tool shed all the same." And Liles was irked that the owners, he said, shepherded out all guests 45 minutes early.

Neumann said business took a nosedive after Liles' one-star critique, so she and her company filed a lawsuit seeking $7,500 in February 2011. Her Eugene attorney, Steve Baldwin, argued that online commenters aren't free to post false statements without repercussions and that Neumann was entitled to sue.

Liles' Portland attorney, Linda K. Williams, argued that her client was simply expressing his honest opinion -- with a whole lot of hyperbole (e.g. "The worst experience of my life!") -- to which he was entitled.

In September 2011, Lane County Circuit Court Judge Charles Carlson sided with Liles by throwing out the suit under a 2001 Oregon law designed to safeguard speech in public forums. It's known as the state's anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPP, law.

In 2014, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the lower court judge's decision. The appeals court ruled that the wedding venue owner, Neumann, could go forward with her defamation suit because a "reasonable factfinder" could conclude that Liles posted not just his opinions but factual statements that Neumann might be able to prove are untrue.

Thursday, the supreme court, however, found that when taken as a whole, Liles' online review was protected free speech because he was expressing his strong negative personal impressions and a reader of his review would understand that.

Liles' description of one of the owners as "crooked," the supreme court wrote, "does not suggest that Liles was seriously maintaining that Neumann had, in fact, committed a crime.

The high court also wrote that Liles' criticism -- that "in my opinion (Neumann) will try to find a (way) to keep your $500 deposit" -- is not something a reader would take as a factual statement, because it was clear that Liles was a guest and not someone who put $500 down and lost it.

A group of Oregon media -- including The Oregonian, Willamette Week and the Oregon Association of Broadcasters -- wrote a friend of the court brief in support of Liles.

The supreme court opinion, however, does not give online commenters free rein to write anything they want. The high court analyzed Liles' Google Review word-by-word before coming to its decision. The court noted that the First Amendment protects consumer reviews as long as it's clear they are expressing opinions and aren't solely stating matters of fact that could be proved false.

For example, it's probably OK to write that the service at a restaurant was "lousy," but it might be problematic for a customer to write he or she saw the waiter "spit in my food," said Williams, the attorney representing Liles.

An online reviewer might be in legal trouble if the restaurant could prove the waiter didn't spit in the food and the restaurant was damaged by the review, Williams said.

The supreme court's decision means the Lane County judge's 2011 decision to order Neumann to pay Liles' attorney's fees -- about $8,000 -- stands. The case will go back to Lane County to determine if Neumann must pay more.

Neumann's Eugene attorney, Steve Baldwin, said Thursday's ruling is a hit to business owners who believe their reputations have been wrongfully and unfairly tarnished by online reviews. Baldwin said that in the light of the ruling, his advice to business owners seeking recourse is to "tread very carefully."

Read the ruling, written by Justice Richard Baldwin, here.

-- Aimee Green

503-294-5119