Online reviews are a cornerstone of consumer decision-making. For businesses, a single negative review—especially when fake or malicious—can tarnish their reputation and deter potential customers. Fake anonymous reviews posted on platforms like Google are particularly harmful because they often shield the reviewer’s identity, making it difficult for businesses to address or rectify the issue.
Fortunately, courts provide mechanisms to combat these challenges, identify anonymous reviewers and initiate a legal action. We are licensed in Illinois and Florida states and provide guidance on how to proceed, addressing the process in both jurisdictions.
Illinois: Supreme Court Rule 224
What Is Rule 224? Illinois Supreme Court Rule 224 is a procedural tool that allows a party to identify John Doe by filing a petition in court. This rule is particularly useful for businesses or individuals seeking to uncover the identity of anonymous reviewers who post defamatory content online. By utilizing Rule 224, a petition can request the court’s assistance to subpoena information from third parties, such as Google, to identify the individual responsible for the harmful content. It is important that the published content is not subject to innocent interpretation and a cause of action for defamation is not subject to a motion to dismiss.
When Can Rule 224 Be Used? Rule 224 is specifically designed for situations where:
- The identity of the defendant is unknown (e.g., the reviewer uses a pseudonym or fake account) and none of the defendants are known. If at least one defendant is known, then Rule 224 does not apply, and other options are available.
- The petitioner intends to file a lawsuit against the anonymous party but needs their identity to proceed.
- The defendant’s words are defamatory. If there is an innocent interpretation of the content, it is not defamatory under R. 224 review.
How Does Rule 224 Work?
- File a Verified Petition:
- The petitioner must file a verified petition in the appropriate court, explaining the factual basis for the claim of defamation and the need to identify the defendant.
- For example, if a business is harmed by a fake review stating, “This company is always late” and one-star is left, the petition must explain how this review is false, damaging, and malicious. If you cannot assert with certainty that the reviewer never interacted with your business, the content may have an innocent interpretation and is not defamatory.
- Court Approval:
- The court must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to grant the request and that the petitioner’s cause of action for defamation cannot be dismissed outright.
- Request a Subpoena:
- Upon filing the petition, the petitioner requests a subpoena to compel the third-party platform (e.g., Google) to provide identifying information about the reviewer.
- Obtain Information:
- If the court approves the subpoena, the platform (e.g., Google LLC) must produce the requested information, enabling the petitioner to identify the defendant, file a complaint, and serve them.
- File Complaint naming the identified person/entity who left a fake and defamatory review.
Legal Standards for Rule 224 Petitions To succeed, the plaintiff must:
- Establish a Valid Cause of Action for Defamation:
- Prove the statement was patently false, published to a third party, and caused harm to the plaintiff’s reputation.
- Balance Free Speech Rights:
- Courts weigh the anonymous reviewer’s First Amendment rights against the plaintiff’s interest in protecting their reputation. Defamatory statements are treated outside the bounds of protected speech and are likely to result in disclosure.
Florida: Discovery of an Anonymous Reviewer
In Florida, there is no direct equivalent to Illinois Rule 224. However, there is a process that’s available and will get you to the same place- discovering an anonymous reviewer. The relevant process is tied to:
- Filing the complaint naming "John Doe" as the defendant.
- Using discovery or subpoena powers to identify the anonymous party.
- Amending the complaint under Rule 1.070(j) to replace "John Doe" with the identified defendant.
Terms and Techniques Used In Fake Review Attacks
Astroturfing and Sockpuppets Astroturfing involves creating a false impression of grassroots support or opposition by using fake reviews, comments, or endorsements. Sockpuppet accounts—fake online identities—are commonly used in this practice. These tactics can harm honest businesses by misleading consumers with several fake reviews left by fake accounts.
Legal and Ethical Implications Astroturfing violates consumer protection laws and ethical standards. It deceives the public and creates an unfair marketplace.
Federal Remedies: FTC Rule on Fake Reviews
In addition to private right of action (hiring a lawyer and filing documents in court), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has implemented a rule targeting fake reviews and deceptive testimonials (16 C.F.R. Part 465). Violators can face civil penalties of up to $51,744 per violation.
Prohibited Practices Under the FTC Rule:
- Posting fake positive or negative reviews.
- Using reviews that do not reflect genuine customer experiences.
- Compensating others to leave fake reviews.
Once you learn of the identity of the fake reviewer, you can report that individual or entity to the FTC.
Conclusion
Fake reviews pose a significant threat to honest businesses. Whether operating in Illinois, Florida, or elsewhere, businesses can leverage civil procedure tools, and the FTC’s rules to combat these harmful practices. If your business has been harmed by anonymous reviews, consult an experienced attorney (us) to explore your options under applicable laws and regulations.
