Hay v. Marinkovich

Plain English (For Everyone)

If you post reviews online about a business or service, you are generally protected when you express your honest opinion, even if it's negative. However, you cannot make up false facts about the business. This ruling means that negative reviews stating personal feelings or experiences are likely protected speech.

For Legal Practitioners

The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant in a defamation action, holding that the online reviews constituted non-actionable opinion. The key takeaway is that statements in online reviews are presumed to be subjective viewpoints unless they explicitly imply or assert false, provable facts, aligning with established First Amendment protections for opinion.

For Law Students

This case illustrates the distinction between actionable statements of fact and protected statements of opinion in defamation law. The court found the defendant's online reviews to be opinion because they expressed subjective beliefs and experiences that could not be verified as true or false, thus falling outside the scope of defamation claims.

Newsroom Summary

A California appeals court ruled that negative online reviews are generally protected speech as expressions of opinion, not defamation. The decision affirmed that reviewers can share their subjective experiences without fear of lawsuits, as long as they don't present false factual claims.

Standard of Review

De novo review, as the appeal concerns the interpretation of legal standards for defamation and the First Amendment, which are questions of law.

Procedural Posture

The case reached this court on appeal from a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Marinkovich.

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, Hay, to demonstrate that the statements made by Marinkovich were defamatory. The standard requires showing the statements were false, unprivileged, and caused harm. However, for statements of opinion, the plaintiff must show they imply an assertion of objective fact that is false.

Legal Tests Applied

Statutory References

Constitutional Issues

First Amendment (Freedom of Speech)

Key Legal Definitions

Rule Statements

Statements of opinion are protected by the First Amendment.

An opinion is protected if it does not imply a false assertion of objective fact.

Online reviews, by their nature, are often understood as subjective expressions of personal experience and viewpoint.

Scenario: You recently had a terrible experience at a restaurant and want to warn others by posting a review online.

Your Rights: You have the right to express your negative opinion about the restaurant's food, service, or ambiance, as long as you are stating your genuine experience and not fabricating false facts about the restaurant's operations or hygiene.

What To Do: Write your review focusing on your personal feelings and experiences (e.g., 'The food was bland,' 'The waiter was inattentive'). Avoid making specific factual claims you cannot prove (e.g., 'The kitchen was unsanitary,' 'They used expired ingredients').

Scenario: A service provider you hired did a poor job, and you want to share your dissatisfaction online.

Your Rights: You have the right to state that you were unsatisfied with the service and describe your subjective experience of the outcome, provided you do not make false factual allegations about the provider's qualifications or business practices.

What To Do: Focus your review on your personal dissatisfaction and how the service met or failed to meet your expectations (e.g., 'I felt the work was rushed,' 'The final result was not what I envisioned'). Refrain from stating unverified negative facts about the provider's professional competence or business ethics.

Is it legal to post a negative review online about a business?

Yes, generally, as long as the review expresses your honest opinion and does not contain false factual assertions.

This applies to California law, but similar principles are recognized in many jurisdictions due to First Amendment protections.

Can a business sue me for a bad review?

Depends. A business can sue if your review contains false factual statements that harm their reputation. However, they generally cannot sue for reviews that are purely subjective opinions or expressions of personal experience.

This ruling is specific to California, but the legal principles regarding opinion vs. fact in defamation are widely applied.

For Online Reviewers

Online reviewers have greater protection to share their subjective experiences and opinions about businesses and services without fear of defamation lawsuits, provided they avoid making false factual claims.

For Businesses

Businesses face a higher bar to successfully sue for defamation based on negative online reviews, as they must prove the statements were false assertions of fact, not protected opinions.

Q: What is Hay v. Marinkovich about?

Hay v. Marinkovich is a case decided by California Court of Appeal on February 6, 2025.

Q: What court decided Hay v. Marinkovich?

Hay v. Marinkovich was decided by the California Court of Appeal, which is part of the CA state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was Hay v. Marinkovich decided?

Hay v. Marinkovich was decided on February 6, 2025.

Q: What is the citation for Hay v. Marinkovich?

The citation for Hay v. Marinkovich is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What was the main issue in Hay v. Marinkovich?

The main issue was whether negative online reviews posted by Marinkovich about Dr. Hay constituted defamation, or if they were protected statements of opinion.

Q: What did the court decide about the online reviews?

The court decided that Marinkovich's statements were non-actionable opinions protected by the First Amendment because they expressed subjective viewpoints and could not be proven true or false.

Q: Is Hay v. Marinkovich published?

Hay v. Marinkovich is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in Hay v. Marinkovich?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Hay v. Marinkovich. Key holdings: The court held that statements of opinion are protected by the First Amendment and cannot form the basis of a defamation claim.; The court reasoned that the statements in question, which described the plaintiff's services as 'terrible' and 'a joke,' were subjective expressions of the defendant's personal experience and viewpoint.; The court found that these statements could not be objectively verified as true or false, a key element for proving defamation.; The court concluded that the context of online reviews, where subjective commentary is common, further supported their classification as opinion.; The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, finding no triable issue of fact regarding defamation..

Q: Why is Hay v. Marinkovich important?

Hay v. Marinkovich has an impact score of 20/100, indicating limited broader impact. This case reinforces the broad protection afforded to subjective opinions in online reviews under the First Amendment. It clarifies that statements, even if harsh, are unlikely to be actionable defamation if they cannot be proven false and are presented as personal viewpoints within a context where opinions are expected.

Q: What precedent does Hay v. Marinkovich set?

Hay v. Marinkovich established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that statements of opinion are protected by the First Amendment and cannot form the basis of a defamation claim. (2) The court reasoned that the statements in question, which described the plaintiff's services as 'terrible' and 'a joke,' were subjective expressions of the defendant's personal experience and viewpoint. (3) The court found that these statements could not be objectively verified as true or false, a key element for proving defamation. (4) The court concluded that the context of online reviews, where subjective commentary is common, further supported their classification as opinion. (5) The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, finding no triable issue of fact regarding defamation.

Q: What are the key holdings in Hay v. Marinkovich?

1. The court held that statements of opinion are protected by the First Amendment and cannot form the basis of a defamation claim. 2. The court reasoned that the statements in question, which described the plaintiff's services as 'terrible' and 'a joke,' were subjective expressions of the defendant's personal experience and viewpoint. 3. The court found that these statements could not be objectively verified as true or false, a key element for proving defamation. 4. The court concluded that the context of online reviews, where subjective commentary is common, further supported their classification as opinion. 5. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, finding no triable issue of fact regarding defamation.

Q: What cases are related to Hay v. Marinkovich?

Precedent cases cited or related to Hay v. Marinkovich: S.B.C.C. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 4th 1187 (2003); M.N. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal. App. 4th 1187 (1993).

Q: What is defamation?

Defamation is a false and unprivileged publication of a defamatory statement that harms someone's reputation. It requires the statement to be a false assertion of fact.

Q: Are all negative reviews considered defamation?

No, not all negative reviews are defamation. Only reviews that contain false factual assertions that harm reputation are actionable. Purely subjective opinions are protected.

Q: What is the difference between a statement of fact and a statement of opinion in a review?

A statement of fact can be proven true or false (e.g., 'The doctor's office was closed on Tuesday'). A statement of opinion expresses a subjective belief or feeling (e.g., 'I felt the doctor was dismissive').

Q: How does the First Amendment apply to online reviews?

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, which includes the right to express opinions. Therefore, negative opinions expressed in online reviews are generally protected, as long as they don't imply false factual assertions.

Q: What does 'non-actionable opinion' mean?

It means the statement, even if negative, is legally protected and cannot be the basis for a lawsuit, such as a defamation claim, because it is considered an expression of opinion rather than a factual claim.

Q: What is the standard of review on appeal for summary judgment?

Appellate courts review grants of summary judgment de novo, meaning they examine the case anew without giving deference to the trial court's legal conclusions.

Q: What is the burden of proof for defamation?

The plaintiff (the person suing for defamation) has the burden to prove the statement was false, unprivileged, and caused harm. For opinions, they must show it implies a false assertion of fact.

Q: What does 'implied assertion of fact' mean?

It means that even if a statement isn't directly stating a fact, the way it's phrased or the context in which it's said implies that a specific, provable fact is true.

Q: Are there any exceptions to opinion being protected speech?

Yes, opinions are not protected if they imply a false assertion of objective fact. For example, saying 'In my opinion, John stole the money' implies the factual assertion that John stole the money.

Q: How does Hay v. Marinkovich affect me?

This case reinforces the broad protection afforded to subjective opinions in online reviews under the First Amendment. It clarifies that statements, even if harsh, are unlikely to be actionable defamation if they cannot be proven false and are presented as personal viewpoints within a context where opinions are expected. As a decision from a state appellate court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is accessible to a general audience to understand.

Q: Can I be sued if I post a negative review about a service provider?

You could be sued if your review contains false factual claims that harm the provider's reputation. However, if your review is a subjective expression of your experience and opinion, it is likely protected.

Q: What should I do if I want to write a negative review?

Focus on describing your personal experience and feelings. Use phrases like 'I felt,' 'In my opinion,' or 'My experience was.' Avoid making definitive factual statements you can't prove.

Q: What if a business claims my review is false?

If a business claims your review is false, they generally have the burden to prove that your statement was an assertion of fact and that it was false. If it was an opinion, they cannot win a defamation case.

Q: Does this ruling apply to all online comments?

This ruling specifically addressed online reviews in the context of defamation. While the principles of opinion vs. fact apply broadly, the specific context of online reviews was key to the court's reasoning.

Q: What is the significance of the context of online reviews?

The court recognized that online reviews are a common forum for expressing personal experiences and opinions, which influences how statements made in that context are interpreted.

Q: Has the law always protected online opinions this way?

The legal principles protecting opinion have existed for a long time under the First Amendment, but their application to the modern context of online reviews has evolved through court decisions like this one.

Q: What was the docket number in Hay v. Marinkovich?

The docket number for Hay v. Marinkovich is D082561. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Hay v. Marinkovich be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: What is summary judgment?

Summary judgment is a court order that resolves a lawsuit without a full trial. It's granted when there are no disputed facts and one party is entitled to win as a matter of law.

Q: Why did the trial court grant summary judgment?

The trial court granted summary judgment because it found that Marinkovich's statements were opinions protected by the First Amendment and therefore not defamatory, meaning there was no genuine issue of material fact for a trial.

Q: What happens after an appellate court affirms a summary judgment?

If the appellate court affirms the summary judgment, the trial court's decision stands, and the case is over. The plaintiff, Hay, lost their defamation claim.