Anonymously sentenced to disclose information about the person who posted the company's bitter criticism review
A ruling has been issued requesting the disclosure of information from a former employee who criticized the quitting workplace for 'Glassdoor,' an internet service that allows employees to post company reviews anonymously.
Anonymous Review Site Glassdoor Not Anonymous?
Kiwi toy giant Zuru wants to identify and sue former workers | Stuff.co.nz
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300520880/kiwi-toy-giant-zuru-wants-to-identify-and-sue-former-workers
A California court ruled in favor of Zuru in a trial in which New Zealand toy maker Zuru asked to disclose information about a poster who wrote a bitter criticism of the work environment and management on Glassdoor. I ordered Glassdoor to disclose the information. This requires Glassdoor to disclose the poster's information directly to Zuru through Zuru's lawyer. According to the judge, Zuru intends to sue the poster for defamation.
Glassdoor is a review site acquired by Recruit Holdings in 2018, and has gained a large number of users by developing a service that allows employees and former employees to anonymously review their place of employment.
Glassdoor has taken steps to protect anonymity under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides freedom of expression, to prevent users from fearing employer threats and retaliation. I am appealing that I have rejected the lawsuit. However, Glassdoor wrote in a proviso that 'anonymous speech enjoys protection under the US Constitution, the State Constitution, and various international laws, but please understand that it is not an absolute right.' It suggested that information could be disclosed under certain conditions.
In this case as well, Glassdoor showed a stance of refusing to disclose information, but it seems that the poster's residence in New Zealand was a bottleneck.
Glassdoor argued that Zuru's defamation claim had no merit, for two main reasons. One is that the review is an 'opinion' and the review does not contain any deficient statements, and the other is that it could not prove that Zuru suffered a financial loss.
Glassdoor's allegations are based on the First Amendment, as mentioned above, and in the United States, 'pure opinion' statements are protected. But that was not the case in New Zealand.
It is said that New Zealand has a law called 'honest-opinion defense' instead of Article 1 of the Constitution Amendment, but under this law, the reviewer's honest impression as to whether Glassdoor's review is an 'opinion' It seems that the question is whether it is reflected. It cannot be known at this point whether the review in question was the author's honest opinion, and Glassdoor's claim that 'the review is just an opinion and refuses disclosure' did not pass.
Zuru argued that the financial loss from the review was 'due to the negative review, Zuru had to spend more money to recruit job seekers in a particular position.'
The judge fully acknowledged Zuru's allegations and ordered Glassdoor to disclose the poster's information.
A Glassdoor spokeswoman said, 'We are deeply disappointed with the court's decision in effect under New Zealand law. In this case and many other global cases, Glassdoor fears threats and retaliation. We are struggling hard to protect and protect our users' right to share their views and speak freely and honestly about their work experience. '
Related Posts:
in Web Service, Posted by log1p_kr