Legal FAQ | Completed

Completed Legal FAQs

Can I sue Completed for reviews about me or my company?

While we do receive legal demand letters about reviews from time to time that include threats to sue Completed, so far, no one has followed through with a lawsuit against us for our reviews. Why? Because:

US law protects Completed from legal responsibility for content submitted to the Platform.

The link above is important and explains why we have legal immunity to run this Platform and by using California generous Anti-SLAPP laws (which allow us to collect damages, including attorneys’ fees that can rank in the tens of thousands (and sometimes hundreds of thousands) of dollars, when we are sued for allowing people to exercise their free speech via comments and reviews on the Completed platform), we make it a habit to counter-sue and collect damages, including attorney’s fees, if we are ever sent a legal demand letter or sued -- WE EXERCISE THIS RIGHT EACH AND EVERY TIME AND THE LEGAL PRECEDENT IS CLEAR ON THIS ISSUE.

US law also protects us from foreign libel judgments. The operation of Completed’s platform takes place solely in the US by Completed’s US-domiciled entity. So, any judgment obtained against Completed outside the US (in the unlikely event Completed is unable to prevail in the foreign proceeding) will still have to be enforced in the US - subject to the US laws that protect Completed for liability for the content created and submitted to its Platform.

The law is clear on this. So people who sue Completed for reviews or other content on our Platform risk penalties imposed by the court. These may include financial sanctions and reimbursement of our attorney's fees for our having to defend against a lawsuit that ignores obvious legal protections for Completed.

Remember: This FAQ is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should not rely upon this information without seeking advice from an attorney who is competent in the relevant field of law.

How does Completed respond to legal requests or legal action to find out who posted a review?

If you or your lawyers ask us to disclose user identity, we'll tell you that we don't provide this information upon request. We know that there can be serious consequences to a user whose identity is revealed, such as retaliation by a current employer.

If you send us properly-served legal documents seeking user information, we take action to defend our users' right to anonymous free speech. We generally object to subpoenas we receive. And, if necessary, we may appear in court to oppose your request. To date, we have succeeded in protecting the anonymity of our members in more than 100 cases.

See some successful efforts by another popular review site, Glassdoor, for a selection of representative Glassdoor court orders that illustrates the scope of protection for anonymous free speech and depth of Completed’s commitment to defend users: Tell me about some of Glassdoor's successful legal efforts to defend user anonymity.

Tell me about some related successful legal efforts against people that bring claims against review sites like Completed

Below are some "Greatest Hits" of court orders in cases involving successful efforts to defend the anonymity of users.

Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara and Machine Zone, Inc. No. H042824 (March 10,2017)

Glassdoor successfully appealed a trial court ruling compelling the disclosure of user identity in connection with a breach of contract lawsuit brought by Machine Zone (since rebranded MZ), a California mobile gaming and platform company. MZ attempted to unmask the identity of an employee who posted a review on Glassdoor allegedly disclosing confidential information regarding MZ's RTP Platform technology in violation of a nondisclosure agreement signed by all MZ employees.

In Glassdoor, Inc., MZ denied the accuracy of the employee's review without identifying any real confidential information it might be understood to have disclosed. The Court concluded that MZ failed to make a prima facie showing that the employee's statements disclosed any confidential information in violation of the nondisclosure agreement.

The published appellate opinion in the case set important legal precedent for anonymous free speech cases, holding that:

Glassdoor has standing to assert its users' interest in maintaining their anonymity against legal action to compel disclosure.

In any action predicated on anonymous speech, regardless of legal theory, the plaintiff should not be able to discover the speaker's identity without first making a prima facie showing that the speech in question is actionable" [emphasis added].

Anyone seeking to obtain the identity of an anonymous speaker must clearly identify, on the record, the specific statements that are claimed to be actionable and provide necessary supporting evidence of the applicable claim.

FKA Distributing Co., LLC v. Doe, No. CIV 1603809 (Marin Super. Oct. 19, 2016)

Glassdoor successfully opposed the enforcement of a subpoena seeking disclosure of user identity in connection with a defamation lawsuit brought by a Michigan-based maker of health devices and consumer electronics doing business as Homedics.

In FKA, the plaintiffs claimed that a review of plaintiff FKA Distributing Co., LLC ("FKA") on glassdoor.com stating that FKA "can't get its [sic] head above water" and FKA's CEO "spent the money faster than we could make it" was defamatory. The Court held that the review was protected opinion. The Court relied on the facts that (1) "Glassdoor specifically disclaims responsibility for 'unintended, objectionable, inaccurate, misleading, or unlawful Content'" on its site; (2) the statements used "loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language"; and (3) the phrases at issue "could have dozens of meanings" and therefore "cannot be proven true or false."

Awtry v. Glassdoor, Inc., No. 16-mc-80028-JCS (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2016)

Glassdoor successfully opposed the enforcement of a subpoena seeking disclosure of user identity for four reviews of RightSize Facility, Inc. The owner of the business, Mason Awtry, believed that the information would be "critical" to his defense to defamation claims brought in Illinois by Emily Mackie, a woman with whom he had a child. Specifically, he claimed that he had reason to believe Ms. Mackie authored four scathing reviews while posing on Glassdoor as an employee of his business - and this would support his defense that Ms. Mackie was "a liar".

In Awtry, the Court ruled in favor of Glassdoor on the grounds that, among other things, "there is a significant likelihood that ordering disclosure of the identities of the reviewers who posted the Glassdoor Reviews will result in a substantial chilling effect" on anonymous expression using the site, and "[i]t is highly unlikely that the individual who posted [one of the] review[s]...would have done so had she believed there was a possibility her identity would be disclosed to the CEO whose micromanagement she disparaged in her Review." The Court stated that "if courts are willing to enforce subpoenas like Awtry's based on what amounts to speculation that the anonymous review is only posing as a current or former employee, individuals who are in fact current or former employees are likely to be reluctant to post the candid reviews that Glassdoor tries to offer its users." The Court further noted that the defendant failed to "demonstrate that he has made reasonable efforts to obtain the information he needs from other sources."

Brudy v. Doe, No. CV1500541 (Marin Super. Feb. 13, 2015)

Glassdoor successfully opposed the enforcement of a subpoena seeking disclosure of user identity in connection with a defamation lawsuit brought by the named partner of Lawrence Brudy Associates, a Pennsylvania law firm.

In Brudy, the Court held that a review of the plaintiff on Glassdoor, containing statements such as "[t]he men could have gotten away with murder," Constituted protected opinion. The Court did so on the grounds that the statements in the review of the plaintiff were "either opinions (e.g., accusations of sexism), overly generalized (e.g., a womanizer but with no specifics and no statement as to whether married), or hyperbolic (e.g., 'treated like slaves')."

Logic Planet, Inc. v. Does 1-10, No. CIV1600912 (Marin Super. Mar. 14, 2016)

Glassdoor prevailed in both a motion to fight a New Jersey subpoena and an opposition to a motion to compel enforcement of a California subpoena for user identities in a lawsuit by New Jersey-based software consulting company citing 10 Glassdoor reviews as defamatory.

In Logic Planet, reviews, of the plaintiff on Glassdoor made critical statements "includ[ing] claims of slavery, death, brainwashing, crying 24/7 and other similar hyperbole," and, on that basis, the Court found the reviews to be opinion, noting that "[w]hile the court appreciates the Plaintiff's desire to vindicate itself from unflattering rhetoric, the balance weighs in favor of First Amendment protections."

SunEnergy1, LLC, et al. v. Jeffrey Lawrence Brown, CA No. N14M-12-028 (New Castle County Superior Court, November 30, 2015)

Glassdoor prevailed in a motion to fight a Delaware subpoena seeking user identities in a lawsuit by North Carolina-based solar developer and contractor company citing two reviews as defamatory.

In SunEnergy1, the Court first noted that Glassdoor was a site for opinions:

"The content of the reviews on Glassdoor.com are such that it should be obvious to any reasonable person that the authors (all listed as current or former employees) are using the website as a vehicle to express their personal opinions about the company in question...Glassdoor.com is a website for employment and company evaluation-it is not a news website (e.g. WSJ.com or NYT.com) where there is an expectation of objective reporting and journalistic standards.

Nor is it a website where a person would go to find detailed factual information about a company such as earnings reports and SEC filings. It is quite evident to the Court that Glassdoor.com is a website where people go to express their personal opinions having worked for a company-not a website where a reasonable person would go looking for objective facts and information about a company." SunEnergy1, LLC, et al. v. Jeffrey Lawrence Brown , CA No. N14M-12-028 (New Castle County Superior Court, November 15, 2015) at 7-8.

The Court then ruled that the review "a terrible place to work" was "nothing more than a rant by a former employee citing anecdotal evidence, about why she thinks it is a terrible place to work" and it "contained no objectively provable factual assertions."

Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Court of Marin County and Travelers Haven, LLC, No. A145727 (August 28, 2015)

Glassdoor successfully appealed a trial court ruling compelling the disclosure of user identity in connection with a defamation lawsuit brought by Traveler's Haven, a Denver short-term housing solution company.

In Travelers Haven, the Court of Appeal held that a review of an employer on glassdoor.com containing the phrase "company parties = lots of drugs [sic]" constituted protected opinion on the ground that the post was written in a "flippant, truncated, and florid style."

What can I do about negative reviews on Completed?

You can flag the negative reviews, using our Flag feature, after which, we will review the comment or review and determine, in our sole discretion, whether it should be removed -- this process can take around 30 business days or more. The decision on whether to take down a review or comment is based on a holistic analysis, using our Terms of Use and other factors to make a decision.

You can respond -- we believe you have a right to tell your side of the story. We recommend that you reply to all of the reviews, both positive and negative. We’ve learned that our users have a more favorable impression of others who take the time to respond to review in a calm and thoughtful way.

You can ask for others to leave more reviews -- this often times can obscure any negative reviews and can boost the positive ranking of your profile -- many users have done this successfully. We know that others tend to read a number of reviews and discount the outliers on either end of the spectrum.

Remember that the law protects Completed from responsibility for the content submitted to its Platform.

If you sue our users and ask us to tell you who they are, we object and often fight in court to protect their anonymity.

Legal action can have unintended consequences: it attracts more attention to the negative reviews themselves, especially because the media likes to cover lawsuits about Completed. Also, if we feel strongly that your lawsuit is primarily intended to chill free speech, we may take extra steps to let the world know what you are up to.

Will Completed remove my company or profile from the site if I ask?

Because business-relationship transparency is a core part of our mission, we can't agree to remove your company or profile from Completed if you ask us to do so. Relevant law allows us to host profiles without having to ask for permission.

Will Completed remove a review that I flag as false and defamatory?

Completed doesn't take sides in factual disputes. Our reviewers tell us that they believe their reviews reflect their true experiences and they take responsibility for what they post. So if you, or your lawyers, contact us to say that something in a review is untrue and defamatory, we don't know who to believe. Unless we find some other violation of our policies, we allow our users to stand by their reviews.

Of course, if it's obvious to us that a review is false based on our access to reliable information from an independent source (such as facts in an article by a reputable news outlet), we may consider removing the review. We also may consider removing the review or comment based on an internal, holistic analysis. But please understand that we are a neutral forum for the content submitted by our users, not a news organization. So it is not our role to investigate and fact check each statement in a review. If you offer to send us your own evidence, we'll politely decline. We simply aren't suited to determine the accuracy, completeness, or authenticity of evidence offered to us by someone with an interest in getting a negative review taken down. And please remember, content decisions are within our sole discretion and we don’t negotiate about them.

Will Completed remove a review that I flag because it contains content that violates an employer agreement or policy?

When it comes to disputes about whether or not a review involves a breach of a contract restriction or employer policy, we don't take sides. Our users promise that they "will not disclose information in violation of any legally enforceable confidentiality, non-disclosure or other contractual restrictions or rights of any third party." So, if you tell us that a review author has violated an agreement with you, we have no way of knowing who is right.

To begin with, we don't know if a contract restriction is real or if the author actually agreed to it - even if you send us a copy of the agreement as a show of proof. We simply aren't suited to determine the accuracy, completeness, or authenticity of evidence offered to us by someone with an interest in getting a negative review taken down.

In addition, whether the contract restriction properly applies to what the review says, or whether it's even legally enforceable, is often open to question. For example, in the United States, employee policies and contract provisions that restrict the rights of workers to share information with each other about wages and working conditions are unlawful under Federal law as well as various state law (such as this one and this one). We reserve the right to take further legal action when someone tries to enforce unlawful restrictions against our users.

Please remember, final content decisions are within our sole discretion and we don’t negotiate about them.

Tips on writing a review to avoid defamation

Summary

You are entitled to post your anonymous opinions on Completed and your speech should be protected under the First Amendment. However, you should be aware that statements of provable facts are subject to legal claims of defamation if others allege your statements are false.

Below, we explain why you should consider the difference between your opinion and what could be characterized as potentially defamatory statements that can be proven true or false.

Why should I care about Defamation?

If an employer challenges your Review, the most likely route they will take is to sue "Jane or John Doe" (since you can publish anonymously on Completed) and then serve a subpoena (make a legal demand) on Completed to produce records about your identity.

If the Plaintiff can make what is called a "prima facie showing" to the Court that your Review is defamatory, it is much more difficult for Completed to prevent the Plaintiff from convincing the Court to force Completed to turn over information about your identity. If Completed is forced to turn over the information it has about your identity, you can still fight the defamation lawsuit with your own lawyer, but the Plaintiff would know who you are and that may be a hardship to you.

What is a Prima Facie showing?

Prima Facie is a Latin phrase lawyers and judges use in defamation cases to mean that based on the first impression, before you get a chance to explain what you meant by a statement, the statement appears to be defamatory and the Plaintiff has offered evidence that it's false.

Unfortunately, this is the standard used at the stage when a company or person is seeking to unmask an anonymous Completed user, and it favors the Plaintiffs. If you say something in a Review and the Plaintiff swears in Court that what you said is untrue (or disproves your statement with other evidence), then the Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that your statement is defamatory.

So then what is Defamation?

Generally, defamation is a false statement presented as fact that is harmful to a company or person's reputation, and published "with fault," (meaning as a result of negligence or malice). Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.

There are many elements that a Plaintiff must prove to win a defamation case. The most relevant element to Completed's fight to prevent a Plaintiff from forcing us to unmask your identity is the "false statement of fact" element.

If the Plaintiff makes a prima facie showing that you included a false statement of fact about them in your Review, the Court may well force Completed to turn over information that Completed has that may expose your identity.

But wait, isn't truth a defense to Defamation claims?

Yes - truth is a defense. But Courts generally do not let Completed show any evidence that what you said is true at the stage of the lawsuit where the Plaintiff is only trying to find out your identity. If the Plaintiff pursues their claim against you after they find out who you are, you can offer proof that what you said is true.

But we don't want to go there if we don't have to. We strongly suggest you not make provable statements of fact in your Completed reviews. We encourage you instead to offer your "opinions" about your workplace.

Can my opinion be defamatory?

No - but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it not defamatory. Read on for more information.

What is a Statement of Verifiable Fact?

A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as "someone has committed murder" or "has cheated on his/her spouse." If you say in your Review that "the CEO uses illegal drugs at every work party", well, that's hard to characterize as an opinion. If you say instead "it seems to me there is a lot of drug use at my company" it is much more likely to be considered an opinion.

Can you give us some examples of "Verifiable Facts" and "Opinions"?

Defamation is considered in context. Different judges do not always interpret the law the same way. So, please don't take these examples to be hard and fast rules about particular phrases.

Some courts view even fact-like statements on sites like Completed as opinion, but there is no telling how a specific judge may rule in an individual case. The safer bet is to avoid fact-like statements altogether and stick to statements that would be considered opinion in any context.

Here are examples of what California Courts have said are 'Verifiable Facts":

Accusing someone of awarding city contracts to friends and giving bribes;

Stating as "Fact" that someone falsified evidence and presented it in court;

Stating that based on "my own firsthand experience with this building, and its owners a landlord sought to evict 6 tenants and likely contributed to the deaths of 3 tenants and the departures of 8 others";

Implying a dentist failed to warn that fillings contained mercury, failed to diagnose multiple cavities, and used a general anesthetic improperly without informed consent;

Stating the author made a property investment with someone, that the investment failed, and that the author and the other party had conversations about the investment.

Here are examples of what California Courts have said are "Opinion" (non-verifiable facts):

Posting that the CEO does what she pleases with the bank she runs; that the CEO's son (a bank executive) is a "lazy fat ass", that "this is a piss poor Bank" and a "problem bank" that closed and left customers "high and dry";

Referring to a company's executives as "boobs, losers, and crooks";

Accusing someone of suckering people into a "scam" and "pump and dump" scheme;

Statements that someone is "dishonest and scary" and a "deadbeat dad";

Posting a list of "Top Ten Dumb Asses";

Calling someone a "big skank", "local loser", and "chicken butt";

Saying a university is a "suspected degree factory";

Calling reporting from a news organization "slanted reporting"; and

Characterizing a workplace as "horrible" and a "horror".

Does disguising the name of the person I'm writing about help?

Probably not. You can defame someone without naming them if it is reasonably clear to readers who you mean. For instance, if you defame the "government executive who makes his/her home at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," it is still reasonably identifiable to readers as the US president.

Are there other legal considerations I should take into account?

Yes. As we mentioned at the top of this article, everything we've discussed here relates to the law of Defamation in the United States. Other countries have different standards for Defamation and varying degrees of protection for anonymous free speech. If you live outside the US, please consider the laws of your country when posting a review.

Another thing to think about is whether anything in your review violates a binding contract obligation between you and your employer. For example, most employers require their employees to sign a confidentiality agreement. This means that if you disclose legitimately confidential business information in your review, your employer may have a claim against you.

Your agreements with employers may also include a non-disparagement provision or other restrictions on what you can say on sites like Completed. Sometimes these restrictions are improper. For example, policies and agreement that restrict the ability of employees to discuss wages and working conditions with one another are unlawful under US Federal Law as various state laws (such as this one and this one). So your employer can be compelled to make changes to any restrictions that violate these laws.

But in other circumstances, such as when these provisions are included in severance agreements in exchange for additional payment to you, they may be enforceable. You are legally responsible for aiding by your binding, enforceable contractual agreements.

Takeaways

Help us at Completed help you. Do your best to write your review as your opinion. If you choose to use language that includes statements of verifiable facts, please be advised there is a possibility you could become the subject of a Jane or John Doe defamation lawsuit subpoena. This means Completed could be required by subpoena to turn over information that could be used to identify you. Since neither of us want that, we strongly encourage you to find ways to review your company that are clearly your opinion and clearly not statements of provable fact. If you do decide to include statements of verifiable facts, please do so knowing that it is more difficult for Completed to prevent upset Plaintiffs (e.g. your employer) from unmasking your identity. Don't include confidential business information in your review and be mindful of any legally enforceable contract obligations you have agreed to that related to your review. And if you live outside the US, consider the laws of your country.

If you are in doubt, and you really want to make your point, ask a friend to read your Review before you post it on Completed.

Remember: This FAQ is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should not rely upon this information without seeking advice from an attorney who is competent in the relevant field of law.

Write Review

Where does this person currently work?

Work Address

Some Name

Your review has been submitted

Thank you!