Following the intervention of the Free Speech Union, a cosmetic surgery company accused of trying to silence patients who independently posted unfavourable but honest online reviews has climbed down on its lawsuits and also agreed to pay legal costs.
The full story is available via The Times (here). You can also listen to FSU Chief Legal Counsel Bryn Harris discuss the free speech implications of defamation claims brought in this way on BBC Woman’s Hour by clicking here.
Our legal team assisted this group of patients every step of the way in their legal battle with Signature Medical Limited, arguably one of the country’s largest cosmetic surgery chains. Everyone at the FSU is therefore delighted at this outcome, which represents a significant boost for free speech in our society’s burgeoning online review culture.
The company, which trades as Signature Clinic, launched defamation claims against the four patients in question, all of whom were unhappy with their treatment and put unfavourable reviews on TrustPilot. Signature alleged that it had the right to take legal action over “untrue” reviews and that it was “entitled to protect the goodwill in its name and its business reputation as an asset of value”.
One of the patients supported by the FSU is Mohammed, who underwent blepharoplasty, a surgical procedure to improve the appearance of the eyelids, in May 2023. He says he can no longer completely close his eyes and has blurry vision. Signature Clinic sued him when he refused to take down a review criticising his treatment.
Mohammed told The Times that the legal action resulted in extra stress when he was already worried about his surgical outcome. “This was a malicious and bogus defamation claim, purely to put pressure on me. It had nothing to do with the merits of the case.”
Another FSU member, Kate, said that she suffered extreme pain during arm-lift surgery with Signature Clinic, and that she was left with disappointing results. When she posted a negative review of the clinic on Trustpilot, she received a legal letter threatening her with bankruptcy and accusing her of having “the audacity to ask for a refund”.
Signature has settled or lost all but one of the six cases it brought against our members.
During an earlier proceeding, in February 2024, a judge threw out an application by Signature Clinic to gag former patient Tracy with an injunction, describing it as totally without merit and criticising the firm for bringing an oppressive legal action and making threats. Signature Clinic’s lawyer told Tracy that the fear of imprisonment and bankruptcy would stop her “itchy fingers” online.
The fact that the company’s Chief Medical Officer sent a letter in which Tracy was accused of having “psychological problems” was also found by the judge to be evidence of abuse of process.
Having noted that the company’s actions were very likely to cause Tracy significant distress and upset, the judge then went even further, finding the company’s claim to be totally without merit – i.e., that its claim was bound to fail.
Of particular significance from a free speech perspective is that the judge noted how Tracy’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act (which protects a person’s right to hold their own opinions and to express them freely without interference) was engaged, and that there had been a wholesale failure on Signature’s part to acknowledge this fact.
At the FSU we believe Signature’s tactics were a clear case of strategic lawsuits against public participation (Slapps), which have become notorious in the wake of a series of actions against journalists designed to stifle free speech and suppress legitimate reporting.
Slapps are a form litigation typically brought by large, well-financed claimants with the intention of harassing, intimidating and financially exhausting opponents – typically lone individuals – via improper use of the legal system.
For instance, the mining company ENRC launched legal action against journalist Tom Burgis over his investigation into the company’s business dealings in a case that would have cost more than £1m. Similarly, the Washington Post’s Catherine Belton fell victim to a “legal pile-on” by four oligarchs and a Russian state oil company over her book, Putin’s People.
Worryingly, however, Signature Clinic’s use of lawsuits appear to be the first major attempt to use this mechanism to silence consumers who place unflattering reviews online. When claimants rely on aggressive legal correspondence, rather than on the merits of their claim, the impact on litigants in person is especially devastating.
That’s why the cases of these four former Signature patients were never ‘just’ about cosmetic surgery – they were about defending the cornerstone of our freedom: the right to speak up honestly.
Speaking to The Times following Signature’s climbdown, FSU Chief Legal Counsel Bryn Harris criticised the “aggressive and bullying nature” of the litigation.
He said: “We are delighted that Signature Clinic will not proceed with its claims against our members. We always believed the claims were oppressive and misconceived. The court’s order that Signature pay the defendants’ costs speaks for itself. “This case is a reminder that the law of defamation is never an acceptable way to resolve mere differences of opinion.”
Samantha Thompson, a lawyer at the leading media law firm RPC, which advised the defendants, said: “Slapps are a serious threat to free speech. These cases show just how damaging Slapps can be.”
She added: “Being served with a libel claim is extremely intimidating for seasoned journalists, let alone ordinary members of the public. I’m very pleased that we’ve been able to agree settlement terms, which would not have been possible without the courage and resilience of our clients and the support of the Free Speech Union.”
Signature Clinic disputes that its legal action amount to a Slapp.
A spokesman for the company said: “We welcome honest feedback from clients and will always try to resolve any issues directly through our customer service channels in the first instance.
“Taking legal action has always been a last resort.”
Mohammed, Kate, Tracy et al – ‘the Signature Six’ – are just six of the 2,700+ cases the FSU has been involved with since we formed in 2020 — and when we’re involved all the way with a case we achieve a favourable outcome for our member 74% of the time.
To become an FSU member and help support the work we do, standing up for the speech rights of our 14,000+ members, click the join us button above – prices start from just £4.99 a month. Alternatively, click the button below to donate to our general legal fighting fund.
