Paragon Restorations, LLC v. Robinet Productions, LLC

Appellants Jonn Robinet and Robinet Productions posted a negative online review about Paragon Restorations, and Paragon sued them for defamation. In response, Robinet filed a special motion under Minnesota’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), an anti-SLAPP law, arguing that the review concerned a matter of public concern under the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions. The district court denied expedited relief under UPEPA, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Among other things, the Court of Appeals reasoned that Robinet’s motion did not fall with UPEPA’s protections because “the dominant theme of appellants’ speech is their individual experiences and grievances about their troubled business relationship with Paragon.” The Minnesota Supreme Court subsequently granted review.

Public Citizen, joined by the ACLU of Minnesota and the SSCI, filed an amicus brief arguing that online reviews of businesses should not be excluded from UPEPA’s protections merely because they express “individual experiences and grievances” about a “troubled business relationship.” On the contrary, our brief contends that such speech often raises matters of public concern because it warns consumers about potentially problematic business practices and helps the public make informed decisions when selecting goods and services.

The brief further argues that recognizing online reviews as implicating matters of public concern is consistent with how other state courts have treated business reviews under both anti-SLAPP laws and the First Amendment. These courts have held that business and product reviews speak to matters of public concern, and that by making goods and services available to the public, the businesses being reviewed have opened themselves to public comment. In light of the important public function of such reviews, the brief urges the Court to make clear that online business reviews are presumptively addressed to matters of public concern.