About Us

We work collaboratively with our clients to build strong, sustainable relationships. Our team is committed to delivering consistent high standards of service, and we understand the importance of accessibility. Working with us, you'll enjoy open communication, meaning well scoped, properly resourced and effectively managed matters.

Learn More

Latest Case

Providing strategic advice on expansion structures November 16, 2018

Founded in Bondi Beach in 2012, Bailey Nelson has rapidly grown into a global eyewear retailer and service provider with boutiques in Australia, London, Canada and New Zealand. The strong demand for their products and … Continued

Latest News

Maddocks appoints leading energy and resources partner November 19, 2019

Tuesday 19 November 2019 Maddocks has appointed one of Australia’s leading energy and resources lawyers. Peter Limbers will be joining Maddocks as a partner in Sydney in early 2020. Peter is widely recognised as one … Continued

Latest Article

Is your franchise network now liable to pay payroll tax? December 6, 2019

If, as part of your franchise network, you are a franchisor that performs the administrative function of collecting fees directly from customers that are mutual to you and your franchisees and you remit the balance … Continued

Unsocial media – how third-party comments on your public Facebook page can get your company in trouble

Social media can be an effective way for education providers to promote their services. However, operators of public Facebook pages should exercise great care and diligence to vet, monitor, and control comments published on those pages, as they may be liable as a primary publisher for defamatory comments posted by third party Facebook users. This was made clear in a recent decision of Justice Rothman of the New South Wales Supreme Court in Voller v Nationwide News Pty Ltd.[1]

What happened?

The plaintiff, Dylan Voller, commenced defamation proceedings against three media companies, Fairfax, Australian News Channel and Nationwide News, claiming that they were each liable for third-party comments posted on their respective Facebook pages.

Each of the media companies posted a link to news stories that related to the plaintiff, Dylan Voller, on their public Facebook pages. Third-party Facebook users then commented on these posts, including some allegedly defamatory comments regarding the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the media publishers were primary publishers of the third-party comments for the purposes of defamation.

The preliminary question Justice Rothman had to consider was whether the media companies could be considered to be publishers for the purposes of defamation, in respect of each of the allegedly defamatory comments by third-party Facebook users.

Justice Rothman found that each of the media companies was a primary publisher of the third-party content and could therefore be liable for any defamatory material. Relevant to this finding, Justice Rothman was satisfied that each of the media companies were aware that, given the nature of the material they were publishing, third-party comments were likely to include defamatory material, and it was a “thoroughly predictable” result of posting the relevant article to the Facebook page.

The importance of editorial control

In the decision, his Honour highlighted the distinction to be drawn between primary and secondary participation where a publisher has capacity to control, monitor, and delay the publication of third-party comments, before releasing them to the general public.

Justice Rothman distinguished public Facebook pages from private Facebook pages, and public websites or forums. His Honour noted that for a public website or forum, there is no capacity currently for the administrators or owners to block or hide comments, except after publication. Accordingly, there is no capacity to vet comments, or prevent them from being published. Similarly, there is no function by which the creator of a private Facebook page can vet comments before they are published. This can only occur retrospectively, after publication has already occurred.

The decision

Justice Rothman acknowledged that it is necessary to strike a balance between society’s interest in freedom of speech and the free exchange of information and ideas, as against a person’s reputation in society. However in this case, his Honour found that “each defendant was not merely a conduit of the comment”, each was aware that the comments on their initial postings were likely to include defamatory material, and each had the capacity to vet and prevent publication of a third-party comment on their initial post. The decision may be subject to an appeal.

Key takeaways

This decision has the potential to apply to other operators of public Facebook pages, not just media companies, and has the capacity to extend to other social media platforms. Accordingly, education providers should be mindful that where it is possible to control the content that is published on their social media pages by third-party users before the content is made public, the education provider may be liable as a primary publisher in defamation.

Education providers should take precautions when publishing content on public Facebook pages, including:

  • considering the potential impact of any posts, including the likelihood of third-party users posting defamatory comments in reply; and
  • making use of the programming tools available on Facebook and other social media to monitor and vet third-party comments before publishing them.

[1] [2019] NSWSC 766.

Authors:
Louisa Nuccitelli | Senior Associate
61 3 9258 3591
Louisa.Nuccitelli@maddocks.com.au
Sasha Di Sipio | Lawyer
61 3 9258 3823
Sasha.DiSipio@maddocks.com.au

Social media can be an effective way for education providers to promote their services. However, operators of public Facebook pages should exercise great care and diligence to vet, monitor, and control comments published on those pages, as they may be liable as a primary publisher for defamatory comments posted by third party Facebook users. This was made clear in a recent decision of Justice Rothman of the New South Wales Supreme Court in Voller v Nationwide News Pty Ltd.[1]

What happened?

The plaintiff, Dylan Voller, commenced defamation proceedings against three media companies, Fairfax, Australian News Channel and Nationwide News, claiming that they were each liable for third-party comments posted on their respective Facebook pages.

Each of the media companies posted a link to news stories that related to the plaintiff, Dylan Voller, on their public Facebook pages. Third-party Facebook users then commented on these posts, including some allegedly defamatory comments regarding the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the media publishers were primary publishers of the third-party comments for the purposes of defamation.

The preliminary question Justice Rothman had to consider was whether the media companies could be considered to be publishers for the purposes of defamation, in respect of each of the allegedly defamatory comments by third-party Facebook users.

Justice Rothman found that each of the media companies was a primary publisher of the third-party content and could therefore be liable for any defamatory material. Relevant to this finding, Justice Rothman was satisfied that each of the media companies were aware that, given the nature of the material they were publishing, third-party comments were likely to include defamatory material, and it was a “thoroughly predictable” result of posting the relevant article to the Facebook page.

The importance of editorial control

In the decision, his Honour highlighted the distinction to be drawn between primary and secondary participation where a publisher has capacity to control, monitor, and delay the publication of third-party comments, before releasing them to the general public.

Justice Rothman distinguished public Facebook pages from private Facebook pages, and public websites or forums. His Honour noted that for a public website or forum, there is no capacity currently for the administrators or owners to block or hide comments, except after publication. Accordingly, there is no capacity to vet comments, or prevent them from being published. Similarly, there is no function by which the creator of a private Facebook page can vet comments before they are published. This can only occur retrospectively, after publication has already occurred.

The decision

Justice Rothman acknowledged that it is necessary to strike a balance between society’s interest in freedom of speech and the free exchange of information and ideas, as against a person’s reputation in society. However in this case, his Honour found that “each defendant was not merely a conduit of the comment”, each was aware that the comments on their initial postings were likely to include defamatory material, and each had the capacity to vet and prevent publication of a third-party comment on their initial post. The decision may be subject to an appeal.

Key takeaways

This decision has the potential to apply to other operators of public Facebook pages, not just media companies, and has the capacity to extend to other social media platforms. Accordingly, education providers should be mindful that where it is possible to control the content that is published on their social media pages by third-party users before the content is made public, the education provider may be liable as a primary publisher in defamation.

Education providers should take precautions when publishing content on public Facebook pages, including:

  • considering the potential impact of any posts, including the likelihood of third-party users posting defamatory comments in reply; and
  • making use of the programming tools available on Facebook and other social media to monitor and vet third-party comments before publishing them.

[1] [2019] NSWSC 766.

Authors:
Louisa Nuccitelli | Senior Associate
61 3 9258 3591
Louisa.Nuccitelli@maddocks.com.au
Sasha Di Sipio | Lawyer
61 3 9258 3823
Sasha.DiSipio@maddocks.com.au