A Win for Accountability in the Digital Age
In a significant decision released on May 15, 2025, the Toronto Small Claims Court ruled in favor of immigration lawyer Matthew Jeffery in a defamation case against Google LLC and two former clients. The case, which centered on a series of negative and defamatory Google reviews, highlights the growing complexities of online reputation management—and the responsibilities of digital platforms.
This case sends an important message: even in an open digital landscape, individuals and businesses have the right to protect their reputations from false and malicious content.
The Background: Anonymous Reviews and Professional Harm
Mr. Jeffery brought forward a claim after receiving a wave of anonymous one-star Google reviews, which he believed were posted by two former clients following a billing dispute. While those clients had their defences struck by the Court, and thus were deemed to admit that their reviews were defamatory, despite this Google LLC actively disputed its liability, asserting that it merely provided the platform for user-generated content.
Many of the reviews remained online for years, raising the question: when does a platform like Google become responsible for defamatory content once it’s brought to their attention? In this regard, Mr. Jeffery had repeatedly drawn to Google’s attention that the reviews posted on its platform were false and defamatory, yet Google in many cases refused to remove the reviews.
Court’s Finding: Google Became a Publisher After Notification
The Court found that while Google did not author the posts, it effectively became a publisher after being notified of the potentially defamatory content. A key element in this determination was Google’s internal review process: once a flagged complaint is submitted, Google’s legal and policy team evaluates the content. According to the Court, choosing to leave such reviews online, especially after being alerted and provided with sworn statements that the reviews were defamatory, moved Google from passive intermediary to active participant.
This marks a turning point in how online platforms may be held responsible for content moderation decisions and their broader impact on businesses and individuals. The decision in Jeffery v. Google is the first time in Ontario, and in any common-law jurisdiction in Canada, that Google has been found liable for negative posts on its Google reviews platform.
What This Means for Professionals and Business Owners
For professionals and small business owners who rely on platforms like Google Reviews to build trust and grow their practice, the ruling underscores three important takeaways:
- Online reviews are powerful—and permanent unless addressed through formal processes.
- Reputation protection requires vigilance, particularly when reviews appear to be false, malicious, or misleading.
- Legal recourse is possible when platform moderation fails to address serious harm, especially after clear notification and documentation.
While Mr. Jeffery’s law firm maintained a high rating despite the reviews, the Court acknowledged the reputational damage caused by the false allegations. Having an overall high rating on Google is not an impediment to suing Google for continuing to post defamatory reviews.
The Larger Conversation: Striking a Balance Between Free Speech and Fairness
The Court acknowledged that customer reviews can serve a legitimate public interest by informing others about business experiences. However, it also emphasized that fictitious or anonymous reviews designed to cause reputational harm can tip the balance unfairly, especially when the reviewer isn’t accountable and the platform declines to act.
This ruling raises crucial questions about the responsibility of tech platforms, the rights of business owners, and the evolving nature of reputation in the digital age.
Final Thoughts
For clients, colleagues, and members of the public, this outcome serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability—both online and offline. For fellow professionals, it highlights the necessity of proactively managing digital profiles and understanding legal options when faced with online defamation.
