A cosmetics marketer entered into a franchise agreement and purchased products from a supplier. After the relationship between the parties ran aground due to allegations of fraud between the parties, the marketer made offensive statements about the supplier’s conduct in various forums, including to the supplier’s customers and suppliers.
The court ruled that only some of the statements constitute defamation. When it is claimed that any advertisement constitutes defamation, the advertising party can claim protection by virtue of the fact that the advertisement is true and there is a public interest in its publication. When it comes to conduct between businesses, and there is a concern about fraud that may affect other customers, suppliers or employees, then there is a public interest in informing them of such concerns or actions. The more the details concern and affect other people, the less the right to prevent the publication. However, it must be ensured that the publication was made in good faith, not with the intention of harming but with the intention of protecting interests and protecting others from a similar situation. Thus, the marketer was entitled to express his opinion and publicize the supplier’s conduct to his customers and suppliers, however, statements to the supplier’s employees that they should look for a new job involve bad faith and an intention to harm, which are not subject to protection. Therefore, some of the retailer’s statements amount to defamation that justifies compensation, albeit minimal compensation, because the supplier did indeed act in a bad manner, in a way that tarnishes his name and reduces the amount of compensation.
To read the verdict, Tel Aviv District Court (Tel Aviv District Court) 12050-12-17, Nerulin Life Sciences Ltd. v. Dr. Manana Dan – Center for Aesthetic Medicine Ltd.
Published in Legal Channel 430 08.01.2025 Afik & Co. https://he.afiklaw.com/
