Question:
I recently had a very bad experience with a business. I paid good money for a product and felt that what I received was defective and not what had been represented to me. After unsuccessfully trying to resolve the issue, I considered leaving a negative Google review describing what happened. Part of my intention is to pressure the business into dealing fairly with me, and part is to warn other customers so that they don’t have the same experience.
Is it permitted according to Halacha to post a negative review about a business or product? Does this constitute Lashon Hara? Does it make a difference if the business is Jewish-owned or non-Jewish-owned?
Answer:
If the business is non-Jewish owned, the prohibition of Lashon Hara discussed here does not apply in the same manner.
If the business is Jewish-owned, however, publishing a negative review can certainly involve Lashon Hara, Motzi Shem Ra, and potentially serious financial damage. Nevertheless, this does not mean that all negative reviews are forbidden. There are two potentially overlapping grounds for permitting such a review. First, the laws of Lashon Hara L’Toeles permit necessary negative information to be publicized for a genuine constructive purpose, such as warning others of a real danger or loss. Second, when the purpose is to recover money or compensation that the customer is actually entitled to receive, there may be an additional basis of Avid Inish Dina Lenafshei, allowing a person in certain circumstances to take reasonable measures to protect or recover what is rightfully his. However, neither principle gives permission for an angry or retaliatory review. The customer must first verify that his claim is factually and Halachically correct and in addition before publishing such a review, one must carefully satisfy the conditions of Lashon Hara L’Toeles. In particular, one must first establish that the complaint is factually and Halachically justified, describe only what actually occurred without exaggeration, have a constructive purpose, and ensure that the harm caused to the business is not greater than what Halacha permits. Because an online review can potentially damage someone’s livelihood before hundreds or thousands of readers, great caution is required.
Explanation
A Negative Review Can Be Real Lashon Hara
It is sometimes assumed that Lashon Hara applies only to gossip about an individual’s personal life. This is incorrect. Publishing damaging information about a Jewish-owned business can also fall within these prohibitions.
Indeed, a negative online review can sometimes be more consequential than an ordinary private conversation, because it remains publicly available and can influence numerous potential customers. A harsh accusation can damage the reputation and livelihood of the business owner.
Therefore, the fact that one is writing a “review” rather than speaking about the owner personally does not remove the question of Lashon Hara.
Likewise, anonymity does not inherently change the status of what is being published. The relevant issue is the damaging information being communicated about the identifiable person or business.
If the Business Is Owned by a Gentile
A basic distinction must first be made between a Jewish and non-Jewish business.
The ordinary prohibition of Lashon Hara discussed in this context concerns speaking negatively about a fellow Jew. Accordingly, the Lashon Hara restrictions discussed here do not apply in the same manner to a business owned exclusively by gentiles.
Thus, from the narrow perspective of Hilchos Lashon Hara, leaving an honest negative review about a gentile-owned company does not present the same prohibition discussed below regarding a Jewish business.
This article, however, is primarily addressing the more difficult question of a Jewish-owned business.
The Exceptions
There are two separate but overlapping Halachic principles that must be examined when discussing a negative review. The first is Lashon Hara L’Toeles: damaging information may sometimes be communicated when necessary for a legitimate constructive purpose, such as protecting prospective customers from a genuine problem. The second is Avid Inish Dina Lenafshei: when a person has an established monetary right, Halacha can permit certain reasonable measures to protect or recover that right without first being forced through a costly legal process. These two principles can sometimes operate together, and we will examine each point separately.
The Critical Exception: Lashon Hara L’Toeles
Not every truthful negative statement is automatically forbidden.
The laws of Lashon Hara recognize circumstances in which negative information may be communicated L’Toeles, for a legitimate constructive purpose.
This principle is highly relevant to consumer reviews.
For example, if a merchant is genuinely engaging in an improper business practice and prospective customers are likely to suffer the same loss, warning them may constitute a legitimate Toeles.
Likewise, there can be circumstances in which the threat or publication of one’s complaint can legitimately be used to obtain redress to which one is actually entitled. For example, a company may offer to replace a defective product or issue a refund in response to a customer’s legitimate public complaint.
However,“I am angry and want everybody to know what this store did to me” is not itself a Toeles.
Before publishing, the reviewer must determine whether there is a genuine constructive objective.
First Make Sure That You Are Actually Right
This is perhaps the most important practical point.
Customers naturally experience disputes from their own perspective. A product broke, a service disappointed them, a delivery was late, or something did not perform as expected. The customer understandably concludes:
“The store cheated me.”
But that conclusion may not necessarily follow.
Perhaps the manufacturer rather than the retailer bears responsibility. Perhaps the warranty did not cover the particular problem. Perhaps the item was damaged through the customer’s own use. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding regarding what was promised. Perhaps the store is actually entitled according to Halacha to refuse the requested refund.
Thus, before publicly accusing another Jew of wrongdoing, one must first determine that wrongdoing actually occurred.
The laws of Lashon Hara L’Toeles require the speaker to know the relevant facts and not simply rely upon an angry interpretation of events.
This is especially important where the review uses serious words such as “fraud,” “scam,” “dishonest,” or “stole my money.” A person can have a legitimate complaint about the quality of a product without thereby having grounds to accuse the seller of intentional dishonesty.
The Seven Conditions of Lashon Hara L’Toeles
The Chafetz Chaim famously establishes conditions that must be satisfied before negative information may be related for a constructive purpose. Applied to a business review, the essential principles include:
- The facts must be properly established. One may not publicly condemn a business based merely upon speculation or an unverified assumption.
- The conduct must actually be improper according to Halacha. Personal disappointment does not automatically establish wrongdoing.
- There may be no exaggeration. One must describe what happened accurately and may not make the incident sound worse than it actually was.
- The intention must be constructive. The purpose should be to protect others, recover a legitimate loss, or accomplish another valid Toeles, rather than revenge or humiliation.
- A less damaging means should be used when it can accomplish the same legitimate purpose. A public review should not be treated as the automatic first response to every disagreement.
- The review may not create greater harm than the person would Halachically deserve for the conduct involved.
- The reviewer must be especially cautious where the information could cause significant financial damage.
These conditions are particularly important online precisely because the reviewer cannot control how far the information will spread or how severely potential customers may react.
Warning Other Customers About a Genuine Problem
A classic example of permitted Toeles would be protecting another person from foreseeable financial loss.
If one’s experience demonstrates a genuine defect, deceptive practice, or recurring problem that prospective customers reasonably need to know before purchasing, there can be grounds to publish the relevant facts.
But the review should be written accordingly.
There is an enormous difference between writing:
“I purchased this item on Tuesday. It stopped working after two days. I contacted the store and was told that they would not replace it.”
and writing:
“These people are crooks. They sell garbage and steal everyone’s money.”
The first communicates potentially useful facts. The second adds sweeping accusations which may be impossible to justify and which can greatly magnify the damage.
Toeles permits necessary information. It does not give a license for anger, insults, or exaggeration.
Using a Negative Review to Obtain a Refund or Compensation
There can also be a legitimate Toeles in seeking redress for one’s own loss.
Businesses today often monitor public reviews and sometimes contact dissatisfied customers to resolve their complaints. If the customer is genuinely entitled to a refund, repair, replacement, or other remedy, there may be circumstances in which publicizing the legitimate complaint can help accomplish that result.
Nevertheless, one cannot use the threat of reputational damage to extract more than one is actually entitled to receive.
Therefore, before using a negative review as leverage in a serious monetary dispute with a Jewish business, the customer should first determine whether the claimed money is actually owed according to Halacha.
The principle of Avid Inish Dina Lenafshei:
There is an additional basis for permitting a negative review when its purpose is to obtain money or compensation that the customer is genuinely entitled to receive. Halacha recognizes the principle of Avid Inish Dina Lenafshei, that under certain circumstances a person may take reasonable action to protect or recover what is rightfully his without first being forced to litigate the matter. This is particularly relevant where going through the legal process would itself involve significant expense or loss. However, this principle applies only when the person can establish that the claim is actually justified; one may not publicly damage a business merely because he personally believes that he deserves a refund.
Indeed, we find precedent in Chazal for using public pressure to compel someone to fulfill an established obligation. The Gemara records public announcements regarding a Moredess in order to pressure her to correct her conduct, and likewise records how the Amoraim publicly criticized a father who refused to support his young children. Based on such precedents, the Poskim have ruled that a person who was genuinely deceived by a person may publicize his conduct and shame and embarrass him even in public in order to pressure him to return what is rightfully owed, however, not simply in order to get revenge for what he did. Furthermore, the permission should not be understood as though the prohibition of Lashon Hara is simply overridden in order to save money. Rather, when there is a genuine constructive purpose and all the conditions of Lashon Hara L’Toeles are fulfilled, the speech itself falls within the permitted category of constructive speech. Accordingly, even where a negative review may legitimately be used as leverage, all seven conditions of the Chafetz Chaim must still be observed: the facts must first be verified, the customer must truly be in the right, no exaggeration may be used, the intention must be constructive rather than retaliatory, no less damaging method that can reasonably accomplish the same purpose should be available, and the resulting harm may not exceed what is warranted. Thus, a customer may not turn an ordinary disagreement over a refund into a public accusation of fraud simply as a means of pressuring the business.
Product Review Versus Attacking the Owner
Another important distinction is between reviewing the product or experience and condemning the character of the business owner.
If the legitimate Toeles can be accomplished by saying:
“The product stopped working after three uses, and the store declined my request for a replacement,”
there is generally no constructive reason to add:
“The owner is a liar and a dishonest person.”
A permissible negative review should therefore be factual, restrained, specific, and limited to the information necessary for its legitimate purpose.
Bottom Line
A negative review about a Jewish business is not automatically forbidden, but neither is it automatically permitted simply because the reviewer believes it to be true. There are two possible grounds for permission: Lashon Hara L’Toeles, where the review is necessary to protect others from genuine harm, and Avid Inish Dina Lenafshei, where appropriately applied measures are being used to recover an established monetary right. In some cases, both considerations may apply simultaneously.
However, before publicly damaging another Jew’s business, the reviewer must first establish that the facts are correct and that the monetary claim is actually justified according to Halacha. When relying on Lashon Hara L’Toeles, its conditions must be fulfilled: the review must be truthful, necessary, constructive, free of exaggeration or revenge, and proportionate to the legitimate purpose. Particularly where the facts or monetary rights are disputed, or where publication could seriously damage the business, the matter should first be presented to a competent Rav.
Sources
Baruch Omer C.M. 2
- Regarding the general prohibition of Lashon Hara: Admur 156:10; Rambam Deios 7:2
- Regarding Avid Inish Dina Lenafshei, allowing a person under certain circumstances to protect or recover what is rightfully his: Shulchan Aruch C.M. 4:1; Bava Kama 27b-28a; Rosh, Bava Kama 3:3
- Regarding using public pressure to compel fulfillment of an obligation: Kesubos 63b regarding public announcements concerning a Moredess; Kesubos 49b regarding public criticism of one who refuses to support his young children.
- Regarding using verbal pressure where necessary to recover one’s rights: Knesses Hagedolah C.M. 4, Hagahos Tur 3, citing Shut HaRa’anach 2:77.
- Regarding the application to a company that allegedly deceived a customer: Shema Shlomo 4, C.M. 7; the ruling of Rav Shlomo Moshe Amar and agreement of the author of Mishnas Yaakov cited there; opposing ruling cited in the name of Rav Shmuel Auerbach.
- Regarding publicizing nonpayment after proper warning: Ruling cited in the name of Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, discussed in Chashukei Chemed, Kesubos 49b.
- Regarding the essential requirement that negative information spoken for a constructive purpose satisfy the conditions of Lashon Hara L’Toeles: Chafetz Chaim, Hilchos Lashon Hara, Klal 10:1 and 10:14.