FSU assisting six members after negative reviews of medical clinic led to defamation proceedings

As first reported in the?Times , we are currently assisting six people facing legal claims from one of the UK’s largest cosmetic surgery chains, Signature Clinic, whom they accuse of deploying an abusive litigation tactic designed to stifle free speech (also Mail ).

One of those patients is Kate Kronenbach. She went to Signature Clinic looking for a “pick-me-up” that would improve her self-esteem. Instead, she was left with disappointing results.

Ms Kronenbach then did something that most of us have either done, or thought about doing, after a poor customer experience and wrote a negative – but honest – review of the clinic online via the review platform, Trustpilot.

She then received a legal letter from Signature threatening her with bankruptcy and accusing her of having “the audacity to ask for a refund”.

The FSU is now assisting Kate and three others facing defamation proceedings, all with similar stories, as well as two people accused of harassment. All but one are former patients.

We think this may be an instance of ‘strategic lawsuits against public participation’ (Slapps), which are typically brought by large, well-financed corporations with the sole intention of harassing, intimidating and financially exhausting opponents – typically lone individuals – via improper use of the legal system.

In recent years, Slapps have become notorious after a series of actions against journalists designed to stifle free speech and suppress legitimate reporting. The mining company ENRC launched legal action against journalist?Tom Burgis ?over his investigation into the company’s business dealings in a case that would have cost more than ￡1m. Similarly, the?Washington Post’s Catherine Belton fell victim to a “legal pile-on ” by four oligarchs and a Russian state oil company over her book,?Putin’s People.

Worryingly, however, Signature Clinic’s use of lawsuits appear to be the first major attempt to use this mechanism to silence consumers who place unflattering reviews online.

Speaking to?Times?Radio , our Chief Legal Counsel, Dr Bryn Harris, said it was alarming that abusive litigation tactics were being deployed against consumers sharing honest opinions about services they’d paid for.

“Unlike journalists and authors, who are the usual targets of Slapps, our members did not have legal representation or the backing of a publisher. I don’t think it would occur to anyone posting an online review that they would ever need legal advice,” he said, adding: “When claimants rely on aggressive legal correspondence, rather than on the merits of their claim, the impact on litigants in person is especially devastating.”