Question 1: Joanna, Jacob and the online reviews [i.e. last week's scenario]
Joanna lives in Perth, Western Australia. She runs a successful online business selling top quality shoes at a very attractive price point. Her motto is: "pay less, get more". She is so confident in the quality of her products that she provides a 5-year warranty which enables the customers to return the shoes within a 5-year timeframe without any questions asked. In 2021 Joanna's total sales was worth of $1.2M. 25% of the sales came from Australia, 20% from the US, 15% from Japan, and 7% from France. In addition, a significant number of shoes were sold in the UK, Singapore and South Korea.
Jacob lives in Singapore. He noticed the successful operation of Joanna's business and wanted to follow her success. As a first step, he maps the 4 leading online websites which provide reviews of online businesses. He posts in each website 5 reviews which defame Joanna's business: the reviews say that her shoes are of the "poorest quality on Earth" and that the 5-year warranty is "....nothing but a joke".
Assuming the Australian court has jurisdiction over this dispute, the law of which country will apply? (Please assume that Australian rules of choice-of-law apply).
Question 2: Free Speech v Good Name
It is generally considered that the United States has a higher degree of protection of free speech at the expense of a person's right to a good name. Accordingly, the US system sets a very high standard for meeting the legal elements of the tort of defamation. Would you agree with the US position on this matter? Explain.
Question 3: Joanna v Australia Review
Joanna lives in Perth, WA. She runs a broker mortgage firm which provides financial services to small businesses and private clients. Jacob lives in Singapore. He used the services of Joanna's firm in the past while he lived in WA. On 1 September 2022, he anonymously published an unfavourable review of Joanna's firm on one of the leading Australian review websites- "Australia Review". The website only periodically reviews the posted reviews. The review briefly outlined the nature of the service he received and commented that the service "did not meet the professional standard you would have expected from a highly experienced broker". Following the publication of the review, Joanna's volume of business fell by 25%. Joanna wants to sue Jacob.
A. Would it be possible for Joanna to receive a court order against Australia Review website that would order the website to reveal Jacob's identity?
B. Assume that after finding out about the publication, Joanna approached the Australia Review website and asked them to remove the negative review. Since the website has refused to do so, Joanna wants to sue them. Would it be possible?