Can Your Identity Be Revealed After Leaving A Review Online Anonymously?

You may find it tempting to express your thoughts anonymously on the company you are currently working or worked for on the internet. Would you think twice if you were told that your identity may be unmasked and you may be subsequently sued for defamation or malicious falsehood?

GovData Ltd v Indeed UK Operations Ltd [2024] EWHC 39

Case background

The recent High Court case of GovData Ltd v Indeed UK Operations Ltd [2024] EWHC 39 confirms that anonymity will only be stripped away when justice requires it and when considering justice, the underlying intention of bringing a claim and public interest will be relevant.

The case concerned four anonymous reviewers (i.e. the Targets) posting some comments on Indeed’s website about GovData’s management style and work environment. GovData applied to the Court for a Norwich Pharmacal order, which is a discretionary order for the disclosure of documents or information to unmask the identities of the Targets and pursue claims against them for defamation and malicious falsehood.

First review

Second review

There were another two reviews complained about of a similar nature.

The requirements for granting a Norwich Pharmacal order (Mitsui & Co Ltd v Nexen Petroleum Ltd [2005] EWHC 625 (Ch)) are:

All of the above criteria were met in this case. The main issue was, upon its discretion, whether the Court in all of the circumstances should make a Norwich Pharmacal order to obtain identifying data of the Targets.

Discretion of the Court

The Court had particular regard to Davidoff v Google [2023] EWHC 1958, where it was considered that Norwich Pharmacal orders will not be granted to strip away anonymity unless justice requires it to interfere with the respect for privacy and freedom of expression protected under the European Convention on Human Rights.

High Court’s decision

The Court refused to grant the relief sought by GovData. The Judge found that each of the reviews was weak without any evidence of harm or damage. The claims in respect of the first, second, and fourth reviews were out of time (i.e. time limit for bringing a claim in defamation or malicious falsehood is one year from the date at which the publication was made) and they were either not capable of being defamatory/false/malicious or had no reference to a person who could be identified. The third review could be considered within the time limit, but again, there was no express reference to a particular person.

When reaching his decision, the Judge also considered that GovData’s underlying intention of bringing the claim was not “… seeking redress for genuine interference with their rights but…  closing down any and all criticism of their business.”

Impact

This case demonstrates the factors that the Court will weigh when granting a Norwich Pharmacal order to lift the veil of anonymous posters. The Court will not grant a Norwich Pharmacal order simply because the threshold tests are met or entertain any view of revenge/retribution. The Court will also see whether the harm to the posters in losing anonymity is greater than the harm to those being prevented from pursuing a claim which (if successful) is likely to be of minimal value.