Dave Oremland sent me a Washington Post article last week detailing a case where small business owner Colleen Dermott of Dog Tranquility in Burke, VA was suing a client for $65,000. The client had left bad reviews on Yelp and Angie’s List. She claimed that the client,  Jennifer Ujimori, in leaving a bad review, had made statements that were false and damaged her small business, which had had great reviews until that point.

The facts, as far as one can tell, are that the customer was requesting a refund and the owner, on the basis of a signed agreement, refused. The customer wrote reviews critical of the business owner on several fronts and the business owner then sued for defamation.

According to the Washington Post the business owner had attempted several different ways to satisfy Ujimori — including offering a credit for a future class — but the offers fell short of a full refund and the customer refused.

Not only has the client refused the offers but she has started significant pushback against the lawyer letters and suit. First responding to the letter publicly on Yelp and then apparently taking her case public. She is asking the state to pass anti-SLAPP law to protect her 1st Amendment rights.

The Post quotes the owner as saying “It had a significant impact in that I’m a small-business owner. I have to rely on these review sites as a major source of advertising.”

I marvel at the many business owners like Colleen that seem to be willing to continually shoot themselves in the foot over reviews. Clearly both sides have gone all in. The problem though is that the business has much, much more to lose and very little to gain. This would appear to me one of those cases where even if the business wins they will lose.

While I think that there are likely two sides to this story, let’s for a second assume that the owner is totally in the right on this and that there should be no refund of any amount, the customer knew what she was getting and that the sale was final. I don’t think that but for arguments sake let’s take that position.**

How does the owner possibly come out top by filing a suit?

-She will be out thousands of dollars in legal fees.

-She will become has become the target of the scorn of the internet hordes who will think her evil*.

-She will get press and lots of it. It is not clear to me though that it is the sort of press that will serve her business.

Most importantly, future customers, those that care deeply about their dogs will perceive this person as inflexible, petty and vindictive. Is that the person that you want training your dog?

Assuming that the owner was not going to give a refund, what could she have done besides suing?

In her case there was plenty.

-She could have started by getting a listing at Google, which as far as I can tell she doesn’t have.
-She could have gotten some additional reviews at Google, Yelp and Angie’s list.
-She could have done some basic local SEO on her website and actually got it to rank. Her home page title tag reads: <title>Home</title>.
-She could have done limited reputation management and built out her profiles at Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere.
-Christ for the cost of the suit she could have done all of that and had plenty left over to spend on a significant marketing campaign both off line and on.

This case is interesting. It shows how, if a business digs their heels in “on principal” they can easily end up with a much bigger battle on their hands than they ever could have imagined.

It’s fine and even sometimes appropriate to stand on principal (although you might want them to be better founded). But as a small business owner, once you do, think carefully about your next steps and how you want to spend your time and your money to try to improve the situation.

Here is the Yelp review posted and an update posted 1/28 followed by the owner response describing the situation:

Since posting my below poor review of Dog Tranquility LLC and Colleen Dermott, I received a threatening letter from an attorney. The letter demands removal of comments and threatens legal action. The comments in my review describe my opinions and are an account of my experience from my perspective. I specifically contacted Colleen for puppy training and socialization and these expectations were not met by the services sold to me. I also signed up for a class advertised on the company’s website to be limited to 8 dogs but this was false advertising because there were more than 8 dogs in the class. The website was changed after I raised this dispute but I have copies of the archive webpage before it was altered. As far as I’m concerned, I signed a contract under false pretenses. I feel very misled and regret doing business with Colleen Dermott/Dog Tranquility LLC.

————————-­———————–

I enrolled my small breed puppy in a group puppy class. The puppy class was advertised for dogs 8 weeks to 5 months of age but the other dogs in the class were adolescent (less than 1 year) and adult dogs.  In addition, the dogs were medium to large size breeds and my puppy is a small breed that at the time weighed approximately 4 pounds. As a result, my puppy and I were isolated in a separate fenced off area at the first class. The isolation made it difficult to hear the instructions or benefit from the training and I left the class no more informed about training my puppy than when I arrived. I felt I paid money to be isolated with my puppy in a gated area for an hour. Furthermore, the group classes were advertised on the website as being limited to no more than 8 dogs. However, there were more than 8 dogs in the class.

After I initiated a dispute and requested a refund, the owner changed her website information to state that group class enrollment was 10 dogs. In a nutshell, the services delivered were not as advertised and the owner refused a refund, to include a prorated refund. She asks clients to sign a liability waiver that includes a “no refund” policy clause prior to the start of the first training session with dogs. Therefore, it was signed before I became aware of the ages/breeds of the other dogs in the class and that there would be more than 8 dogs. I basically signed under false pretenses but the owner cited the “no refund” clause on the signed form when I told her that the class was not as advertised and asked for a refund. She also cited the clause stating that I would be responsible for paying related attorney costs should she need to retain one. After this dispute arose, the owner changed the information on her website to state that group class enrollment is 10 dogs. Overall, I feel very mislead and feel the owner has not demonstrated good faith or business ethics.  I will not continue classes with this company and will not recommend to others.

On 2/19 the owner of Dog Tranquility, Colleen Dermott responded:

I am so sorry you did not have a good experience in my class. We did exchange 2 emails prior to your enrollment in the Basic Obedience class about the class being open to all age groups. There was a total of 6 puppies under 5 months enrolled in your class for age/size appropriate socialization. I have offered 3 alternate options for you (including private socialization sessions, another group class, or adjustments to your current class). I was notified on January 23, 2015 that you were interested in signing up for a different group class and I would be happy to make that happen. The customer agreement contract everyone signs has a no refund policy once training has begun, but I am always happy to find a better solution to fit your and your pups needs at no additional cost. Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention as they will help me make my classes a better experience for everyone!

* Last time I checked there had been 84 reviews removed for violation of TOS and a number of others that were clearly political.

** The client, Jennifer Ujimori, has only ever left 2 reviews on Yelp and both were 1 star reviews. It is more than conceivable that this person is NOT the world’s best customer. But that is irrelevant unless the business wants to commit suicide.