In a recent decision, the BC Supreme Court awarded a beauty company $350,000 in damages after a YouTuber made a series of defamatory videos about the company and their products.[1] In awarding such a large damages award, the Court sought to compensate the plaintiffs, denounce the defendant’s conduct and deter other social media personalities from seeking to profit by saying increasingly scandalous things online.
The law of defamation
The law of defamation protects not only individuals but also the reputation of corporations.[2] To prove defamation, a plaintiff must establish: (1) that the words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiffs’ reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person; (2) that the words in fact referred to the plaintiffs; and (3) that the words were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.[3] If the plaintiff proves these elements, the onus shifts to the defendant to raise a defence in order to escape liability.[4] Defences include proof that the statement was true or that the statement was a “fair comment,” meaning a comment on a matter of public interest, based on fact, that is recognizable as a comment and which any person could honestly have expressed.[5]
The main remedy for defamation is a general damages award, which compensates the plaintiff for the loss of reputation and injury to the plaintiff’s feelings and vindicates the plaintiff so their reputation may be re-established.[6] When assessing general damages, courts consider: the conduct of the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s position and standing, the nature of the defamatory comments, the mode and extent of publication, the absence or refusal of a retraction or apology and the conduct of the defendant.[7] Aggravated damages may be awarded in circumstances where the defendant’s conduct has been insulting, high-handed, spiteful, malicious or oppressive.[8] Finally, punitive damages may be awarded where the misconduct of the defendant is so outrageous that punitive damages are required to act as a deterrent.[9]
Case summary: I Buy Beauty LLC v Dong, 2024 BCSC 815
In I Buy Beauty LLC v Dong, 2024 BCSC 815, the Court held a YouTuber liable for defamation, awarding the plaintiffs $350,000 in damages. The plaintiffs, I Buy Beauty LLC, doing business as Fastboy Marketing and Vuong Pham (Buy Beauty), provide marketing and point-of-sale services to nail and beauty salons in Canada and around the world. Buy Beauty sued the defendant, Mr. Dong, in defamation after he made a series of YouTube videos targeting Buy Beauty. The videos alleged that Buy Beauty engaged in criminal activity, such as stealing sensitive personal and financial information, money laundering and human trafficking, among other things.
The Court found that the defendant was liable to the corporate and individual plaintiffs for defamation. The defendant made numerous defamatory videos and posts over a 10-month period, which diminished the plaintiffs’ reputations in the eyes of a reasonable person, referred to the plaintiffs and were communicated to a large audience across the defendant’s social media platforms. The Court also found that the defendant was responsible for the comments section under his YouTube videos. The Court reasoned that the defendant had “an obligation to actively monitor and control posted comments on his page,” especially when the video itself is defamatory.[10] Finally, the Court found that the defendant did not plead any valid defences.[11]
The Court awarded the plaintiffs $250,000 in general damages, $50,000 for aggravated damages and $50,000 for punitive damages. In addition, a permanent injunction was granted to prevent any further defamatory statements.[12]
In assessing general damages, the Court noted that the defamatory statements, including allegations of criminal activity, were “serious and relentlessly repeated.”[13] The defamatory statements were published online, which the Court noted is arguably “more damaging to one’s reputation than defamation carried out by other means because of the possibility that the publications will be seen by a broader audience.”[14] The defamation had a “profound damaging impact” on both the individual and corporate plaintiff and the defendant never apologized to the plaintiffs.[15] In considering the evidence to support the damages award, the Court observed that customers had cancelled their point-of-sale contracts with the plaintiffs and that as the defamation continued, employees started to quit. Based on these factors, among others, the Court concluded that a “significant” general damages award of $250,000 was necessary.[16]
The Court also found that $50,000 in aggravated damages was warranted in this case because the defendant’s conduct appeared to be motivated by malice.[17] Finally, the Court awarded $50,000 in punitive damages to deter future “highly reprehensible false commentary”, as others may try to replicate this behaviour in order to profit on the publicity.[18]
Key takeaways
Companies that are defamed online by social media influencers and commentators may be eligible for large damages awards and injunctive relief. Factors that courts will consider when assessing damages for defamation include: the nature and seriousness of the defamation; the mode and extant of publication; the impact on the plaintiff; the defendant’s conduct through to the end of the trial; and whether the defendant has apologized. If the defendant’s defamatory comments are motivated by malice, additional aggravated damages may be awarded. Finally, punitive damages may be awarded where the court believes it is necessary to deter similar defamatory statements in the future.
With the large damages award in this case, the Court expressly sought to deter social media influencers from making defamatory comments in order to get more followers and increase their profits. The Court also highlighted that, compared to other forms of defamation, internet defamation is much wider in scope and has more potential to damage the reputations of individuals and companies.[19] Companies whose reputation has been damaged by defamatory online comments may be able to rely on this decision to seek significant damages awards, restore their reputation and deter future defamers.
Dentons’ Litigation and Dispute Resolution group has expertise in the law of defamation. If you have questions about this case or the law of defamation in general, please contact the authors, Morgan Camley, Andrew Mollard or Ivy Yang.
[1] I Buy Beauty LLC v. Dong, 2024 BCSC 815 [Buy Beauty].
[2] Walker v. CFTO LTD., 1987 CanLII 126, 37 D.L.R 224 at 233 (ONCA).
[3] Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 at para. 28 [Grant].
[4] Ibid at para. 29.
[5] Buy Beauty, supra note 1 at paras. 45 and 47.
[6] Ibid at para. 51, citing Pineau v. KMI Publishing and Events Ltd., 2022 BCCA 426 at para. 51 [Pineau].
[7] Buy Beauty, supra note 1 at para. 53, citing Pineau, supra note 6 at para. 53 and Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130, 1995 CanLII 59 at para. 182 [Hill].
[8] Hill, supra note 7 at para. 188.
[9] Ibid at para. 197. See also Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18 at para. 94.
[10] Buy Beauty, supra note 1 at para. 43.
[11] Ibid at para. 44.
[12] Ibid at para. 98.
[13] Ibid at para. 56.
[14] Ibid at para. 60, citing Malak v. Hanna, 2023 BCSC 1337 at para. 167.
[15] Buy Beauty, supra note 1 at para. 67.
[16] Ibid at paras. 79-80.
[17] Ibid at para. 85.
[18] Ibid at para. 91.
[19] Buy Beauty, supra note 1 at para. 59, citing Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 SCC 34 at para. 41.
