The Dental Cases

Have you been the victim of hurtful and untrue comments online? We are here to help. 

The Dental Cases

Case 1: The claimant was a leader in general, cosmetic and specialist dental clinics in the UK with surgeries around the UK. The claimant had been subject to several bad Google reviews which were false. 
The defendant visited the claimant's clinic for an implant consultation. During the session, the claimant detailed what the defendant needed and recommended what was best for her. The defendant agreed to what the claimant had requested. 
After 6 months, the defendant posted a negative review on the claimant’s “Google My Business” page. When the claimant phoned the defendant to address her concerns, the defendant refused to listen and instead went and updated her review, making further false, malicious, and defamatory claims against the claimants.
We wrote a detailed letter before claim to the defendant and explained how her Google review was false, malicious, and defamatory. We also explained how the defendant's post would negatively impact the claimant's reputation and cause serious financial harm to its business. We explained that the claimant would hold the defendant liable should legal action be taken. Following receipt of our letter, the defendant deleted the review. 

Case 2: The defendant initially went to a general hospital under the NHS for orthodontic treatment, when he was told he needed to have several of his teeth extracted. He then sought a second opinion from the claimant. Following the consultation, the defendant returned to the main hospital. The defendant never used the claimant's services, instead choosing a rival dental practice. One month following the consultation, the claimant discovered a false and defamatory review on its “Google My Business” page. The claimant called the defendant to inquire as to why he had left a negative review when he had not used their services. The defendant refused to listen to the claimant, instead accusing the claimant of being unqualified and of only seeing him to extract money from him.
We wrote to the defendant in respect of his misleading and highly defamatory review of the claimant. We also explained the serious financial harm caused to the claimant's reputation and serious harm to the claimant's business, for which the claimant would hold the defendant if legal action ensued. The defendant then proceeded to update his review after we wrote to him and started demanding money from the claimant in order to remove the review.
We wrote again to the defendant in respect of his blackmail and extortion, explaining the criminality of his actions, and the potential consequences of up to 14 years in prison. We informed him that if he did not delete the false and negative review, the claimant would take legal action against him. The false and negative review was successfully removed by the defendant.

Case 3: The defendant attended the claimant’s dental clinic for a cosmetic consultation with one of the doctors to discuss having treatment for porcelain veneers. The doctor advised that the defendant was young and had healthy teeth, and he also explained that the procedure of porcelain veneers would be harsh on the defendant’s natural teeth. Following the consultation, the practice manager called the defendant to see if she was satisfied with the consultation. The defendant informed the practice manager that the consultation was informative and that the Doctor took some pictures to show her what could be done in terms of treatment; however, she was dissatisfied with the doctor's recommendations as she had been to other dental practices and had been offered the veneer treatments as requested. 
Following the conversation, the claimant noticed a negative review on its “Google My Business” page. The negative review was posted under an alias and by individuals who were not clients of the claimant. The evaluation was described in the same way as the defendant's consultation with the doctor. The claimant deduced that the review was left by the defendant under an alternative name. Three further false and defamatory reviews were submitted a week following the initial negative review, but this time under the defendant's name.
We were engaged to write to the defendant to explain how her reviews were false, defamatory, and misleading, and that they would cause substantial financial harm to the claimant's reputation as well as serious harm to the claimant's business, for which the claimant would hold the defendant liable. Following receipt of our detailed letter, the defendant removed all negative reviews.