The case summarized: • Marthe Skjæret Nilsen was taken to court by Norsk Robotklippersenter AS after expressing dissatisfaction with the purchase and winter storage of a robotic lawnmower.• The company believed that Nilsen’s statement, which included words such as “fraud” and “trickery”, was defamatory. • The Østre Innlandet district court has now delivered its verdict: Nilsen had sufficient factual basis for making his statements, both in the newspaper and on Facebook.• Lawyer for the plaintiffs, Linnéa Tereza Karlberg, believes the court has committed several fundamental errors in the verdict, and that there are several errors in the presentation of the facts in the case. They plan to appeal the verdict.• Lawyer Jon Wessel-Aas, who represented Hamar Arbeiderblad and editor Katrine Strøm, believes that businesses must tolerate critical journalism.• Elin Floberghagen, secretary general of the Norwegian Press Association, says the decision is gratifying, but not surprising. The summary is made by an AI service from OpenAi. The content is quality assured by news’s journalists before publication. After trouble with the purchase and winter storage of a robotic lawnmower, Marthe Skjæret Nilsen wrote both on Facebook and the local newspaper to vent her frustration. This alleged seller Norsk Robotklippersenter AS, which ran “Mortens Hage”, was defamatory. The company took both the newspaper and the customer to court. Østre Innlandet District Court has now delivered its verdict: Nilsen had sufficient factual basis to present his statements, both in the newspaper and on Facebook. – I am very happy to not have to think about how much money I might have had to spend if it had gone the other way, says a relieved Nilsen to news. It was HA who mentioned the acquittal first. In borderland “Fraud”, “trickery” and “punishment for being a difficult customer” were stated by Nilsen in the case. Was this defamation, or a completely normal consumer case with a dissatisfied customer? The court meant the latter. Marthe Skjæret Nilsen is without a robotic lawnmower for the fourth season in a row. Photo: Frode Meskau / news They say that Nilsen’s statements must be read in conjunction with the rest of the article. Thus, a reader would understand that it was a question of a consumer who was not satisfied with the service and services of the company “Mortens Hage”, and interpret the statements accordingly, the judgment states. Nilsen says that although she was nervous about the outcome, the verdict was as expected. – And the verdict that came is striking. That I am supported on all points, in my statements and the way I have expressed myself. That there are facts, much of what I have presented. She further says that it has taken its toll on the psyche and there was a bad atmosphere in the home. – I am now in the fourth season where I have no rocks in the garden. And the case has doctor and ulma for two years. From left: Lawyer Espen Henrik Johansen represented Marthe Skjæret Nilsen in court, while Jon Wessel-Aas represented Hamar Arbeiderblad and editor Katrine Strøm. Photo: Jenny Marie Sveen / news – Several fundamental errors Linnéa Tereza Karlberg, lawyer for the plaintiffs, believes that the court has committed several fundamental errors in the judgment, and that there are several errors in the presentation of the facts in the case. – My clients have tried several times to deliver the mower and offer to drive it home to Nilsen. Even a consumer is not entitled to more than full compensation, here Nilsen has had repair costs covered by his insurance, writes Karlberg in an e-mail to news. She further believes that the reading and understanding of Nilsen’s statements is wrong and distorted, and that it is wrong that businesses have to tolerate more than private individuals. They intend to appeal the verdict, says Karlberg. This is what the lawyer for Norsk robotgrassklippersenter AS says: “The court has made several fundamental legal errors, and there are also several errors in the presentation of facts. My clients have tried several times to deliver the mower and offered to drive it home to Nilsen. Even a consumer is not entitled to more than full compensation, here Nilsen has had repair costs covered by his insurance. Nilsen turned to her insurance company and received payment from it before she demanded that my clients return the clipper in working order – even though it had been completely destroyed by lightning. Here the chronology of the court is incorrect. The reading and understanding of the contested statements is wrong and distorted, and the wrong distinction is made between statements of value and statements of fact. We recently experienced the same type of error in another defamation case, and there we had to complain to the Human Rights Court. The case has now been referred to the European Court of Justice, so Norwegian courts are waiting for corrections when privacy and the protection of business operators are not respected. It is also wrong to assume that businesses must tolerate more than private individuals. The legal situation is quite the opposite; Entrepreneurs are also protected by the provisions of other legislation, including the Marketing Act, so here too the district court is wrong. The sentence will be reversed.” – General, critical consumer journalism Lawyer Jon Wessel-Aas represented Hamar Arbeiderblad and editor Katrine Strøm. He believes businesses must tolerate critical journalism. – The article in Hamar Arbeiderblad is a textbook example of general, critical consumer journalism, where the business party has been given every opportunity to counter the criticism of the customer and give their version. Then a business owner cannot demand compensation afterwards, because she does not like the criticism, he says to HA. Secretary General Elin Floberghagen of the Norwegian Press Association believes that the case should not have been taken to court at all. Photo: NTB Elin Floberghagen, secretary general of the Norwegian Press Association, says the decision is gratifying, but not surprising. – In my view, the case should not be in court at all. I would rather encourage those who believe they have been exposed to press ethics abuses to complain to Pressa’s professional committee (PFU). Then you will get a proper assessment, which is both free and takes less time to reach a conclusion, she says to news. So far, news has not succeeded in getting hold of Katrine Strøm in HA. news draws attention to the fact that in April Katrine Strøm was appointed as the new editor in the South East region of news. Power starts in the post until autumn. Published 08.07.2024, at 15.10 Updated 08.07.2024, at 15.49
ttn-69
Was sued for defamation after a consumer article in the newspaper
