"Unfair'' Restaurant Reviews:To Sue Or Not To Sue

In their discussion entitled - “Unfair” Restaurant Reviews: To Sue Or Not To Sue - by John Schroeder and Bruce Lazarus, Assistant Professors, Department of Restaurant, Hotel and Institutional Management at Purdue University, the authors initially state: “Both advantages and disadvantages exist on bringing lawsuits against restaurant critics who write “unfair” reviews. The authors, both of whom have experience with restaurant criticism, offer practical advice on what realistically can be done by the restaurateur outside of the courtroom to combat unfair criticism.” Well, this is going to be a sticky wicket no matter how you try to defend it, reviews being what they are; very subjective pieces of opinionated journalism, especially in the food industry. And, of course, unless you can prove malicious intent there really is no a basis for a libel suit. So, a restaurateur is at the mercy of written opinion and the press. “Libel is the written or published form of slander which is the statement of false remarks that may damage the reputation of others. It also includes any false and malicious publication which may damage a person's business, trade, or employment,” is the defined form of the law provided by the authors. Anecdotally, Schroeder and Lazarus offer a few of the more scathing pieces reviewers have written about particular eating establishments. And, yes, they can be a bit comical, unless you are the owner of an establishment that appears in the crosshairs of such a reviewer. A bad review can kneecap even a popular eatery. “Because of the large readership of restaurant reviews in the publication (consumer dining out habits indicate that nearly 50 percent of consumers read a review before visiting a new restaurant) your business begins a very dangerous downward tailspin,” the authors reveal, with attribution. “Many restaurant operators contend that a bad review can cost them an immediate trade loss of upward of 50 percent,” Schroeder and Lazarus warn. “The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a restaurant owner can collect damages only if he proves that the statement or statements were made with “actual malice,” even if the statements were untrue,” the authors say by way of citation. And that last portion of the statement cannot be over-emphasized. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution does wield a heavy hammer, indeed, and it should. So, what recourse does a restaurateur have? The authors cautiously give a guarded thumbs-up to a lawsuit, but you better be prepared to prove a misstatement of fact, as opposed to the distinguishable press protected right of opinion. For the restaurateur the pitfalls are many, the rewards few and far between, Schroeder and Lazarus will have you know. “…after weighing the advantages and disadvantages of a lawsuit against a critic...the disadvantages are overwhelming,” the authors say. “Chicago restaurant critic James Ward said that someone dumped a load of manure on his yard accompanied by a note that read - Stop writing that s--t! - after he wrote a review of a local restaurant.” Such is a novel if not legally measurable tack against an un-mutual review.

The Creation and Evaluation of Novel Canine Training Aids for Cocaine Using Molecularly Encapsulated Sol-Gel Polymers and an Investigation of Canine Field Accuracy

Biological detectors, such as canines, are valuable tools used for the rapid identification of illicit materials. However, recent increased scrutiny over the reliability, field accuracy, and the capabilities of each detection canine is currently being evaluated in the legal system. For example, the Supreme Court case, State of Florida v. Harris, discussed the need for continuous monitoring of canine abilities, thresholds, and search capabilities. As a result, the fallibility of canines for detection was brought to light, as well as a need for further research and understanding of canine detection. This study is two-fold, as it looks to not only create new training aids for canines that can be manipulated for dissipation control, but also investigates canine field accuracy to objects with similar odors to illicit materials. It was the goal of this research to improve upon current canine training aid mimics. Sol-gel polymer training aids, imprinted with the active odor of cocaine, were developed. This novel training aid improved upon the longevity of currently existing training aids, while also provided a way to manipulate the polymer network to alter the dissipation rate of the imprinted active odors. The manipulation of the polymer network could allow handlers to control the abundance of odors presented to their canines, familiarizing themselves to their canine’s capabilities and thresholds, thereby increasing the canines’ strength in court. The field accuracy of detection canines was recently called into question during the Supreme Court case, State of Florida v. Jardines, where it was argued that if cocaine’s active odor, methyl benzoate, was found to be produced by the popular landscaping flower, snapdragons, canines will false alert to said flowers. Therefore, snapdragon flowers were grown and tested both in the laboratory and in the field to determine the odors produced by snapdragon flowers; the persistence of these odors once flowers have been cut; and whether detection canines will alert to both growing and cut flowers during a blind search scenario. Results revealed that although methyl benzoate is produced by snapdragon flowers, certified narcotics detection canines can distinguish cocaine’s odor profile from that of snapdragon flowers and will not alert.

The creation and evaluation of novel canine training aids for cocaine using molecularly encapsulated sol-gel polymers and an investigation of canine field accuracy

Biological detectors, such as canines, are valuable tools used for the rapid identification of illicit materials. However, recent increased scrutiny over the reliability, field accuracy, and the capabilities of each detection canine is currently being evaluated in the legal system. For example, the Supreme Court case, State of Florida v. Harris, discussed the need for continuous monitoring of canine abilities, thresholds, and search capabilities. As a result, the fallibility of canines for detection was brought to light, as well as a need for further research and understanding of canine detection. This study is two-fold, as it looks to not only create new training aids for canines that can be manipulated for dissipation control, but also investigates canine field accuracy to objects with similar odors to illicit materials. ^ It was the goal of this research to improve upon current canine training aid mimics. Sol-gel polymer training aids, imprinted with the active odor of cocaine, were developed. This novel training aid improved upon the longevity of currently existing training aids, while also provided a way to manipulate the polymer network to alter the dissipation rate of the imprinted active odors. The manipulation of the polymer network could allow handlers to control the abundance of odors presented to their canines, familiarizing themselves to their canine’s capabilities and thresholds, thereby increasing the canines’ strength in court.^ The field accuracy of detection canines was recently called into question during the Supreme Court case, State of Florida v. Jardines, where it was argued that if cocaine’s active odor, methyl benzoate, was found to be produced by the popular landscaping flower, snapdragons, canines will false alert to said flowers. Therefore, snapdragon flowers were grown and tested both in the laboratory and in the field to determine the odors produced by snapdragon flowers; the persistence of these odors once flowers have been cut; and whether detection canines will alert to both growing and cut flowers during a blind search scenario. Results revealed that although methyl benzoate is produced by snapdragon flowers, certified narcotics detection canines can distinguish cocaine’s odor profile from that of snapdragon flowers and will not alert.^