Defamation vs Protected Opinion: Jackie's Risky Magnetic Sign Courts Major Consequences

A reader's minor vehicle dispute shows how jumping to drastic actions without checking the facts or considering the legal risks can land you in serious legal (and expensive!) trouble.

H. Dennis Beaver, Esq.'s avatar
By
Published In Features
An older woman covers her mouth as if to keep herself from speaking.
(Image credit: Getty Images)

You've no doubt heard the saying, "There is nothing as uncommon as common sense."

There is a closely related issue in the form of several questions that we should ask ourselves, but often do not at times when common sense should prevail:

  • If I do this, what are the likely consequences?
  • Why am I even considering doing this?
  • Who can I ask before I take the next step?
  • Have I been here before, doing something that, when looking back on it later and the trouble it got me into, indicates I'm prone to asking for trouble?

'I am supposed to get 32 miles per charge'

Ideas for my articles are often handed to me by readers. Fortunately, most are asking for a legal opinion on some action they want to take. Frequently, the underlying basis, as we say in law, "assumes facts not in evidence."

From just $107.88 $24.99 for Kiplinger Personal Finance

Become a smarter, better informed investor. Subscribe from just $107.88 $24.99, plus get up to 4 Special Issues

CLICK FOR FREE ISSUE
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/y99mlvgqmn1763972420.png

Sign up for Kiplinger’s Free Newsletters

Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice on investing, taxes, retirement, personal finance and more - straight to your e-mail.

Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice - straight to your e-mail.

Sign up

This means a question or statement assumes something that hasn't been proven, but there is an assumption, a belief, that the statement is true, and they are about to act on it.

About Adviser Intel

The author of this article is a participant in Kiplinger's Adviser Intel program, a curated network of trusted financial professionals who share expert insights on wealth building and preservation. Contributors, including fiduciary financial planners, wealth managers, CEOs and attorneys, provide actionable advice about retirement planning, estate planning, tax strategies and more. Experts are invited to contribute and do not pay to be included, so you can trust their advice is honest and valuable.

"Jackie," who lives in the South, sent this email that is the perfect illustration: "I purchased a new Chrysler Pacifica eHybrid from my local dealer in 2024. I am supposed to get 32 miles per charge. In March, I was only getting 28 to 32 miles per charge. The charge is also not lasting as long as it is supposed to.

"The local dealer, as well as Chrysler customer care, refuse to fix the problem. My car is within the warranty period. I want to put magnetic signs on my car telling people not to purchase vehicles from this dealer. Am I protected under the First Amendment? We live in a small city, and these signs would definitely make an impact."

Jackie signed her email, "A devoted reader."

Is Jackie's complaint valid?

I read online reviews of her vehicle, all confirming the EPA estimates 32 miles of electric-only range on a full charge. Industrywide, EV batteries normally lose about 2% range per year.

In any event, a 28- to 32-mile electric range is within normal variation for a 2024 Pacifica PHEV. Jackie's complaint about the dealer and Chrysler therefore lacks merit, as there is nothing to repair.

When it comes to criticizing a business, it is important to understand the difference between speech that is protected and speech that is unprotected — statements of opinion vs factual assertions.

So, Jackie could attach a sign to her car that states her opinions, such as:

  • I believe the dealer misled me, and I would not buy from them again
  • I do not like the mileage I am getting
  • In my opinion, Chrysler isn't honoring its warranty

However, the following assertions could see her staring down the barrel of a defamation lawsuit if she's unable to support them with facts:

  • Chrysler lied about the battery range
  • My dealer knowingly sold me a defective vehicle and refused needed repairs
  • My dealer is engaging in consumer fraud

Jackie could be:

  • Sued for business interference. If her local Chrysler dealer has proof that the signs she put on her car are costing them sales or other economic damage, they would likely file suit alleging intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and trade libel.
  • Sued for defamation. Over the years, I have had more than one unhappy car owner march into my office, shaking like a leaf, holding a lawsuit they were just served with from an auto dealer that accuses them of posting defamatory signs, reviews and social media comments containing false factual assertions — meaning they stated a specific fact that can be proven false.

To a person, they thought that by causing embarrassment to the dealer, this would result in their complaint being dealt with. The result was anything but. None of them ever saw the possible legal consequences of engaging in what amounted to defamatory conduct.

They never remotely considered having to shell out a significant amount of money for attorney fees.

Looking for expert tips to grow and preserve your wealth? Sign up for Adviser Intel, our free, twice-weekly newsletter.

So, Jackie may put magnetic signs on her vehicle if they contain only her opinions, but she would almost certainly find herself in scalding-hot legal water if the signs contain false factual accusations about the dealer or manufacturer.

I am worried about Jackie

I do not know Jackie, but I wonder if this is a pattern with her. Is she reacting to a perceived wrong in a disproportionate way, revealing a grievance mindset? Is she psychologically invested in the idea that she has been wronged and someone must be held accountable?

That could explain why someone would consider putting a sign on her car even though doing so might lead to significant (and expensive) consequences.

Jackie lives in a small town and will need to have her vehicle serviced, so what does she get out of going to war with the dealer? Absolutely nothing!

There could very well be deeper issues at play, and this could be a time for a family meeting. Today, it is a non-issue with her vehicle, but she faces potential enormously high attorney fees if she defames the auto dealer and automaker.

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield, Calif., and welcomes comments and questions from readers, which may be faxed to (661) 323-7993, or e-mailed to Lagombeaver1@gmail.com. And be sure to visit dennisbeaver.com.

Related Content

Disclaimer

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

H. Dennis Beaver, Esq.
H. Dennis Beaver, Esq.
Attorney at Law, Author of You and the Law

After attending Loyola University School of Law, H. Dennis Beaver joined California's Kern County District Attorney's Office, where he established a Consumer Fraud section. He is in the general practice of law and writes a syndicated newspaper column, You and the Law. Through his column, he offers readers in need of down-to-earth advice his help free of charge. "I know it sounds corny, but I just love to be able to use my education and experience to help, simply to help. When a reader contacts me, it is a gift."