Libelous Facebook Post Costs Israeli Woman $3,400

Arad woman who thought a supermarket gave her the wrong change used Facebook to express her grievance. Bad idea.

Shirly Seidler
Send in e-mailSend in e-mail
Shirly Seidler

The Dimona Magistrate’s Court on Sunday ordered an Arad woman to pay 10,000 shekels ($2,850) damages and another 2,000 shekels ($570) in legal expenses to a local grocer who she libeled on Facebook.

What the woman wrote, the court ruled, was not an opinion but a baseless claim intended to harm the plaintiff’s business.

In September 2012, the woman purchased a number of items in the plaintiff’s grocery store, for a total of 41 shekels. Several hours after the purchase, she suspected that she had received the wrong change and returned to the store.

The owner said that he would count the take at the end of the day and return the money to her if there was a surplus. The next day he told her that there had not, in fact, been a surplus.

The woman described the incident in a post to a group of Arad residents on Facebook: “An important notice to consumers in Arad who shop in Gili’s supermarket: There is a repetitive phenomenon to which you should pay attention. When a person buys items and pays with a 200 shekel banknote, they have a way of diverting your attention by starting a conversation and not returning the right change. It happened to me on Tuesday.”

She added that the owner should have counted the take while she was there, rather than waiting until the end of the day, and called on consumers who buy in the grocery to check the total amount of the purchase. “The issue is not the 100 shekels I was missing, but the method,” she wrote.

The court considered the damage caused to the plaintiff, whether the words were written in good faith and whether they were written as part of the right to freedom of expression. Judge Ron Solkin wrote in his decision that the things written by the woman were meant to harm the plaintiff’s business. “The Internet is the new ‘city square,’” he wrote in the ruling, “where people find a platform and believe they have the freedom to express themselves on any subject they please. However, it seems that the public has not yet internalized the potential for harming others, and accordingly the obligation of the posters to practice self restraint.”

The judge noted that the court was taking into account the fact that there is no proof that the post did in fact harm the business, and therefore did not apply the full severity of the law. “But the public must internalize that the leniency will not last forever, and that in future higher compensation may be demanded, as long as the obligation of self-restraint on the Internet is not internalized.”

Groceries are shown on the shelves at a grocery store.Credit: Reuters

Click the alert icon to follow topics:

Comments

SUBSCRIBERS JOIN THE CONVERSATION FASTER

Automatic approval of subscriber comments.
From $1 for the first month

Already signed up? LOG IN

ICYMI

Charles Lindbergh addressing an America First Committee rally on October 3, 1941.

Ken Burns’ Brilliant ‘The U.S. and the Holocaust’ Has Only One Problem

The projected rise in sea level on a beach in Haifa over the next 30 years.

Facing Rapid Rise in Sea Levels, Israel Could Lose Large Parts of Its Coastline by 2050

Tal Dilian.

As Israel Reins in Its Cyberarms Industry, an Ex-intel Officer Is Building a New Empire

Queen Elizabeth II, King Charles III and a British synagogue.

How the Queen’s Death Changes British Jewry’s Most Distinctive Prayer

Newly appointed Israeli ambassador to Chile, Gil Artzyeli, poses for a group picture alongside Rabbi Yonatan Szewkis, Chilean deputy Helia Molina and Gerardo Gorodischer, during a religious ceremony in a synagogue in Vina del Mar, Chile last week.

Chile Community Leaders 'Horrified' by Treatment of Israeli Envoy

Queen Elizabeth attends a ceremony at Windsor Castle, in June 2021.

Over 120 Countries, but Never Israel: Queen Elizabeth II's Unofficial Boycott