Internet blackmail

Don’t overdo it! Freedom of expression has limits.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it has limits, especially when it crosses the line into libelous disqualification of a company. A recent Supreme Court (SC) case addresses the dissemination of denigratory messages on the Internet by a worker towards his former company, we clarify how far freedom of speech in a labor dispute goes. Let’s analyze this ruling and its implications for employers and workers.

The conflict: termination and attacks on the Internet

A worker hired as a driver for several months terminated his employment relationship with the company, receiving a severance payment offer of 1,685.93 euros, which he did not accept. He subsequently filed a lawsuit before the labor court. During the following three months the worker posted advertisements in the job offers section for carriers on an Internet portal, using derogatory terms such as “they are looking for slaves in transport”, “they are pirates”, “they have fired me and do not want to pay me anything”, and “they force drivers to break the law”. He also stated that the company had several complaints, did not pay the workers and owed him 11,000 euros.

Finally, in a judicial conciliation, the parties agreed on a compensation of €2,425.44. However, the company decided to file a lawsuit against the former worker for unlawful interference with his honor, requesting a compensation of 7,000 euros and the withdrawal of the advertisements. Initially the claim was dismissed, but the Provincial Court (AP) subsequently upheld it.

The Supreme Court: the limits of freedom of expression on the Internet

The Supreme Court recalled that private legal entities are also holders of the right to honor, including their professional prestige. For an action to be considered an unlawful interference with this right, it is not necessary to prove a specific pecuniary damage, but the attack must be of a certain intensity. A criticism of the professional activity is not enough, but an unnecessary or injurious disqualification of the professional behavior is required, particularly by means of statements that call into question the ethics of the company.

In this case, the pejorative expressions used in the advertisements directly affected the company’s ethics and professional image. The former employee acknowledged that the published statements did not reflect real problems, and did not present evidence to support the veracity of his statements. In addition, he confessed that his objective was to force the company to pay a higher severance payment for the termination of the employment relationship.

Proportionality and repetitionality of offenses on the Internet

The repetition of the publications, which the worker uploaded again after the previous ones had been removed, the lack of grounds for the offensive statements, and the use of denigratory terms led the SC to conclude that freedom of expression, in this case, did not respect the parameter of proportionality. Thus, it was determined that the affectation of the company’s honor was not legitimized by the right to freedom of expression.

Determination of compensation for non-pecuniary damages

Regarding compensation for moral damages, case law establishes that it is up to the trial court to set the amount, which must be respected unless it deviates from the legal criteria or is clearly arbitrary or disproportionate. Symbolic compensation is not admitted in this type of proceedings.

In this case, the SC considered that the amount of 5,000 euros, established by the AP of Valencia, was proportionate to the circumstances: the seriousness of the accusations, the repetition over several months, and the publication on an Internet portal in the section dedicated to the plaintiff’s business sector. The request of the former employee to fix a compensation proportional to that received for the termination of his employment relationship had no legal basis.

Conclusion: the consequences of attacking a company on the Internet

The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Provincial Court of Valencia sentencing the former employee to pay the company a compensation of 5,000 euros plus interest from the filing of the lawsuit. In addition, it ordered him to remove at his own expense all publications made against the company and to refrain from making future defamatory publications. It also obliged him to publish the judgment in the same public dissemination as the offensive expressions.

This case highlights the risks of using digital networks and platforms to attack a company. Freedom of speech has limits, and when the line is crossed into defamation the legal consequences can be severe. For workers, it is a reminder that criticism must be proportionate and well-founded, while for companies, it reaffirms the legal protection of the right to honor and the importance of acting against illegitimate intrusions.

¿Do you need help? In Cigarrán Abogados we can help you (+34) 91.355.85.15