Posted on 08/02/2017 10:28:16 AM PDT by nickcarraway
An autumn affair at the Petroleum Club in downtown Dallas, the union of a full-time beauty blogger and the love of her life, appeared to be a gorgeous thing — marred by one misfortune.
Three months after the ceremony, in front of a local television crew, Andrew and Neely Moldovan showed off a box of empty picture frames.
Their photographer was withholding the images, they told NBC affiliate KXAS in January 2015, and was demanding an extra $150 when they’d already paid thousands.
“It’s heartbreaking, because, you know, these are our memories,” Neely Moldovan said.
And many agreed.
“Wedding photographer holds couple’s pictures hostage,” blared the Daily Mail a few days later.
The Moldovans’ sympathizers descended on photographer Andrea Polito’s review pages, calling her a scam artist, or worse.
Her reputation was ruined, her business dried up and she closed her studio.
And then the story changed.
Polito sued the Moldovans, claiming all they ever had to do to get their glossies was fill out a form, choose options for their wedding album and pay a small charge they had long known about.
The photographer showed the court emails in which she and her employees tried to appease the couple — even as the Moldovans were calling reporters, whipping up a furor on social media and plugging their newfound fame to fans of Neely Moldovan’s beauty blog, Polito said.
On Friday, a jury in Dallas decided that the tale of the ransomed wedding photos was not heartbreaking, and not even true.
In fact, the jurors concluded, the accusations amounted to malicious defamation, for which the Moldovans should pay the photographer more than $1 million in damages.
The Moldovans haven’t commented on the verdict, which they can still challenge. Neely Moldovan did not mention it to her thousands of followers
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Bridezilla.
A friend is in the middle of a wedding with a momzilla.
I wish I could hit the lawsuit lottery.
A million dollars for some mean Internet comments.
I think you need to read the article. The woman had a thriving business that completely disappeared mad she will probably never see a cent of this judgement.
No, your memories are in your brains.
Been there done that.
Momzilla can be brutal.
My wife is a professional photographer. She has done one wedding and will do no more. This kind of crap is common in the trade and the younger and more popular (by the social media metric) the nastier they can be with wanting discounts on this and that and stuff for free that involves loads of extra work for the photographer.
I did read it. I understand her business dried up, but that was ultimately over her customer telling people she was dissatisfied online. Are people not allowed to complain, even if it’s in a less-than-tactful or wrong-headed manner? If I go online and complain about my local diner’s pork chops tasting like garbage, and their business goes under because my rant went viral, should I be liable?
Pretty standard fare for a defamation lawsuit.
The problem in a defamation lawsuit isn't "less-than-tactful" it's "less-than-FACTUAL". You lie about someone, in public, and do them measurable and articulable harm ... expect to be sued ... and expect a substantial judgment against you.
Of course, since this is the Washington Post I assume none of this actually happened and the people named don't even exist ...
Your pork chop scenario is not comparable.
This couple lied in order to paint the business as withholding their pictures for a “surprise” ransom. When the photographer proved they knew about the fee, as well as the business having tried to work with them, they were help liable.
For the pork chop to be the same, you would have had to eaten a salad at the diner, then gone online complaining about the taste of the chops.
I guess you missed where she had a TV news segment that was fraudulent.
This wasn’t a bad review on Yelp. It was a whole campaign. And it wasn’t truthful.
Good luck on the photographer ever collecting a dime.
Yeah, this was about more than just “feels”. These idiots set out to DESTROY this persons business....I hope they lose the appeal, too.
“should I be liable?”
According to this court, and many others - yes. Yes you should.
Reviewers across the nation have been sued for damages. Rightly or wrongly.
Just took a look at the comment section at the Post article and wish I hadn’t.
The comments quickly devolved into snarky remarks about Trump voters and evil “Christian fundies”. What that has to do with a couple of entitled millennials I’ll never know.
I think there is a significant difference between writing a simple review and waging a campaign. This was also on TV, not just on some web site.
Bridezilla and her groom.
I read a related article that said they paid like $6000 for the photographs. First thing when through my head, you shucked out 6 Gs and throwing a hissy-fit over $125. Second, and maybe I’m just off here, but are people really spending $6k for wedding photos?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.