Glassdoor not so anonymous (webworm.co)

Article summary

A US judge has ruled in favor of Zuru, a New Zealand toy company, to release the contact details of former employees who posted anonymous reviews on Glassdoor. The company intends to sue the reviewers in New Zealand for defamation. Glassdoor had argued that the reviews were opinions and did not contain defamatory statements, but the judge ruled that the company had shown it had suffered a loss due to the reviews. The decision has raised concerns about the anonymity of reviewers on Glassdoor.

Main themes

• anonymous reviews
• defamation laws
• free speech
• NDAs
• company reputation
• employee rights
• libel laws

What commenters say

• Companies should not be able to sue employees for speaking negatively about their experiences.
• The court's decision undermines the anonymity of Glassdoor reviewers and may have a chilling effect on free speech.
• NDAs can be used to silence employees and prevent them from speaking out about poor working conditions.
• Glassdoor's warning to users about Zuru's legal action is a more effective deterrent than any negative review could be.
• The decision highlights the differences in libel laws between countries and the potential risks of speaking out against a company.
• Companies that sue employees for negative reviews may ultimately harm their own reputation and recruitment efforts.
• NDAs should not be used to prevent employees from reporting corrupt or illegal conduct.
• The court's decision may have implications for the use of anonymous review platforms and the protection of user anonymity.