Reader TTS

A Tampa restaurant unsuccessfully sued a diner who left a negative review online that ripped the eatery over its “subpar” meat quality, “dry” spare ribs and lukewarm coffee.

Irene Eng, a blogger and frequent poster on Yelp, Google and TripAdvisor, was hit with a defamation lawsuit seeking at least $50,000 last fall after she left a one-star review of her dining

experience at Hales Blackbrick in December 2023.

The restaurant, described in the filing as an “innovative, inspired, seasonal Chinese restaurant” operated by award-winning chef Richard Hales, alleges that Eng’s review contained false

statements about her dining experience and even included a photo of his wife, Jenny Hales, who is not a public figure, according to the lawsuit filed in Florida state court.

Eng’s Dec. 11, 2023, review of Hales Blackbrick wasn’t a full-on takedown, but it wasn’t glowing either, according to the Tampa Bay Times.

She praised the food as “well presented” but found it “a bit too sweet,” and critiqued one server’s wine etiquette as “odd.”

The eggplant and mushrooms were “wonderful,” and the tiger shrimp were “tasty and succulent.”

But the spare ribs were “so so,” and the Hawaiian prime ribs, she wrote, were “the worst: way too much fat.”

While she didn’t try the Yangzhou fried rice herself, Eng noted her friends thought it was “greasy.”

She was especially critical of the coffee, calling it lukewarm — “a Cardinal sin!!”

In a comparison to other establishments, she wrote: “The better Cantonese restaurants serve their spare ribs tender and moist. Theirs is neither: looking unappetizing, dry and could use more

cooking time.”

Eng, who is of Chinese descent, also made observations beyond the food.

She included a photo of Chef Richard Hales’ “impressive mobile home parked in the lot” and questioned the restaurant’s description of a dish with Sichuan origins.

Eng is a “Yelp Elite” reviewer — a designation awarded to users recognized for their consistent, high-quality contributions and active engagement within the Yelp community.

She has authored over 660 reviews spanning various establishments, including restaurants, beaches, libraries and urgent care facilities.

After asking Eng to remove the photo of Hales’ wife, the restaurant said she instead doubled down — reposting the negative review again in January 2024, and once more in October, without

returning to the restaurant.

Hales swiftly reacted, publicly calling Eng’s review “abusive,” “arrogant” and “disrespectful.” He then issued a cease-and-desist letter demanding she remove the review, alleging defamation.

The reposted review on Yelp triggered a consumer warning label on the platform reading, “Consumer Alert: Questionable Legal Threats,” which appears when Yelp receives evidence of potential

legal disputes related to a review.

The lawsuit alleged that this tag has further harmed the restaurant’s ability to attract new customers.

According to the complaint, the review and its republication hurt Hales Blackbrick in several ways: driving down its average rating, discouraging potential diners and damaging its search

engine optimization (SEO) rankings, which in turn made the review more prominent in Google results.

The lawsuit alleges that these factors have caused the loss of “significant revenue, goodwill, confidence, trust, and standing,” and that its ability to maintain business relationships has

been put at risk.

In February, Hillsborough Circuit Judge Christine A. Marlewski dismissed the case, ruling Hales failed to substantiate his claims.

Marlewski determined Eng’s reviews were directed toward the public and not intentionally targeting specific business relationships.

Eng celebrated the dismissal on her personal blog, labeling the lawsuit “frivolous” and expressing determination to defend free speech.

Meanwhile, Hales, who subsequently closed the Dale Mabry location to focus on a new Hyde Park venture, conceded that Eng had the right to her opinion.

“I’m 1,000% for freedom of speech — you can say whatever you want,” Hales told the Tampa Bay Times.

He acknowledged the challenges chefs face in navigating criticism without appearing overly sensitive.

“Yelp firmly opposes the use of coercion or questionable legal tactics to pressure consumers to change or remove reviews,” a spokesperson for Yelp told The Post.

“Reviewers have a First Amendment right to honestly describe their experiences with local businesses, and deserve to know when a business tries to deny them that right.”

The company rep added that “while it’s rare for businesses to actually sue customers, when we receive evidence that a business may be misusing the legal system to intimidate or silence

reviewers, we carefully examine it, and if we determine it is credible, we may display a Questionable Legal Threats Alert on the business page as part of our Consumer Alerts program.”

“This typically occurs when a business makes threats to file a baseless lawsuit over a critical review or attempts to use contracts to prevent customers from posting online about their

consumer experiences.”

The Post has sought comment from Hales, Eng, TripAdvisor and Google.

Leaving negative reviews against small businesses have led to legal disputes in the past.

In June 2021, a Washington State-based company, Executive Roof Services, unsuccessfully sued a couple for $112,000 over 1-star Google reviews, alleging defamation and interference with

business expectancy.

That same year, a luxury auto dealership in Texas filed a defamation lawsuit against a woman who criticized the dealership on Yelp, but the case was dismissed.

In 2020, a Florida-based property management firm filed a $1 million defamation lawsuit against a man over a critical online review, though no significant judgment was publicly reported.

In 2016, a dental practice based in Georgia sued a patient for defamation after she left negative reviews on Yelp and Google regarding billing practices. The case was eventually dropped.

In 2013, a Utah couple filed suit against KlearGear.com after the retailer fined them $3,500 for a negative review — leading to a default judgment awarding them $306,750 in damages.