Digital Disputes: Minimizing Legal Vulnerability in the Information Age

Abstract

Background

This project aims to provide guidance for surgeons’ online interactions by reviewing key legal decisions.

Methods

The Nexis Uni database was queried to search for state and federal case law and law journal articles. Search terms were “social media” AND (facial w/s plastic!) and internet AND advice AND “plastic surgery.”

Results

The first query returned two cases and a law review article. The second returned 39 cases. The 17 most relevant results were included.

Conclusions

On surgeons’ websites, increased interactivity or opportunities for the sale of products or services make out-of-state courts more likely to have personal jurisdiction over them. There are also many cases involving plastic surgeons filing defamation complaints against patients who reviewed them negatively online. Success in these cases has been limited. Surgeons are instead vulnerable to the “Streisand Effect,” where legal action can bring attention to patient complaints. Unique cross-complaints may require the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s legal fees if no defamation is proven. Surgeons who appear on “Top Doctor” lists, publish articles, or otherwise display their expertise may unknowingly make themselves “limited purpose public figures.” This adds the burden of proving false patient claims were made “with actual malice” rather than through negligence.

Level of Evidence IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.