The legal actions brought by Signature Clinic against former patients and a patient advocate was awarded the Farcical Threat of the Year at the European SLAPP Contest. The annual contest, organised by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), seeks to raise public awareness of the threats of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) to European democracy, highlight SLAPP tactics and demonstrate how we must work to stamp out such abusive legal threats aimed at protected speech.
Signature Clinic, a UK cosmetic surgery firm, has aggressively pursued legal threats and lawsuits against former patients who have publicly complained about surgical results they felt were unsatisfactory and, in some cases, painful through posts to online review platforms and Facebook groups, as well as a patient advocate who supports those seeking treatment. Using defamation and anti-harassment laws, as well as injunctions, the company sought to silence criticism and force patients to remove negative reviews. TrustPilot added a banner to the Signature Clinic page on its platform for a period of time stating, “we’ve found out that this company has been pressuring people to remove or edit their negative reviews”.
The firm’s lawyer, Jaroslaw Stachiw, issued aggressive legal threats, including warnings of imprisonment, as well as allegations of patients being part of a hate campaign against the clinic, with one defendant being informed that the police were aware of her social media threats. One of the targets offered to stop posting about her experiences, only for Stachiw to refuse her offer, telling her the fear of imprisonment for breach of an injunction was the only way to stop her “itchy fingers”. A harassment injunction case was dismissed as “totally without merit” in 2024, with most other cases settled – one remains ongoing.
While much public attention has been directed towards the use of SLAPPs against journalists reporting on powerful individuals or organisations such as Russian oligarchs, they can be used against anyone speaking out in the public interest. This includes those publishing reviews to ensure others are able to make an informed decision about important decisions such as undertaking cosmetic surgery. When this relates to medical treatment, the importance of being able to share information is clearly in the public interest. While we appreciate that negative reviews can have an impact on a business, we condemn any attempt to use legal actions and the British courts to shut down criticism made in good faith.
The UK Government has resisted calls to bring forward a universal anti-SLAPP law that could have protected the targets in this case, were it in place. Without such a law, anyone posting reviews, sharing their experiences or speaking out to warn others will be vulnerable to the costs, emotional turmoil and uncertainty of a court hearing.
The co-chairs of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition said:
“The Coalition stands in solidarity with the courageous defendants, who were forced to defend their right to speak out to support others. It is important that cases like these are known to the public. SLAPPs can be used to shut down all public interest speech. No one is immune. The targets of these legal threats brought by Signature Clinic were trying to help others make an important decision and should never have been threatened as a result. Without a universal anti-SLAPP law, others will be vulnerable to such threats aimed at stifling criticism and the right to free speech.”
Kate Kronenbach, former patient and one of the SLAPP targets, said:
“I’m so pleased to be out of the cross hairs of the legal threat. As an unpaid carer my finances are limited. My time is limited. My capacity for unnecessary stress is limited. To be taken to court for leaving a review on a public forum as part of what I consider to be a SLAPP lawsuit brought me to my knees. I felt unable to cope, yet the threats continued and worsened. Threats of police involvement and of me being liable for thousands of pounds of Signature’s legal costs, which would be enforced by bankruptcy. I thought I could have ended up losing my home. The home I share with my adult children, one of which has autism and one has additional needs. The house where my children grew up and feel safe and supported. No professional establishment should be allowed to use SLAPP tactics. They do not take into account the consequences of their legal threats on the individuals. In a society where we’re taught to be kind and understanding, there is no place for SLAPPs.”
Karen Perrett, a patient advocate and one of the SLAPP targets, said:
“I am eternally grateful for alliances such as CASE and Index on Censorship for shining a light on these horrific legal cases where the terrorised defendant becomes the victim. Whilst I am not yet in the clear as far as legal proceedings are concerned, I am confident that justice will prevail. I am now in my 3rd year of litigation and I hope that my experience and that of the other victims will help to bring about the changes we need in parliament. This is vital to prevent other innocent people from having to endure the ordeal that we have suffered at the hands of Signature Clinic, Mr Gotti and their legal team.”
Mohammed Samara, former patient and one of the SLAPP targets, said:
“After leaving an honest review, it never dawned on me that I would have to fight a high court challenge to pressure me into withdrawing my review. I suffered serious health implications after the surgery and felt it was my duty to inform people of my experience. These litigation tactics are unethical; they psychologically and financially exhaust you into submission as these proceedings are complicated, time consuming and expensive. If it can happen to an ordinary member of the public it can happen to anyone. I am immensely grateful for the role that free speech advocates play, in particular, Index on Censorship and the Free Speech Union, and never appreciated this more than after my experience with people who think they can suppress our Article 10 rights.”
Megan Grew, associate at RPC, said:
“These cases highlight that it’s not just professional journalists and media organisations who can be subject to unmerited and abusive litigation which aims to stifle freedom of expression on matters of public interest. The Signature Clinic patients faced legal threats after sharing their genuine experiences of a service online, as many of us do to help inform other consumers. I am pleased to have been part of the team at RPC that has helped bring closure to these claims and defended the patients’ legitimate free speech. However more must be done to tackle the issue of SLAPPs. We urgently need meaningful legislative reform to enable defendants to quickly and cost-effectively dispose of SLAPP claims at an early stage and to strongly discourage the making of such threats in the first place.”