Tenerife Clinic Cleared of Unfair Competition Claims in Social Media Smear Case, Appeal Expected
A Tenerife court has cleared two dermatology clinics and their associates of unfair competition charges related to a social media smear campaign, but the plaintiff plans to appeal the ruling.
A legal dispute over alleged unfair competition between two dermatology and aesthetics clinics in Tenerife has ended with the doctor accused of orchestrating a social media campaign to damage a rival being cleared of all charges. However, the case is not over, as the ruling is expected to be appealed.
The Commercial Court Number One of Santa Cruz de Tenerife threw out the lawsuit brought by Francisco Suárez, an aesthetic nurse and owner of FS Clinic. The suit targeted Dermaten Clínicas, its administrator Marina Rodríguez Martín, digital marketing specialist Valentín Sinovas Sánchez, and the agency Visible Comunicación Estratégica.
Judge Néstor Padilla Díaz found that there was no proof that the online reviews were written by the defendants or that they were false. As a result, all defendants were acquitted, and the person who filed the lawsuit was ordered to cover the legal costs.
The disagreement began in March 2023 when Dermafos, the company behind FS Clinic, noticed several Google reviews that it claimed harmed its professional reputation. These reviews suggested that the clinic lacked medical oversight and that a nurse was performing aesthetic treatments without a doctor's supervision.
Dermafos alleged that these comments were part of a deliberate smear campaign by Dermaten and its partners, leading to a loss of patients and income. The clinic sought over 427,000 euros for damages, lost profits, and reputational harm, along with a public retraction and the removal of the reviews.
During the trial in July, the discussion broadened beyond the reviews to a core professional question: can nurses perform aesthetic medicine procedures?
Lawyers for Francisco Suárez argued that his practices were legal and that nurses are permitted to carry out certain treatments under doctor's guidance. They referenced regulations on the use of medicines and health products, stating that substances like hyaluronic acid are health products, not medicines, and can therefore be administered by qualified nurses.
In contrast, Dermaten's defense argued that nurses cannot perform procedures specific to aesthetic medicine, citing Supreme Court rulings that restrict facial and body injections to medical professionals.
According to Dermaten, the reviews were not false or defamatory but reflected a genuine legal and professional situation. The defense lawyers stated that the published opinions were protected by freedom of expression and echoed existing legal interpretations.
The judge acknowledged that the reviews were posted publicly and could impact business. However, he ruled that there was insufficient proof of who wrote them or the defendants' involvement, meaning they could not be classified as unfair competition.
The court found no evidence of a planned campaign to discredit the clinic, noting the plaintiff's lack of specific details and direct evidence. The ruling stated, "It is not known who drafted them or under whose instruction," and ordered Dermafos to pay the legal costs.
The court also pointed out that while reviews can influence customers, their mere existence doesn't prove unfair behavior, especially if the claims might be true or have regulatory backing.
Felipe Campos, one of Francisco Suárez's lawyers, announced plans to appeal the decision. He believes the court has accepted a "hoax" promoted by medical professionals to establish a particular viewpoint. Campos clarified that while the Supreme Court's Social Chamber addressed nurses' roles in aesthetic care in May 2021, a subsequent ruling in 2022 annulled a previous resolution concerning nursing council guidelines, deeming it unlawful.
Campos explained that subsequent Supreme Court decisions have invalidated proceedings related to the nursing council's resolutions. He asserted that the high court has not made any definitive pronouncements on the competencies of healthcare professionals in aesthetic care, as the matter was deemed procedurally inadmissible after the annulment of the 2017 nursing council resolution.