Animal hospital sues former client over viral TikTok videos claiming clinic mistreated her dog

An animal hospital in Surrey, B.C., is suing a former client over a series of critical TikTok videos she posted about her dog's treatment, with the vet claiming the woman's "reprehensible" viral posts are damaging the business's reputation.

Victoria Veira,36, posteda series ofvideos this springclaiming Surrey Animal Hospital mistreated her dog, Charlie, after she had him neutered in March. The clipshave together racked up around 900,000 views.

But in its lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court,the clinicsaid Charlie's post-surgery infection was Veira'sresponsibility andit accused her of posting the videos knowing her story wasn't true, deliberately dragging its reputationthrough the mud.

Veira has not filed a response to the claim in court.

Experts say the caseadds to agrowing trend of defamation lawsuits involving statements made on social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook and Twitter.

But TikTok, they say, is a new arena that will potentially see judges weighing a number of thorny issues,including appropriate limits on freedom of speech and theplatform's ability tospreadstoriesmuch fartherthan the original poster might have anticipated.

Videodraws over 800,000 views

One of Veira's first TikToks about the clinic, posted on April 2, showedpart of a heated argument between herand a staff member at Surrey Animal Hospital.

Veira stands in the clinic's waiting room, filming an employee wearing navy blue scrubs.Thetwo women shout at each other briefly before Veira turns to leave, tellinganother man to take his dog to another vet as she goes.

To date, thatvideo alone has more than 800,000 views.

Over the next several months, Veira posted several more TikToks highlighting the clinic's one-starreviews on Google, its record of disciplinary action and a three-part series explaining the treatment she said her dog received.

Shesaid Charlie, an Akita mix, developed an obvious infection after theneutering procedure.

Veira saidshe took her dogfor multiple follow-ups and got a second opinion from another vet in Langley, but the infection persisted. The argument from the first TikTok happened on a final follow-up.

"I brought my dog to a slaughterhouse. OK, I shouldn't say that, that's mean, I'll take that back, but I took him to a bad vet, that's for sure," Veira said in one TikTok.

In its lawsuit, the clinicsaidCharlie's infection started because Veira didn't use a stiffdonut cone to prevent Charlie from licking the wound. In one of her videos, Veiraadmitted Charlie had been able to reach the incision around an inflatable collar but said she quickly switched it for a solid cone.

The clinic claimed Veira was "irate" and "threw items" at the receptionist during their confrontation, whileVeira denied any assaultand said it was the receptionist who yelled at her.

Most of the content can still be viewed online even though the clinic sent Veira a cease-and-desist letter around two months after she posted her first video, according to the lawsuit.

The clinic's lawyers said Veira posted the videos on TikTok with "reckless indifference" to the facts. They said Veira understood TikTok has an immense reach and leveraged the platform with multiple posts to "maximize" damage to the clinic's reputation.

"The defendant is guilty of reprehensible, high-handed, spiteful, malicious and oppressive conduct," the lawsuit read.

"Such conduct justifies the court in imposing a substantial penalty."

The lawsuit askedthecourt tobanVeira from posting new videos about the clinic and orderher to permanently delete the old ones.

Is TikTokparticularly prone to defamation?

Defamation lawsuits involving social media posts have become fairly typical in recent years as people become more accustomed to sharing their displeasureon the internet.

Last month, an unhappy customer who left negative reviews on Yelp was ordered to pay a wood products company on Vancouver Island$90,000 in damages.

TikTokclaims arerarer, but law experts say anegative review there could be more likely to provoke a lawsuit than on other platformsbecause of its intuitive algorithm and potentially extremely viral nature: one postcan spread to millions of people overnight, especially if the video is picked up by theprogrammed"For You" page.

"It's not hard to imagine in a viral scenario, where something spreads like wildfire on one of these platforms, that the business has actually been damaged ...because the reputation so quickly has been tarnished,"said Justin Safayeni, a partner at the Stockwood's LLP litigation boutique in Toronto.

On TikTokwhich has become one of the most popular websites in the world, with more than two billion downloadsexamples pop up daily of people trying to take down celebrities, brands and institutions.

Issuesrangein seriousness from frustrated job applicants holding major companies accountable for discriminatory hiring practices to teary-eyed high school students calling out their nail salon for a disappointingmanicure hours before prom.

"Everyone's a publisher now and the result of that is that we'reseeing more and more people defamed with a much wider reach on platforms likeTikTok," said Daniel Reid,co-chair of the defamation and privacy group at the Harper Grey law firm.

Under freedom of expression, customers can post reviews of a business on sites like TikTok, but there are limits: Their story must be true and their comments must be basedon facts.

Defamation becomes an issue if the comments are false, or unreasonable based on what really happened.

"The standard for something to be defamatory is actually pretty low," said Safayeni, who is not connected to the B.C. case.

"There's nothing about a platform like TikTok or any other social media platform that kind of insulates you from the law of defamation ... I think people would be well advised to be careful when choosing their words."

With TikTok,there are additional factors. The platform'syounger demographicmight notfully understanddefamation law orthe potential for steepfinancial consequences, Safayeni said, while the viral component could also cost defendants more.

Ajudge weighing damages would "definitely" consider how far a defamatory message has been circulated, Safayeni noted.

"Whether it's TikTok or any other social media platform the users of those platforms sometimes don't foresee the consequences of what they're posting," the lawyer said.