The issue of online harassment is no longer limited to viral social media posts; it’s now spilling into the courtroom, with the public picking up the tab.
The Case of John Robertson
In February of the previous year, the Employment Tribunal in Glasgow was largely quiet, save for one person — John Robertson, attending his case via video call. Robertson, who has branded himself as a whistle-blower and crisis management expert, found himself alone, attempting to salvage a case that his own actions had already sabotaged. The judge swiftly dismissed the claim, noting that Robertson had signed away his right to pursue any legal action years ago. This case, one that Robertson had pursued with vigor, ended as quickly as it had started.
Robertson, who presents himself as an expert in strategic thinking, failed to meet a simple deadline. Despite his reputation as a threat analyst, his biggest challenge appeared to be his own paperwork. For taxpayers, the costs associated with this legal battle were real: the time of court staff, security, and the judge all came at a cost. And this was just one of many lawsuits filed by Robertson, which, though often without merit, result in reputational damage for businesses and individuals alike.
The Digital Troll’s Legal Tactic
John Robertson is not the only individual using the legal system to escalate online grievances. There is a growing trend where digital provocateurs take their disputes from social media to the courts, effectively using legal actions to amplify their online presence and inflict damage. Though these lawsuits are often baseless, the financial impact — in terms of legal fees, lost opportunities, and damage to reputation — can be substantial.
Robertson’s case serves as a clear example. Banned from LinkedIn for harassment and from X (formerly Twitter) for violating terms of service, Robertson has resorted to legal threats to target individuals and companies, accusing them of severe offenses like cover-ups and fraud, all without providing substantial evidence. His tactic is to make extreme claims, offer little proof, and when challenged, dismiss critics as part of a larger conspiracy.
The shift from online accusations to formal court cases is a concerning trend. As one QC put it, Robertson’s actions are those of “a forum lurking conspiracy theorist with delusions of grandeur,” but the harm caused is undeniable.
High-Profile Cases and the Cost of Litigation
The story of Robertson fits within a broader pattern. Craig Wright, a figure from the cryptocurrency world, famously claimed to be the mysterious creator of Bitcoin. When his assertion was questioned, he responded by suing multiple parties, resulting in years of litigation and enormous legal bills. Despite the fact that his claim was debunked, Wright’s legal battles continue, costing developers and others involved in the case significant amounts of time and money.
Another example is Tommy Robinson, who used inflammatory accusations to fundraise and draw attention to his cause. Robinson’s case, which involved false claims about a Syrian refugee, ended in a substantial libel judgment, with damages and legal costs adding up to significant sums.
These cases illustrate how some individuals are using the legal system to further personal agendas or reputations, often at the expense of others. In the process, they leave behind a trail of damage — not just to the people involved, but to the integrity of the legal system itself.
The Courts and the Challenges of Combatting Trolls
Several factors make it difficult for courts to address these types of cases effectively. Filing fees are low, but defending against a frivolous suit can be costly, often running into the hundreds of thousands of pounds before a trial even begins. Even when a case is dismissed, the financial and reputational damage can already be done.
Moreover, the internet has created an environment where outrage spreads quickly, often leaving little room for the legal system to catch up. Online platforms may amplify defamatory content, and defendants in these cases may struggle to protect their reputations as lawsuits drag on.
The Personal and Financial Toll
The human cost of these legal battles is significant. For some, the reputational damage from a baseless lawsuit can be just as harmful as a conviction. Victims of defamation face a long road to clearing their names, often with little recourse. Many individuals, especially those without the resources to fight back, find themselves trapped in a system where accusations are treated as facts, and only expensive litigation can provide a sense of closure.
Conclusion
John Robertson’s case is over, but the damage lingers. The cost of his lawsuit is far from limited to the courtroom — it extends to the public who must foot the bill. The growing trend of individuals using the courts as a tool for online harassment is a disturbing one, and it raises important questions about the future of legal processes in an age of digital provocation.
The real challenge may not be in how to stop these lawsuits, but in how to prevent the financial and social costs from spiraling out of control.