Dog owner sued over viral TikTok videos denies vet's claim she defamed clinic

A dog owner being sued by an animal hospital in Surrey, B.C., over a series of critical TikTok videos has filed a defence in court, arguing her posts aren't defamatory because her story about the way her dog was treatedis true.

Victoria Veira, 36, said her viral videos aboutSurrey Animal Hospitalaccurately explained how the clinic treated her dogthisspring.

Shesaid the clinic is the oneattackingher reputation, not the other way around.

"At no time did Ms. Veira make any false, malicious, or defamatory statements about [Surrey Animal Hospital]," read the response to civil claim filed inB.C. Supreme Court.

"By filing [the lawsuit] ... Surrey Animal Hospital and its counsel, with an improper motive, intentionally and strategically planned to damage the reputation of Ms. Veira in the eyes of the public by making false claims against her and without giving Ms. Veira any opportunity to provide her version of facts to the public."

Veira posteda series ofvideos on TikTok this spring claiming Surrey Animal Hospital mistreated Charlie, her Akita mix, after she took him to be neutered in March. She said he developed an infection that was only cured when she took him to a different vet in the city.

Her videos showed the clinic's one-starreviews on Google, its history of professional disciplineanda three-part series explaining the treatment she said her dog received. The most viewed video showed part of an argument between Veira and a staff member.

Togetherthe clips, which are still available to view online, have been watched more than 900,000 times.

The clinic filed its lawsuit claiming defamation inAugust.

It said Charlie's post-surgery infection was Veira's fault because she didn't use a stiffdoughnut cone to prevent Charlie from licking the wound.Veiraadmitted Charlie had been able to reach the incision around an inflatable collar but said she quickly switched it for a solid cone.

'Slaughterhouse' comment

The clinic's lawyers said Veira postedher TikToks with "reckless indifference" to the facts solely in order to ruin the vet'sreputation, and took issue with one video in particular.

"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 the video.

In her response, Veira said the remark was taken out of context and that she corrected herself seconds later. She also said she's since heard from several other people, including a former clinic employee, who had negative experiences at the clinic.

"Ms. Veira's only intention in posting the TikTok videos was to lawfully and truthfully share her personal experience dealing with [Surrey Animal Hospital] and her subsequent research into [the clinic]'s long history of negative reviews by individuals with similar poor experiences," her response read.

Veira said her comments are also protected by the "fair comment" defence: under freedom of expression, customers can post reviews of a business on sites like TikTok so long as theirstory is true and their commentsbasedon facts.

She said the entire claim should be thrown out.

TikTok's viral potential

Experts described the clinic's claim as another in a growing trend ofdefamation lawsuits involving statements made on social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook and Twitter.

TikTok claims are rarer,but expertssaidanegative review on the platformcould be more likely to provoke a lawsuitbecause 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.

Whether Veira is responsible for her story spreading likewildfire has come up in thelegal battle.

The vet said Veira knewTikTok has an immense reach and leveraged the platform with multiple posts to "maximize" damage to the clinic's reputation.

Veira responded by saying she usesTikTok regularly and has "no control" over which videos might be more popular than others.

If the civil case is not settled out of court, it will continue to trial.