The Duchouquettes hired Prestigious Pets in October 2015 to watch their two dogs and betta fish, Gordy, while they were on vacation, according to court documents. After the initial lawsuit made national headlines, the petsitter dropped that complaint and re-filed their case in a state district court, expanding on the allegations to include defamation and upping the damage request to as much as $1 million. The trial court dismissed both the libel claim and the non-disparagement clause claim with prejudice, and held that the Duchouquettes would be awarded their reasonable attorney fees as well as sanctions to deter future such lawsuits. Thank goodness they did not lose sight of the real issue: the threats posed by non-disparagement clauses to our right to free speech.” 
 
 In response to the petsitter story and other dubious lawsuits filed against Yelp users, the reviews site recently began publicly flagging certain companies that were believed to be making “questionable legal threats” over online reviews.
– A petsitting company's attempt to sue for $1 million over a one-star Yelp review got zero stars from a Dallas County district court, which firmly rejected the lawsuit. The court also decided that Michelle and Robert Duchouquette, the couple being sued by Prestigious Pets, "would be awarded their reasonable attorney fees as well as sanctions to deter future such lawsuits," according to Public Citizen. The Duchouquettes posted the bad review after hiring the company to look after their two dogs and betta fish during a trip to Texas, and returning to find that the betta fish had apparently been overfed. The company initially sued for nearly $7,000, but later filed a suit for the higher amount, claiming the couple had violated a non-disparagement clause in their agreement. The Duchouquettes filed an anti-SLAPP—Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation—motion, which allowed the court to strike down what it viewed as a frivolous lawsuit aimed at quashing the couple's right to free speech, the Dallas Morning News reports. "We are so grateful for the attorneys who have supported us through the case," the couple said in a statement, per Consumerist. "It took lots of hours and many smart minds spending too much time talking about Gordy the betta fish. Thank goodness they did not lose sight of the real issue: the threats posed by non-disparagement clauses to our right to free speech." (This woman was sued after posting a bad review about a law firm.)