Wisconsin landlord sues tenants over Google review

Listen to this article

When Eric Magnuson posted a one-star Google review of his Whitefish Bay landlord last year, he complained about excessive fees and called the management company slumlords.

After his landlord threatened legal action, Magnuson removed the review.

Two months later, Magnuson and his wife were served with a defamation lawsuit anyway.

Their landlord, David Karademas, is a licensed attorney and owner of Karademas Management, a company with multiple properties in Wisonsin and Illinois. Karademas said the reviews contained false statements that could damage his company’s reputation.

Magnuson and his wife, Elizabeth Sargent, said the experience has shown them how little stands between an ordinary renter and a lawsuit that could drain their savings.

“I just never even thought that it was a thing people did,” Magnuson said.

The bar to meet a defamation claim is generally fairly high, according to First Amendment experts. However, these kinds of cases can be long and costly. That’s why Magnuson and Sargent say their case is an example of why Wisconsin should pass anti-SLAPP protections – laws that allow courts to quickly dismiss lawsuits meant to intimidate or silence critics.

“You shouldn’t be able to sue someone to give up their free speech rights,” Sargent said.

The case is still in its early stages. The couple filed a motion to dismiss the suit, but a judge has not yet ruled on it.

According to court records, Karademas is seeking monetary and punitive damages from his former tenants, noting that the loss of even one prospective renter would cost him roughly $25,000 a year. He is also seeking a court order barring the couple from republishing their statements.

“As the proprietor of a family-owned business, that reputation is all that stands between me and oblivion,” Karademas told Public Investigator.

Magnuson and Sargent moved to Bay Village Townhomes in Whitefish Bay in August 2023.

For most of their first year, the couple said, renting there felt normal enough. But over time, they began receiving emails about fees that they felt weren’t adequately disclosed in their original lease. Among them: a $500 fine if their pet urinated on a plant other than lawn grass and a $100 fine if they failed to break down their boxes in the dumpster.

Then, in November 2025, Karademas sent out an email announcing a new 9 a.m. deadline for tenants to move their vehicles on days with more than two inches of snow, court records show.

Magnuson posted his first review days later in December under a pseudonym, writing: “They just tried to fine us $100 for not moving a car after snowfall even though the car was moved by 9AM and IT WAS STILL SNOWING.”

“Do NOT rent from these people,” Magnuson added. “They are sleazy, greedy and truly awful people.”

Karademas responded publicly to the review, identifying Magnuson and his wife by name.

“Your complaint seems to revolve around the fact that Bay Village has rules and that the rules are enforced,” Karademas wrote. “I stand guilty as charged.”

That prompted Magnuson to write a second review, acknowledging that he and several other residents were 45 minutes late moving their cars and accusing Karademas of “retaliatory doxing” for publicly naming them.

“These fines are absolutely illegal – or shady at the very least,” Magnuson wrote.

Over email, Karademas demanded Magnuson remove both reviews and sign a non-disparagement agreement – a contract that would have prevented them from posting similar criticism in the future. Karademas also warned that he was prepared to take Magnuson and Sargent to court.

Within days, Magnuson said, he took the reviews down. But the couple refused to sign the agreement.

“If someone asks me about my experience living there, I’m going to be honest and say that this man threatened to sue me and my husband after my husband left a negative Google review,” Sargent said.

The couple said they assumed the issue was over, until Karademas filed the defamation lawsuit against them in January.

One of the central claims in Karademas’ lawsuit is that Magnuson falsely stated he moved his car by 9 a.m. in his first review. Karademas also alleges that the couple posted the reviews as an excuse to get out of their lease early because they were in the process of buying a home, a tactic he describes as extortion.

“Both falsehoods and extortion can nullify the First Amendment protections that generally shield negative feedback,” Karademas told Public Investigator.

First Amendment experts say proving defamation requires far more than showing someone said something negative, or even inaccurate.

“For every legitimate defamation suit that I see, I see 20 or 30 that seem bogus,” said Alex Morey, a First Amendment specialist at the Freedom Forum and a Wisconsin-licensed attorney.

To win a defamation claim, Morey said, the plaintiff has to prove the speaker said something false that caused real harm, like evidence that the statement cost them business.

“Is there a voicemail that says, ‘I saw this review online and now I don’t want to work with you?’ Something trackable?” Morey said.

Eugene Volokh, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles who specializes in First Amendment law, said the law also differentiates between opinion and fact.

For example, calling one’s landlord a “slumlord” is probably too general to be considered a factual claim, Volokh said – but the context matters. Hypothetically, if someone presented themselves as a real estate professional and claimed expertise to back up the accusation, the same word could carry more legal weight.

“It just depends on the circumstances,” Volokh said.

Wisconsin is one of 11 states without anti-SLAPP law

Even if the case is dismissed, Magnuson and Sargent could face years of expensive litigation to get there.

Wisconsin is just one of 11 states without a law that protects people from so-called SLAPP lawsuits, short for “strategic lawsuits against public participation.”

Advocates say these lawsuits are generally designed not to win but to intimidate speakers into silence. Anti-SLAPP laws allow courts to quickly dismiss such lawsuits.

But whether these laws would apply to this case isn’t straightforward, Volokh said. Most anti-SLAPP statutes cover speech related to issues that affect a community – such as an environmental group protesting the development of a piece of land – not just specific individuals.

Courts are divided on whether a consumer review qualifies. Some courts have ruled that they qualify because the public has a stake in knowing how a business treats its customers. Others have decided that a dispute between one tenant and one landlord is a private matter.

Morey, the Freedom Forum expert, said that’s precisely the problem with weak anti-SLAPP protections.

“If you know there’s even a chance your landlord might sue you, a lot of tenants are not going to post reviews even if they feel they’re broadly accurate,” Morey said.

A bill proposing Wisconsin’s first anti-SLAPP law passed the state Assembly in February with bipartisan support, but the Senate adjourned without taking it up.

Karademas said anti-SLAPP laws wouldn’t change how he operates.

“Anti-SLAPP laws would not legitimize falsehood or extortionary purposes,” he told Public Investigator.

Karademas, who is representing his company in the case, has also hired three additional attorneys, according to court records.

Magnuson and Sargent are represented by one attorney and said they almost didn’t have the option to fight the suit at all. A year earlier, Sargent said, they couldn’t have afforded a lawyer. Now, they are spending money they have been saving since their wedding last year.

A judge has yet to rule on the couple’s motion to dismiss. Discovery – the process by which both sides exchange evidence – has not yet begun, which means legal costs are only expected to grow. The process could take years.

Sargent said all she wants is to move on.

“I just want to be left alone,” she said. “Without taking away my rights.”