“Are We Dating the Same Guy?” Facebook Groups and the Tea app: Legal Risks You Should Know
In recent years, online communities like the “Are We Dating the Same Guy?” Facebook groups and the new Tea app have exploded in popularity. Both spaces allow women to share experiences, “warn” others about men they’ve dated, and crowdsource information about potential partners. While these forums are framed as empowering tools to protect against toxic or unsafe dating experiences, they also raise serious legal and reputational risks. If you’re unsure where you stand, speaking with a defamation lawyer in Calgary or an online harassment lawyer in Calgary can help you understand the next steps.
As a criminal defence firm, we believe it is important to understand how these platforms work, the risks they carry, and the legal principles that may apply. When problems escalate, speaking with a defamation lawyer in Calgary can clarify next steps.
What Are These Platforms?
“Are We Dating the Same Guy?” (AWDTSG) groups exist on Facebook across North America. They are private groups where members post photos of men they are dating or considering dating, asking if anyone else has experience with them. Posts often include stories about alleged infidelity, dishonesty, or abuse. The Tea App takes this concept further, branding itself as a “dating review” platform. Women can anonymously review men’s dating lives, much like posting reviews on Yelp or Google for businesses. Concerns raised here can quickly become matters of online defamation in Canada, depending on what is published.
Potential Benefits
From a user’s perspective, these groups and apps may feel like protective tools. Women often cite safety concerns, fears of manipulation, and wanting to avoid partners with hidden double lives. On the surface, they create a sense of community and solidarity. However, from a legal perspective, the risks are significant for both posters/users and the individuals named. Local counsel, such as an internet defamation lawyer in Calgary, can help evaluate risk before you post or respond.
Potential risks for users and posters could be civil liability and/or criminal charges. The person being posted about could face serious, practical, real-world harm, as well as reputational issues which could translate to their personal (and dating life) or professional life if employers (or potential employers)become aware the person was posted in these groups. If you’re facing this situation, an internet defamation lawyer Calgary can advise on preservation of evidence and takedown options.
Key Legal Concerns – The Users and Posters
1. Defamation
Making false or damaging statements about someone online can amount to defamation. In Canada, the test for a defamatory statement has been outlined by the Supreme Court In Grant v Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61. The Supreme Court states that a defamatory statement requires:
- That the impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person;
- That the words in fact referred to the plaintiff; and that the words were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.
Following this test, even if posted anonymously, comments in AWDTSG groups or on Tea can lead to defamation claims. Courts in Canada have not hesitated to treat online comments such as Facebook posts, Google reviews, and Reddit threads as actionable when they cause reputational harm. If you’re facing a potential claim, consulting a defamation lawyer Calgary or an internet defamation lawyer Calgary is prudent.
2. Privacy and Doxxing Risks
Posting someone’s photo, personal details, or private conversations in these groups may also raise privacy law concerns.
“Doxxing” refers to the practice of publicly revealing private or identifying information about someone. This can include information such as their full name, workplace, home address, or contact details. Doxxing occurs when an online user posts this information without the consent of the person they are “doxxing”, usually with the intent to shame, harass, or intimidate them.
On platforms like Are We Dating the Same Guy? and the Tea App, doxxing can occur when users:
- Post screenshots of private conversations (including phone numbers or usernames).
- Upload photos taken from personal accounts and connect them to allegations.
- Share workplace details or personal history.
- Link a man’s name to sensitive allegations of cheating, abuse, or dishonesty.
Even if the information is accurate, publishing it in this context can expose both the poster and the subject to serious legal, and practical real-world risks. An online harassment lawyer Calgary can advise on boundaries before content crosses a line.
3. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Canadian courts recognize that even information shared with one person can remain subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy (R. v. Marakah, 2017 SCC 59). Doxxing strips away this expectation, broadcasting private details to an uncontrolled audience. In effect, it takes what might have been confidential and weaponizes it. While Marakah is more concerned with when a section 8 Charter breach arises (the right to be secure against reasonable search and seizure) due to the police or other state agents unlawfully obtaining evidence, it shows that individuals who engage in private communications have a reasonable expectation of privacy with their conversations.
Courts have consistently held that whether a person has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy depends on the totality of the circumstances (R. v. Tessling, 2004 SCC 67; R. v. Marakah, 2017 SCC 59). This includes:
- The subject matter of the information (e.g., personal messages, images, intimate details).
- The place it is shared (e.g., private messaging vs. public Facebook groups).
- The control the person has over the information.
- The relationship between the parties.
In R. v. Marakah, the Supreme Court found that individuals may retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages even after they are sent, provided the context suggests they remain private. But in contrast, where communications are shared in large groups, or where many people have access, courts are less likely to find a strong privacy interest.
Applied to AWDTSG and Tea, this means:
- A man’s (generally) private photos, conversations, or intimate details may retain privacy protection if they were originally shared in a confidential context.
- Once those details are reposted into a large, semi-public forum, the individual’s expectation of privacy is diminished. However, that does not necessarily mean the conduct is lawful. Posting may still expose the sharer to civil or even criminal liability, depending on the content.
This is a reminder that online platforms blur the line between “private” and “public.” What feels like a closed community may, legally, be much closer to a public space.
4. Criminal Liability
The nature of these groups is focused on confirming the “character” of the man being subjected to scrutiny. Therefore, many conversations in these groups can result in hateful or defamatory conversations and comments. This conduct is not limited to civil liability as discussed above, but users could also face criminal charges.
Depending on the nature of the comments, repeated online posting could cross into criminal harassment under section 264 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, depending on the content of the posts and frequency of posts, an argument could be made under section 264(2)(d). This section prohibits people from engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or a member of their family.
Another potential criminal charge could be an offence against a person and reputation, such as defamatory libel. Defamatory libel (s. 298(1)) is defined in the Criminal Code as:
“matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.”
Section 309 (Public Benefit) provides a defence against defamatory libel where a person can reasonably argue that they posted the content only because they:
- believed the content to be true;
- that it is relevant to any subject of public interest; and
- that the public discussion is for the public benefit.
This is why the context and circumstances of what is posted are crucial. If a person goes beyond the test outlined in section 309, they could be subject to criminal charges.
Practical Harm – The Person Being Posted About
For those who are the subject matter of posts or conversations in these groups, there is a very real possibility that they could face substantial harm because they were posted about in the group. This is especially true if the person is “doxed”. These harms could include:
- Harassment at work or home;
- Damage to career and professional reputation;
- Safety risks for the individual and their family;
- Emotional and psychological trauma; and
- Hindrance on further dating prospects.
Why This Matters
Many people wrongly assume that being defamed online is a civil issue only. But when reputational harm escalates, criminal law can be applied through charges of harassment, libel, or threats.
These groups and conversations can often go beyond the purpose and actual focus of the group, inciting hatred, doxxing, and reputational harm. Not only can this result in real, practical, real-world harm for the person who the content is about, but the users and posters could face criminal charges or civil liability.
The Are We Dating the Same Guy? groups and the Tea app reflect a modern reality: dating, reputation, and community vetting have moved online. While these platforms may feel like protective tools, they exist in a grey zone where privacy, defamation, and criminal law overlap. If you need tailored advice, a defamation lawyer in Calgary can provide guidance specific to your situation.
