Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Rules Against Online Anonymity

Posted by Unknown on from the turns-out-anonymous-coward-is-a-cat dept.

cstacy writes "The Virginia Court of Appeals has ruled (PDF) that people leaving negative feedback for a carpet cleaning service are not allowed to remain anonymous. Yelp must unmask seven critics to the carpet cleaner, who feels that they might not even be real customers."

42 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books
    have played an important role in the progress of mankind.
    Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout
    history have been able to criticize the oppressive practices
    and laws either anonymously or not at all... It is plain
    that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most
    constructive purposes."

        --Hugo Black, Tally v. California, 1960

    1. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by k6mfw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      that was back in 20th century when the US had a Constitution and three branches of govt for checks and balances.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    2. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Libel has never been a constitutional right. If someone makes a libelous statement, hiding behind anonymity, then the other party is free to investigate who made the statement. No company's terms of service can override the law.

    3. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Shhh, you're ruining their carefully cleaned memory of a perfect past. Less than a decade after "I have lists!" McCarthy hearings either.

    4. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "No company's terms of service can override the law"

      I see you're new here. Welcome to America!

    5. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by Entropius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just because thing A used to be better doesn't mean that thing B used to be better too. Can't we look at the past and say "This was good, but that was bad"?

    6. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by Wordplay · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Constitutionality? Yes, but the 20th Century also had Chewbacca. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!"

      We're better in some ways now...and a lot worse in others. At least then, when a governmental abuse came to light it tended to actually cause an effect. Nowadays, it's just blown off as business as usual.

    7. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by naasking · · Score: 5, Informative

      That quote refers to anonymity from the government. It's not clear that anonymity whem commenting on corprations or people have the same protections due to libel laws.

      --
      Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
    8. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by DRJlaw · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Generally, a Yelp review is entitled to First Amendment protection because it is a
      person's opinion about a business that they patronized. See Tharpe, 285 Va. at 481, 737 S.E.2d
      at 893. But this general protection relies upon an underlying assumption of fact: that the reviewer
      was a customer of the specific company and he posted his review based on his personal
      experience with the business. If this underlying assumption of fact proves false, in that the
      reviewer was never a customer of the business, then the review is not an opinion; instead, the
      review is based on a false statement of fact -- that the reviewer is writing his review based on
      personal experience. And "'there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact.'" Id.
      (quoting Gertz, 418 U.S. at 340).

      Here, Hadeed attached sufficient evidence to its subpoena duces tecum indicating that it
      made a thorough review of its customer database to determine whether all of the Yelp reviews
      were written by actual customers. After making such a review, Hadeed discovered that it could
      not match the seven Doe defendants' reviews with actual customers in its database. Thus, the
      evidence presented by Hadeed was sufficient to show that the reviews are or may be defamatory,
      if not written by actual customers of Hadeed. Moreover, Hadeed sought the subpoena duces
      tecum under the legitimate, good faith belief that the Doe defendants were not former customers,
      and, therefore, their reviews were defamatory."

          -- William G. Petty, this case. 2014.

    9. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by CppDeveloper · · Score: 5, Informative

      I had the same initial reaction then I actually read the article...

      It is not as clear cut as it seems. The man is able to map most commenters to identified customers but the seven identified in the suit are exceptions. His contention is that they are NOT customers and are making fraudulent statements bringing it under libel law instead of free speach. Apparently he was able to provide convincing evidence to the judge.

    10. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would juxtapose that with the advertisements these very same businesses often use with "Fake" customers (actors) that claim how great the service is on television and on the radio. If the business is allowed to make False statements of fact regarding the quality of their services and have it protected by the first amendment, how can the public be denied the same right? I do not see how this is any different that the very same businesses fraudulent claims in advertising.

    11. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by plover · · Score: 4, Funny

      How dare you question the legitimacy of my spokesperson in a lab coat? I'll have you know that was a Genuine Lab Coat. Genuine.

      --
      John
    12. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by Unordained · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whether the reviews are true or not may very well depend on the identity of the supposed reviewer. If it's in the form of "they destroyed my carpet", the cleaning service could either try to prove that this has not happened to any customers ever, or that this review did not come from a customer to whom it actually happened. If it's not a real customer, then it's probably a competitor, and at that point, it's very much libel -- purposefully spreading lies for the purpose of damaging someone else's reputation. Reviews like this really do matter to a small business. If they reveal the identities and discover it was a real customer and a real experience, there's nothing legally they could do to remove it, because it wouldn't be libel, and would be protected. But they also can't do anything about it now, until they prove it's false, which requires them to reveal identities.

      The alternate solution might be for all review systems to say "this review is anonymous [better: not a verified identity], so the person being reviewed really has no opportunity to face his accuser, so you should take this with a really big grain of salt". And maybe not even count it in the averaged star-rating. And then you've just killed their business model, because the identity/registration stuff is such a hurdle.

    13. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by Unordained · · Score: 3, Informative

      Defamation laws, as far as I see, only cover the negatives, not the positives. You can have all the fake praise you like, as long as there's no fake complaint. Statements of "our service is great" are not the same as "my experience was terrible" -- there's an expectation that vague statements from a company may be misleading (bluster) while not really wrong in a verifiable sense, but with specific customer stories, we expect them to be accurate, fact-based. Ads may use actors, but they generally have fine-print identifying them as interpretations of, re-enactments of, or syntheses of multiple, actual customer letters.

    14. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Informative

      I would juxtapose that with the advertisements these very same businesses often use with "Fake" customers (actors)

      "Actor portrayal" or "paid endorsement". The FTC has this covered.

      But now, do you have proof that this carpet business hires people to pretend to be customers in ads? If not, then you are condemning them for something they did not do.

      I do not see how this is any different that the very same businesses fraudulent claims in advertising.

      You have now made a formal accusation of fraudulent advertising against a specific company. You further use this unsupported allegation as proof that their competitors should be able to lie about this company anonymously with impunity in a direct attempt at damaging the business.

      The quotes above from the case are spot on. They show a company that has made best effort to discover the truth of the anonymous claims on their own and are seeking information about only seven "people" who have made allegations, much as you have, that cannot be substantiated without knowing who they are. Libel is not protected speech. End of story.

    15. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by naughtynaughty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no evidence that they were not customers, he simply claimed he was not able to identify them as customers. As someone who was once sued in Texas by a scummy publicly traded company for my alleged to be defamatory comments I posted online about their pumped up and soon to collapse revenue, I can assure you that companies can and do lie in their assertions to the court. In my case the intent, plain as simple, was to stifle public discussion of the company so investors could continue to be bamboozled by glowing press releases. The case was tossed out of court because they had no jurisdiction over me in Texas so we didn't get to the point of having to prove it was a SLAAP suit with no substance. And the company's stock soon collapsed as it became obvious that they were in fact exactly what I and others were asserting that they were. While I am sympathetic to a company being defamed online, I think we need to give great deference to the right of people to anonymously speak out. There is no even playing field in most cases, companies tend to have more money than the average consumer and if criticism is met with a lawsuit it serves to chill speech to a substantial degree.

    16. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ok, lets check them out then:
      C- with the BBB
      34 complaints, 2 unresolved
      http://www.bbb.org/washington-dc-eastern-pa/business-reviews/carpet-and-rug-cleaners/hadeed-carpet-cleaning-inc-in-alexandria-va-9331/

      Here's one of their commercials, seemingly libeling every other carpet cleaner in the area:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmr3F2bmyyc

      Here's some fake customers, and no "Paid actors" warning:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24KaJugEcSE

      So again, if they can lie about how good they are, lie about how bad everyone else is, then why can't other people lie about how bad they are?

      I think Libelous speech should be protected, despite the supreme courts previous rulings.

    17. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 4, Informative

      Defamation laws, as far as I see, only cover the negatives, not the positives.

      Defamation covers the negatives. Fraud and false advertising covers the positives. If testimonials or endorsements are made then they are regulated. You can't legally advertise a false testimonial.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    18. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So again, if they can lie about how good they are, lie about how bad everyone else is, then why can't other people lie about how bad they are?

      They can. They just can't do it anonymously for the reason I'll elucidate in a second.

      I think Libelous speech should be protected, despite the supreme courts previous rulings.

      You've got to be kidding. So if I make up scandalous lies about you that cost you your job and your wife and maybe gets you some prison time for good measure, there's nothing you should be able to do about it?

      Of course I expect now you'll say that by "protected" you'll mean there can't be limitations on saying something but there can be "consequences" that would be a deterrent to people speaking in the first place. Well, that's what this case also says. The anonymous posters weren't prevented from speaking, but there may be consequences -- which requires knowing who said it so the consequences can be applied.

      Oh, by the way, you'll note that this case revolves around commercial speech, upon which different standards apply that are fully constitutional.

    19. Re:Appropriate Supreme Court Quote by webheaded · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you do this, NO ONE will want to post there. Just saying. I wouldn't want to post reviews if it required me to reveal my actual identity to the public. Fuck that. There's a reason I don't use my real name as my screen name.

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
  2. And thus ends Yelp. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since the whole point is to give unbiased feed back and the chance of repercussions by definition creates a bias, that's more or less the end of that.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:And thus ends Yelp. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, you can still find information about businesses that have gone under, details about restaurants including everything but their hours and prices, and reviews marked "most helpful" consisting solely of the phrase "I liked it"

    2. Re:And thus ends Yelp. by wiredlogic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The whole point of Yelp is to collect negative reviews so they can get paid to remove them.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    3. Re:And thus ends Yelp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Can't support that enough. Here in Germany, they bought a local competitor, and suddenly all the positive reviews disappeared unless you pay for an "advertisement package".

    4. Re:And thus ends Yelp. by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's pretty much four types of reviewers on Yelp, in pretty much this order or volume:

      1) The semi-professional Yelp reviewer. He's writing yelp reviews for every last thing he does.
      2) Shills, inflating their companies and friends, and leaving crap for competitors.
      3) Guys who got a toenail in their lunch who made an account to complain.
      A distant 4) People who had a great meal who felt a need to share.

      If you know this, you can still read between the lines and make informed reviews.

    5. Re:And thus ends Yelp. by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      Right, and since now posting negative reviews can get you sued, what will happen?

      What's getting these reviewers sued isn't negative reviews, but negative comments about a product they may have no experience whatever with. From TFA:

      The Virginia Court of Appeals agreed this week, ruling that the comments were not protected First Amendment opinions if the Yelp users were not customers and thus were making false claims.

      You have no 1st amendment right to spread lies about me. If I write a negative review of a product I've never seen, that's libel. If I write a negative review of something I actually used, I'm in the clear.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    6. Re:And thus ends Yelp. by retchdog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, but the legal system usually requires the plaintiff to show harm in order to have standing. Is there harm in a false positive review? Maybe to a competitor, or to the class of Yelp users, but it's much harder to argue for a case.

      This is by design. It's a justice system, not a legislative system.

      Yes, there are exceptions where standing is automatic, but they don't apply here yet and would need be legislated.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  3. Waiting to review by MiniMike · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is there a place on Yelp to review the Virginia Court of Appeals?

    1. Re:Waiting to review by tomhath · · Score: 3, Funny

      More importantly, is there a place on Yelp to review Yelp?

    2. Re:Waiting to review by plover · · Score: 5, Funny

      +++++ 5 bars, will no doubt be asked to stay again.

      --
      John
  4. The door swings both ways by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does this mean that people leaving positive feedback should also be unmasked?

    Seriously, I completely avoid any service that has all 4/5 and 5/5 stars because in real life at least one person would find fault with it.

    --
    Summation 2
    1. Re:The door swings both ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      4/5 - Great!

      Wonderful hotel, friendly staff and nice clean room. Would visit again!
      7/4/01

      5/5 - Enjoyed thoroughly

      Breakfast was delivered to my room at no extra cost, that's what I call service!
      12/06/01

      1/5 - Noisy surroundings

      Was trying to have a lie in, and all of a sudden there was this awful bang outside and lots of screaming, shouting and police sirens. Hotel needs better windows, won't visit again.
      9/11/01

  5. I can kind of see it by Chirs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I'm a small business owner, I don't want my competitors to be submitting fake negative reviews against me.

    It might make sense to have both named and anonymous reviews, with the anonymous ones grouped separately. Then the viewer can decide which ones to look at.

    1. Re:I can kind of see it by schneidafunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. I see a lot of people talking about free speech and quoting the constitution, but ignoring libel & defamation. Being able to speak anonymously as a whistleblower or protester is one thing; ruining the reputation of a person or business with falsehoods is quite another.

      --
      Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
  6. Chicken Sh*ts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Have the balls to stand behind your comments. If you wouldn't say it in front of a crowd, don't say it. Whomever said the Internet was anonymous has no idea what the start of the Internet was like - with email directly to your computer.

    1. Re:Chicken Sh*ts by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, the irony!

      --
      Summation 2
  7. Escrow of sorts by gumpish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the goal of the unmasking is to determine whether the Yelp complainers were actual customers (as the fine article states) couldn't the judge be provided the names of the Yelpers and the list of Mr. Hadeed's customers and make that determination without revealing their identities to Mr. Hadeed or the public at large? (I'm not saying it's morally or legally correct for anyone to know the identity of the Yelpers, but this would seem preferable to telling Mr. Hadeed who the complaining customers were, enabling him to harrass them.)

    1. Re:Escrow of sorts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      A critical post on the internet is not the same thing as a criminal accusation.

  8. The court could protect the reviewers privacy and by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    still determine if the are real or not. Have Hadeed turn over his database to Yelp's lawyers and let them match the reviewers. For those that don't match then Yelp turns over the names. This wouldn't be much different then when a court allows discovery but places safeguards in place to ensure only truly relevant information is revealed. That way, fake reviews are unmasked and Hadeed can decide if he wants to take action against them.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  9. Re:negative feedback? by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Informative

    A few companies, at least in New York, have gotten in trouble for fake positive reviews.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/23/new-york-fake-online-reviews-yoghurt

  10. How About Protecting Consumers by organgtool · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The judge seems very worried about protecting businesses from false negative reviews but how about protecting consumers from false positive reviews? Does this mean that shills are required to use their real names as well (at least in Virginia)?

  11. Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    4chan run's itself.

    KNOCK IT OFF. LEARN TO APOSTROPHE.

    Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. - yes, no shit, Slashdot. It was meant to be yelling.