Slashdot Mirror
8 Yelp Reviewers Hit With $1.2 Million Defamation Suits
New submitter goodboi writes: A Silicon Valley building contractor is suing 8 of its critics over the reviews they posted on Yelp. The negative reviews were filtered out by Yelp's secretive ranking system, but in court documents filed earlier this month, Link Corporation claims that the bad publicity cost over $165,000 in lost business.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's already illegal to intentionally make false statements in writing for the purpose of causing harm. It's called Libel, and it's not new. This is not an "on the internet" law, this is just a law.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
1. Freedom of speech is a government thing.
2. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of such speech. Whether you're Anita Sarkeesian, the Dixie Chicks or Sir Tim Hunt - anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion - and potentially in the court of law if a target of your speech feels that your speech crossed the boundary into libel / slander / defamation.
In this particular case, the business owner believes that the reviews are malicious, fake, the act of a single person, etc. etc. (read the actual document). Now it's up to the court to decide whether or not Yelp will have to notify the author(s) of those reviews, or hand over personal information directly, etc.
Once it was deemed to interfere with commercial activity it got trumped.
Somewhere along the line it became illegal to say "I hired this company and they gave shitty service".
No it didn't, at least not if the statement is factual. Given how Yelp is the 8 defendants may well be competitors who were just trying to knock the competition down a couple of notches.
I see crap like that all the time on smaller businesses around here with which I am familiar. There'll be 5-star ratings that look like they were written by an employee and then 1-star ratings that look like they were written by someone who's never been there.
Do you have ESP?
I know, I know who reads TFA. Still, the company in question is suing alleging these reviews are FAKE. That is they are not suing for negative reviews, they are suing unknown people for posting fake negative reviews.
No, read the article. They are sure it is one person harassing them and they are confident they know who it is. The only way to prove it in court is by getting Yelp to turn over any information that can help them identify who it is.
Freedom of Speech has never implied freedom from responsibility.
I wish I could sue those "image management" services that post fake positive reviews.
The 1st amendment doesn't apply, as libel is a civil infraction.
You're still free to say/write whatever the hell you like, but if you do so maliciously and mendaciously and it causes articulable damages to another person, then they have grounds to bring suit. It's not the government that acts against you, it's the injured party.
But what if it isn't? What if its 8 different honest reviews? Does their privacy get eviscerated because some corp has money for lawyers?
It sounds like he is pretty sure they are false, so yes, libel trumps privacy in this case. If the reviews are honest they can go to court and request to be dropped from the suit if named or provide proof to Yelp and ask not to be unmasked.My guess and TFA indicate he has agog idea who it is based on work he has done but needs Yelp to verify who did it prior to naming them.
And $8m for $165k damages? CA is a failed state.
Actual and punitive damages. He can ask but may not get anywhere near that number.
Personally, this sounds like a project that, for whatever reason, went south and rather than cut their losses one side decided to get revenge and is now finding out that may not have been a good idea.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
How can you tell? Just because the plaintiff says so? Some of those reviews look legit and yes a few look fake. I notice he doesn't complain about the obviously fake good reviews (how does a company in Cali get a positive review from a teen in New Jersey.)
I like how he got Yelp to remove EVERY bad review, and some of those are very obvioulsy not fake.
I know we all like to hate yelp but this guy really seems to be gaming the system.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
1. Freedom of speech is a government thing.
That rejoinder gets tossed around quite a bit. While it is technically true, it's misleading--the First Amendment (along with the rest of the Constitution) does inform the standards by which private conduct is judged.
The Supreme Court in Hepps decided that not only is truth an absolute defense to defamation*, but also that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the defendant's statements are false (ie presumption of truth). This is contrary to old English common law (presumption of falsity) and a direct result of First Amendment protection.
For the same reason you have to prove actual malice in the case of a public figure (Sullivan), and are protected from foreign judgments that would be contrary to the 1st Amendment (2010 SPEECH Act).
Other amendments also have things to say about private conduct. In Shelley, SCOTUS applied the for-government-only 14th Amendment to racially restrictive property covenants. It may be a contract between two private parties, but enforcement of a contract or judgment is a government thing.
*Public interest/public figure, if we're being exact.
Nothing posted to
So those 8 may or may not be fake (one in particular looks to be a possibly valid review, but hard to know). Why were the other 9 removed as well. Funny that ALL his bad reviews were removed when only 8 are actionable. (but you know the obviously fake good review stays up. Hard for a California construction company to get a valid review from some kid in Princeton, NJ.)
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
2) It is appropriate to sue for fake, defamatory reviews. I only wish it was legal to sue for fake promotional reviews. That it basically just business as usual.
3)They are suing for the full amount 8 times not because they want to get paid x8, but because they are concerned that they might only be able to prove one review is fake. I fully expect that once the identities are revealed, the law suits will be consolidated from 8 to fewer, probably only 1. This way if they prove even a single issue they will get fully paid.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com