Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Yelp Is Not Liable For Negative Rating 'Stars' On Website, Says Appeals Court (cbsnews.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the customer-service dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: Online review site Yelp's star rating system does not make it responsible for negative reviews of businesses because it is based on user input, a federal appeals court ruled on Monday, dismissing a libel lawsuit filed against Yelp by a Washington state locksmith company owner. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the star rating system that Yelp features is not content created by the company that helps guide people to everything from restaurants to plumbers. Under federal law, the decision said, Yelp is not liable for content its users post. The ruling focused on the libel lawsuit filed by Douglas Kimzey, a locksmith business owner in Redmond, Washington. The court said Kimzey's business received a negative review on Yelp in 2011. The review by a person identified in court documents only as "Sarah K" gave Kimzey's company one star out of five, saying it was slow to respond to a car lockout and then overcharged. The appeals court has ruled previously that the 1996 Communications Decency Act lets websites provide "neutral tools" to post material online and that they cannot be held liable for libelous or potentially libelous material posted by third parties. Monday's ruling affirmed a lower federal court decision that also dismissed Kimzey's claim that Yelp should be held liable for distributing reviews to search engines. The appeals court said distributing the content does not make Yelp the creator or developer of the content.

6 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. service by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    maybe he should have been faster and charged a more reasonable rate >_>

    1. Re:service by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And sometimes people just give stupid reviews for no reason. If you need a locksmith in a hurry then it means something has gone wrong and you're going to be in a pissy mood and angry at the entire world, and chances are you take it all out on the guy that's driving out in the rain to help you.

    2. Re:service by eWarz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If your whole business revolves around a single review that an anonymous person left on a public website...you should rethink life.

  2. Re:Courts protecting corps with deep pockets again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The question before the court was "Is Yelp liable for a user's review?", not "Is Yelp a Good Guy or a Bad Guy?".

    And the answer is "No, of course they fucking aren't". That answer is true even if/though some of Yelp's business practices are shady.

    This isn't a case of "courts protecting corps with deep pockets", it's a case of "courts correctly ruling on the law as is their job". The fact that Yelp was on the winning side doesn't change that.

  3. No, justice served by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Assuming that everything you said about Yelp is on thousand percent true...so what? None of those issues were the point of this court case. It was specifically about whether Yelp is responsible for content posted by its users, which it absolutely is not.

    I promise you, you really don't want courts to ignore the law and just rule based on who seems to be the "bad guy".

  4. Re:sign away your rights by ruir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you are the customer, and paying out of your own packet, why do not you walk away?