Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Yelp Can't Be Ordered To Remove Posts, Court Rules (apnews.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

Yelp cannot be ordered to remove defamatory posts against a San Francisco law firm, the California Supreme Court said in a 4-3 ruling Monday that overturns one made by a lower court. From a report: In a 4-3 opinion, justices agreed, saying removal orders such as the one attorney Dawn Hassell obtained against Yelp "could interfere with and undermine the viability of an online platform." The decision overturned a lower court ruling that Yelp had said could lead to the removal of negative reviews from the popular website. Hassell said Yelp was exaggerating the stakes of her legal effort. Her attorney, Monique Olivier, said in a statement that the ruling "stands as an invitation to spread falsehoods on the internet without consequence." She said her client was considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Hassell's 2013 lawsuit accused a client she briefly represented in a personal injury case of defaming her on Yelp by falsely claiming that her firm failed to communicate with the client, among other things.

55 comments

  1. Positive by dohzer · · Score: 1

    removal of negative reviews from the popular website

    Ahhhh, but can they be ordered to remove positive reviews? Check. Mate.

  2. Now we all know... by hackingbear · · Score: 1

    ... which law firm to avoid.

    1. Re:Now we all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're easy to avoid as long as you aren't in an ambulance in San Francisco.

    2. Re:Now we all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? The lawyer won the defamation suit. All she wants is the defamatory Yelp reviews (which were posted under aliases) removed because she continues to be defamed by them.

      I don't get Yelp's position on this at all. Why would it knowingly continue to keep up a review that's been ruled as defamatory by a court of law, thus continuing to injure the reputation of the aggrieved party? Now the lawyer is forced to appeal to federal Supreme Court, or sue Yelp for defamation. They're being assholes here.

      Yelp: A libelers paradise.

    3. Re: Now we all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does anyone use Yelp knowing that it's open to this kind of abuse?

    4. Re: Now we all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people are dumb....

    5. Re:Now we all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Would you hire a lawyer who is known for suing clients that didn't like her service?

    6. Re: Now we all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do a search on restaurants in your area and see how many of the top 10 returns are Yelp links. I generally add a -yelp to my search queries just to avoid them at which point tripadvisor comes out at the top which isn't any more helpful.

    7. Re:Now we all know... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      More, even, to avoid the businesses that use that law firm, because we now know what that law firm is known for and what those businesses probably use it for.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Now we all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to believing a disgruntled former client who doesn't even have the balls to leave a review under her own name, instead choosing to leave multiple negative reviews under various aliases? Sure dumb ass, go on and side with the cowardly bitch who had unrealistic expectations about her case.

    9. Re:Now we all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to familiarize yourself with the details of this case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassell_v._Bird is a good place to start. This lady (Ava Bird) comes off as a world class twat with some apparent mental health issues.

      As far as Yelp goes, anyone who writes Yelp reviews can die in a fucking fire. They're all worthy of the boogers and cum treatment when they dine out as far as I'm concerned.

  3. Messy laws by bitchtits · · Score: 1

    Internet laws are an international mess.

    1. Re:Messy laws by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The problem starts already with there being "internet laws". What is different when something is done "on the internet"?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Messy laws by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Other than jurisdiction, scale, and anonymity?

      Perhaps what's really new here isn't so much the Internet network itself, as the rise of 'platforms' like Yelp. Similar issues arise with Uber, AirBnB, and all the rest.

  4. Seems a wrong decision to me. by msauve · · Score: 2, Informative

    To summarize: someone says bad things about someone else. They sue for defamation, claiming untruth. The suit goes undefended, so the court orders the defamation removed.

    That wouldn't, in any way, "lead to the removal of negative reviews from the popular website," as Yelp claims (at least not truthful, subjective opinions).

    Same with "Yelp said the removal order violated a 1996 federal law that courts have widely interpreted as protecting internet companies from liability for posts by third-party users and prohibiting the companies from being treated as the speaker or publisher of usersâ(TM) posts." No one claimed Yelp was liable, they were simply told to remove the offending item. That doesn't "interfere with and undermine the viability of" Yelp. Someone who wants a legitimately libelous posting removed still needs to go through the courts.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They sue for defamation, claiming untruth. The suit goes undefended, so the court orders the defamation removed.

      The original suit was undefended, but Yelp had not been named as a defendant. Should a default judgement apply to a 3rd party? At least one justice thought it should not, and sided with Yelp on that basis.

      So this case was really 3/1/3 rather than 4/3, and does not set any clear precedents.

    2. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because third-party claims were being applied, an entire industry sprung up about suing fake defendants, who never defended themselves (if they even existed) to get a court order to remove material from websites like Yelp.

      Another process was to take an existing court order, modify it for your purposes, then send it on to Google or Yelp or Amazon. Those companies never take the time to actually verify the order, so this was an effective way censor other people and prevent criticism from being made public.

    3. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both of the links refer to using forged court orders which is not relevant in this case since the identity of the lawyer is not in question.

    4. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by msauve · · Score: 1

      Defamation can come with damages. Yelp wasn't a defendant because they (correctly) weren't accused of that, and weren't exposed to damages - they were strictly a third party and the only thing asked of them was that they remove the offending content. Why shouldn't they be subject to a default judgment which only has very minimal impact on them? Judgments often demand that someone's wages be garnished, the employer isn't a party to the case, yet they have to bear a small burden to fulfill the judgment. How is this any different?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't it make more sense to have the defendant remove or edit the review? Or does Yelp not support amendment a review after it was written?

    6. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 2

      Associate Justice Leondra Kruger said in a separate opinion that she agreed that the removal order against Yelp was invalid, but for a different reason. Hassell did not name Yelp as a defendant, so the company did not get its âoeown day in court,â Kruger said.

      This is the main problem though. Yelp was not a party to the lawsuit, so it's patently unfair to bind them to the judgment between two totally other parties.

      What's more, these sort of third-party orders create the incentive for sloppy or outright fraudulent behavior. For instance, Google will voluntarily de-list a webpage if a court has found it defamatory. Sounds good, but what happens is that folks will find or invent a defendant that claims to have authored the webpage and who settles the lawsuit with an admission of libel. And this is where the "not a party" thing comes in -- when a court sees a plaintiff and a defendant agreeing to a settlement, it doesn't look too hard at it because the court (rightly, in most cases) assumes the parties have represented their own interests.

      So you have an entire cottage industry of reputation-management companies filing real lawsuits against fake defendants in order to either request or demand takedown.

      In a few cases, the lawyers have gotten in trouble (their defense: the reputation-management company did it, and while we didn't look too hard we were also not required to), but it's a reasonable guess that many more are getting away with it. The costs are basically zero, since there's no investigation or trial. Hell, from top to bottom they've gotten these done in 4 days, which in court terms is roughly equivalent to ludicrous speed.

      This is getting way TLDR, but the only legal recourse is to say that if Alice sues Bob, she can only get an order binding Bob. If she wants an order binding Carol as well, she has to give Carol proper notice, in advance, and an opportunity to scrutinize the case and be heard in court.

    7. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by msauve · · Score: 0

      "Yelp was not a party to the lawsuit, so it's patently unfair to bind them to the judgment between two totally other parties."

      Not at all. Happens all the time when an employer is forced to garnish someone's wages. Removing a post is not an unreasonable burden on Yelp.

      "So you have an entire cottage industry of reputation-management companies filing real lawsuits against fake defendants in order to either request or demand takedown."

      That has its own remedy. Courts don't look lightly on perjury or abuse of process.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    8. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Should a default judgement apply to a 3rd party?

      The problem with that reasoning is that then either Yelp must be forced to defend someone else's review, which seems absurd, or there is no way to have defamatory material removed from the internet even if you win in court.

      More interesting is the question of why Yelp cares. If the court decided that the review was defamatory, even based on the claim not being defended, then what's the problem with removing it? One might suspect that the review was written by a Yelp employee after the business refused to pay its extortion money, and this ruling might destroy their business model.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Happens all the time when an employer is forced to garnish someone's wages. Removing a post is not an unreasonable burden on Yelp.

      The employer garnishing wages is not taking any of his money, it's the employee's wages.

      By contrast, forcing Yelp to remove content implicates their First Amendment rights to expressive speech.

      That has its own remedy. Courts don't look lightly on perjury or abuse of process.

      The issue is that there is no party before the court to represent this interest. The only people that were caught doing this were exposed by third parties acting on behalf of the public. And while I appreciate their dedication to righting a wrong, this is not a scalable way to ensure justice.

      Our court system is just not set up to defend interests of parties not before the courts.

    10. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both of the links refer to using forged court orders which is not relevant in this case since the identity of the lawyer is not in question.

      You miss the point. What GP said is that the lawyer could have modified the court order to those companies in order to remove the defamatory post. Normally, these companies DO NOT verify the order but rather follow the order. Then there wouldn't be another court case to be denied in the CA Supreme court. This has nothing to do with know or unknown identity.

    11. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by msauve · · Score: 0

      "By contrast, forcing Yelp to remove content implicates their First Amendment rights to expressive speech."

      Are you stupid, or trolling? The content was written by the user (who is therefore the copyright owner), and libel is not protected speech.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    12. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      I think you're right, that's the sensible angle, leaving Yelp out of an interpersonal dispute. That should have been part of the decision. Failure to comply would result in contempt of court, and further penalties.

      Assuming the user can retract a review, and also assuming the user can ever be found - since they didn't show for court, maybe they're out of state/country, or possibly even deceased. I don't know what happens in those cases, but given enough time, I'm sure someone will bring that to court, too.

      --
      The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
    13. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      So, let me toss out a car example, and see if it sticks. There's probably a better one, and I may be way off base, but here goes...

      Suppose someone steals a vehicle, and then sells it to you. You unknowingly purchased the vehicle in good faith. Along come the cops, and they throw book at the thief. Do you get to keep the car?

      In Yelp's case, it's reputation that's being stolen, and Yelp is taking that reputation, and making money from it, and refusing to return it to it's rightful status.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    14. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Happens all the time when an employer is forced to garnish someone's wages. Removing a post is not an unreasonable burden on Yelp.

      The employer garnishing wages is not taking any of his money, it's the employee's wages.

      The point is that the employer is required by a court order to take the employee's wages and remit them to the employee's creditor. The employer is a third party to the debt between the employee and creditor. It's really not at all different than ordering a defaming post be taken down - if anything, it's less of a burden.

    15. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      Hi rude internet troll,

      First, copyright and expression rights are not at all the same. The original author has granted Yelp the limited right to republish their work, just like I give /. the right to republish and distribute this comment.

      Second, there is indeed considerable precedent in the US that the right to expressive speech protects the right of a publisher to re-publish the works of others. This includes Yelp. Here's some references:

          Quantity of Copies of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205, 211 (1964) -- Holding that a bookstore had an independent right to challenge an obscenity finding

          Richard v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793, 798 (1996) -- a person âoeâis not bound by a judgment in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a party by service of process.â(TM) . . . This rule is part of our âdeep-rooted historic tradition that everyone should have his own day in court.â(TM)â

      Finally, we all know and agree that libel is not protected. But in this case there was no trial establishing this fact. The defendant never showed up and so the plaintiff got an order by default. This is not sufficient procedural protection to allow Yelp to be ordered to take it down. And this is literally all that's asked, that Yelp be given notice and opportunity to challenge the finding in court.

      That is to say, the important thing here is that the right to expression yields to libel only in such case where the normal rules of due process are followed.

    16. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      The point is that the employer is required by a court order to take the employee's wages and remit them to the employee's creditor. The employer is a third party to the debt between the employee and creditor. It's really not at all different than ordering a defaming post be taken down - if anything, it's less of a burden.

      Yes, I get that. But it doesn't implicate any core constitutional rights held by the employer.

      Honestly, I think the following passage from Richard v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793, 798 (1996) is completely dispositive:

      âoeâ[A person]. . . is not bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a party by service of process.â(TM) . . . This rule is part of our âdeep-rooted historic tradition that everyone should have his own day in court.â(TM) ...

      A judgment or decree among parties to a lawsuit resolves issues as among them, but it does not conclude the rights of strangers to those proceedings." Id., at 762; Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Ill. Foundation, 402 U. S. 313, 329 (1971).
      â

      There was a judgment of libel between the plaintiff and defendant. Yelp is not designated as a party and has not been made a party.

      Finally, I don't get the huge deal here. It's not like Yelp gets a friggin veto over libel actions or some other magic button. The only thing they deserve is notice that the lawsuit is happening and the opportunity to be heard in court.

    17. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      Of course you don't get to keep the car. What you do get is notice a chance to challenge the finding in court that it is stolen.

      Let me adjust you analogy to what actually happened. Alice accuses Bob of stealing a car and selling it to Carol. Alice sues Bob, and Bob doesn't even show up in court to defend it. The court grants Alice summary judgment and declares the car stolen. Now Alice comes up to Carol and demands the car.

      Carol disagrees with the conclusion, or at least she isn't sure and would like to see the factual basis for Alice's claim and, depending on her assessment of those facts, to challenge it in court. After all, at this point the court has not actually seen evidence or heard testimony -- they've seen only an untested pleading by Alice. Now, maybe Carol challenge it in court and loses, in which case she has to return the car. Or maybe she wins. Or maybe, given notice and the pleading, she decides not to challenge it because Alice's case is very strong. But we certainly don't know the outcome before she gets a chance to go to court.

      So I guess, to summarize, Yelp might in fact lose in court. But that does not mean that they don't have the option to contest it. And so far there has been no adversarial proceeding declaring the speech libelous, just a default judgment based on an untested complaint.

    18. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by msauve · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the humor. I look forward to the time you have something serious to say.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    19. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but I don't believe that Alice ever goes to Carol. The police would have confiscated the vehicle as evidence long before the trial. And, unless Carol was also charged, she might not even have an opportunity to be represented in the case against Bob. Now, Carol can go hire her own attorney, and attempt to get it back, but that's not happening until it's no longer needed as evidence, and likely not at all. Carol may have to make her own case with the prosecutor, police or in civil court.

      All of that aside, maybe it's not a good analogy since this is a criminal vs. civil case.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    20. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      I mean, you were the one that decided on this analogy :-)

      All that I really meant here was that Yelp has an interest in seeing the evidence that the post is libelous (which is may be!) and the opportunity to challenge it (or not, if they agree with the evidence).

      And, as an added note, there is a process in the courts for adding a non-party to a case by serving them notice. Basically, you send them a formal letter with something like "hey, this case materially impacts your interests, deets included". That's literally it.

    21. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the old "citing caselaw on topic" form of humor.

      It's a very niche genre of comedy.

    22. Re:Seems a wrong decision to me. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough...I don't have a horse in this race, I was just trying to talk through it to see what made sense.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  5. This is why people hate the CDA by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    The majority, according to TFA, though they CDA invalidated the orders from the lower courts or something.

    Uh, no. It removes liability. In fact, I seem to recall that under S230, if you refuse to obey court orders and remove content like defamatory posts shit gets real, real fast with the CDA no longer covering you at all.

    And this is how the mouth-breathing, window-licking activists who wanted that Backpage-themed bill to gut the CDA got people incensed. The CDA doesn't protect you as a site owner from shit you allow that you know is illegal or civilly actionable. It protects you from liability up until someone comes forward and tells you "we're going to court, deal with this."

    If that weren't the case, Gawker would still be here today because they'd have thrown the writers of the Hogan story under the bus and told him the gas bill was on them the moment he threatened to sue.

  6. Well, just shit ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... there goes a large portion of Yelp's business model.

    Nice law firm you have there. Be a shame if it got a bad review.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  7. Poor basis for a decision by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    A subjective opinion is protected by free speech. Now, if the bad review contained factual claims that could be proven as false, they I'd agree to removing the posts. But if I jump on Yelp and say "they were slovenly, slow, and the food was way too salty" then that's valid - it's all subjective opinion. Sucks that some might take it as damaging, but that's the way subjective reviews work.

    Falling back on the 1996 law is bad precedent, because if that law changes, then this ruling is up for review. It should have been held on grounds similar to those for journalists and professional reviewers, since Yelp and other platforms basically allow anyone to be a "mini-journalist". What the Court should have done was say "if this review would have been OK for a professional restaurant reviewer to write, then it's OK for an amateur to write" and be done with it.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Poor basis for a decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A subjective opinion is protected by free speech. Now, if the bad review contained factual claims that could be proven as false, they I'd agree to removing the posts. But if I jump on Yelp and say "they were slovenly, slow, and the food was way too salty" then that's valid - it's all subjective opinion. Sucks that some might take it as damaging, but that's the way subjective reviews work.

      Falling back on the 1996 law is bad precedent, because if that law changes, then this ruling is up for review. It should have been held on grounds similar to those for journalists and professional reviewers, since Yelp and other platforms basically allow anyone to be a "mini-journalist". What the Court should have done was say "if this review would have been OK for a professional restaurant reviewer to write, then it's OK for an amateur to write" and be done with it.

      Very well said.

    2. Re:Poor basis for a decision by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      If the bad review contained factual claims that could be proven as false, they I'd agree to removing the posts.

      That is what happened.

      posts against a San Francisco law firm that a judge determined were defamatory... falsely claiming that her firm failed to communicate with the client, among other things.

      So it sounds like the claims were indeed proven false.

    3. Re:Poor basis for a decision by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Nothing of the kind was proven in court.

      The person who wrote the allegedly defamatory posts did not respond to the lawsuit, so a default judgment was issued.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:Poor basis for a decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From a legal standpoint, that's irrelevant.

    5. Re:Poor basis for a decision by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Nothing of the kind was proven in court.
      The person who wrote the allegedly defamatory posts did not respond to the lawsuit, so a default judgment was issued.

      What's the difference, legally? Either way, a judgement was issued stating that the posts were untruthful.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. I think that invitation ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... the ruling "stands as an invitation to spread falsehoods on the internet without consequence."

    ... has already been accepted by many. One person comes immediately to mind -- and it would a shock if he ever said something true and/or suffered consequences for lying or, to be kind, misrepresenting things. Time will tell.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:I think that invitation ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > suffered consequences for lying or, to be kind, misrepresenting things. Time will tell.

      Yes, in 2020 you'll see the consequences play out as another term as your President! BWHAHAHAHAHAHA

    2. Re:I think that invitation ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fahrbot-bot probably believes Obama had a "scandal-free presidency" too.

  9. Extortion Racketeering - A Fine Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The way to take down yelp is to go after them under extortion/protection racketeering laws. It is obviously their business model. Not sure why they are allowed to get away with it (ditto for Tripadvisor).

  10. The Court Opinion [PDF] by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... which law firm to avoid.

    It's a small business that made a classic business mistake of attacking a bad review rather than saying they're sorry the person was disappointed.

    After the firm filed the defamation case, there was a default judgment, which usually means the defendant didn't fight it in court (they didn't get a lawyer or fight it without a lawyer). Then the law firm tried to use that judgment to force Yelp to take the review down. Yelp didn't, claiming they were protected by the Communications Decency Act, which says they're protected from being considered the "publisher" of third-party content someone posts on their site. The California Supreme Court Agreed. (They also claimed that they had not had due process because they were not part of the original case, but the CA Supreme Court did not need to rule on that issue because the Communications Decency Act determined the outcome of the case).

    The law firm could still petition SCOTUS on this (contrary to what the AP coverage says, you don't "appeal" to the United States Supreme Court, you petition them for a writ of certiorari and they choose whether or not to grant it). It would be a fun argument, academically speaking. Very few people actually practice much First Amendment law, but it's a very interesting area. Obviously it's also important for a lot of businesses, because while there are lots of businesses out there with legitimately bad reviews, there are also lots of businesses out there with a couple of terrible customers who never give them a fair shake.

    And because the article ridiculously didn't include a link to the court opinion, here it is: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opini...

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
    1. Re:The Court Opinion [PDF] by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the informative commentary.

      I know that the law, and what I think should be simple common sense often disagree. But to me this whole case seems akin to attacking the manufacturer of walkie-talkies, or cell phones because someone made a comment over them that wasn't appreciated. Only in this case everyone can hear that comment. But so what, it's that person's right to free speech, and in this case Yelp is simply providing the forum for it. Should the person make a slanderous statement, that's between them and the other side. Removal of that statement should only be required once it's been judged as such in a court. So, once I'm king, that's what will happen. Dilly, dilly!

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    2. Re:The Court Opinion [PDF] by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      This is closely related, in my opinion, to the efforts by the entertainment industry to get common carriers to attack copyright violators.

      The proper defendant is the violator.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  11. I have an idea by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I'm so sure they won't result in people finding friends and family of the court justices and leaving thousands of fake, defamatory reviews on Yelp about their business. The internet would NEVER do that.

  12. Yelp for help? by Xnet+Project · · Score: 1

    With the understanding of how people view Yelp reviews as a decisive measure on services, it also seems redundant to hold Yelp reviews as a whole to be the end-all be-all. If all platforms that allow the masses to place reviews on content were to place similar claim to a reviewers opinion regardless of scale it would immediately get slapped down. This is an indication where ridiculous thought processes is losing ground to common sense thought processes.