Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Won't Hear a Lawsuit Over Defamatory Yelp Reviews (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the case-closed dept.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a case regarding whether Yelp is culpable for removing defamatory reviews from its site, resolving a case that could have affected web platforms' legal protections. Today's list of Supreme Court orders denies a complaint brought by Dawn Hassell, an attorney who requested that Yelp take down false, negative reviews about her practice. This means that a California Supreme Court decision will stand, and Yelp isn't liable for the reviews. The Verge reports: Hassell v. Bird was filed in 2016 as a complaint against one of Hassell's former clients, not Yelp. However, Yelp protested a court order to remove the reviews, arguing that it was protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. (Yelp has said it independently removes reviews it finds to be defamatory since they violate its terms of service.) Lower courts disagreed, but in mid-2018, the California Supreme Court ruled in Yelp's favor. Then, the firm of Charles Harder -- a member of President Donald Trump's legal team who's known for high-profile defamation lawsuits -- petitioned the Supreme Court to hear a complaint against Yelp.

Yelp praised the California Supreme Court's decision last year, calling it a win for "those of us who value sharing one another's opinions and experiences" on the internet. It commended today's decision as well. "We are happy to see the Supreme Court has ended Hassell's efforts to sidestep the law to compel Yelp to remove online reviews. This takes away a tool that could have been easily abused by litigants to obtain easy removal of entirely truthful consumer opinions," a spokesperson told The Verge.

5 of 70 comments (clear)

  1. What about fake positive reviews? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Aka marketing, PR, the vast majority of all reviews online, and other forms of legalized fraud.

    When will the first marketing company go to prison? In its entirety.

  2. You can bribe Yelp to remove negative reviews by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Or you can bribe a judge to award the case in your favor. I think Yelp is cheaper though.

  3. And that's fine.. by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So long as Yelp must remove reviews that were ruled to be defamatory. If they don't, then S230 needs to be reformed because no platform should have a right to keep defamatory reviews up after they've been ruled as such in court.

    1. Re:And that's fine.. by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So long as Yelp must remove reviews that were ruled to be defamatory. If they don't, then S230 needs to be reformed because no platform should have a right to keep defamatory reviews up after they've been ruled as such in court.

      Agreed in principle. That said, there is an interesting (read: sneaky) set of cases around this principle.

      1. Plaintiff goes to "reputation management" company to remove bad reviews
      2. Reputation management company recruits someone to be the defendant
      3. RMC sues the 'defendant', which then admits to making the post (they didn't) and that it was defamatory (maybe it was) and settles for a small sum. This suit, however, isn't the point
      4. RMC goes to Google/Bing/Yelp with the court order now that it has been "ruled defamatory". By policy, many will remove or de-index it.

      For one, the human capacity for ingenuity is astounding. Using a straw defendant to get a court ruling to satisfy Google's policy of "we will remove anything a court has found defamatory" is pretty next-level thinking. The courts are happy to vacate those orders when someone shows up with proof of the fraud (and more, some of the companies were fined $100K or so), but that requires someone to notice and investigate. Prosecutors sometimes catch wind too and can bring charges, but again that requires it being brought to their attention. Legal gadflies might do this pro-bono (and to rightfully troll the RMCs), but that's hardly a foolproof system. Ultimately, I don't have much of a good answer. Yes, Google and Yelp should de-index material when it has been found defamatory in a fair court case. How Google and Yelp are supposed to assess whether the court order is the product of fraud or not, when they get thousands of them is beyond me . . .

  4. Yelp is already garbage, yet people still use it by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > the quality of Yelp as a resource diminishes, and people will stop using it.

    Which reviews Yelp chooses to show is based on whether or not the business pays Yelp, so it's already complete bull. Yet people still use it. Presumably they are unaware that it is strictly an advertising platform.

    If you want to see for yourself, post a review of business that doesn't exist, one you completely made up. Include the phone number of the "business" (your phone number). Enjoy talking to the Yelp thugs^H^H^H^H salespeople when they call you.