Last week’s top stories on Law Street included Yelp users getting sued for negative reviews, RantCrush’s top five controversial stories from August 1, and North Korea continuing to test missiles. ICYMI–Check out the top stories from Law Street below!

1. Yelp Users Getting Sued for Negative Reviews

Do you love to bash bad companies and restaurants on Yelp? You’d better be careful, because now you could be sued for posting a negative review online. Over the past few months there has been a surge in businesses suing Yelp reviewers for nasty reviews. In February, a Texas couple was sued for leaving a negative review of a pet sitting company. Read the full article here.

2. RantCrush Top 5: August 1, 2016

The top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy last week included Donald Trump’s controversial stance on Crimea,  suspicions that Hillary Clinton’s emails were hacked by Russian spies have been confirmed, The Satanic Temple seeks after school programs in public elementary schools, and more. Read the full article here.

3. North Korea Continues to Test Missiles; Emergency U.N. Meeting Called

With its recent series of missile tests and blustery rhetoric, North Korea is cultivating an atmosphere of paranoia in the Pacific and prompting America to collaborate more closely with its Pacific allies. The nuclear nation’s latest provocation came at dawn on Wednesday, when two Rodong missiles launched from a province in the west toward the Sea of Japan in the east. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Do you love to bash bad companies and restaurants on Yelp? You’d better be careful, because now you could be sued for posting a negative review online.

Over the past few months there has been a surge in businesses suing Yelp reviewers for nasty reviews. In February, a Texas couple was sued for leaving a negative review of a pet sitting company. In the review, the clients cited difficulty contacting their pet sitters as well as confusing fees as some of the reasons they did not enjoy their experience. After the review was posted, the pet sitting company brought a lawsuit against the clients for over $6,700. The reason for the lawsuit? Apparently the couple had signed a non-disparagment agreement in their contract.

This instance of Yelp legal trouble was not the first of its kind. Around a year ago, a New Yorker visited a local dentist and had a negative experience. The woman, Mary Rohs, claims she had to wait over an hour and was then greeted by a curt and dismissive dentist, Dr. Nima Dayani. According to court records, Dr. Dayani has a different account of Rohs’ appointment than she does, claiming that she was in the office for an extended period of time as a part of her thorough exam. Two days after Rohs posted the negative review, Dr. Dayani sued her, saying the review was defamatory. He claimed that he generally welcomes positive and negative reviews, but Rohs’ went too far:

[Rohs] accsued me of malpractice by saying I didn’t diagnose her. When you are publicly accusing someone of malpractice, you are damaging their reputation.

In response to the increase in lawsuits, Yelp has stepped in to warn its users. In several circumstances, the company has issued warning banners on companies’ pages on its site that read:

Consumer Alert: Questionable Legal Threats

This business may be trying to abuse the legal system in an effort to stifle free speech, including issuing questionable legal threats against reviewers. As a reminder, reviewers who share their experiences have a First Amendment right to express their opinions on Yelp.

An example can be found on a moving and storage company’s page, yet another company that has an ongoing legal battle with a customer for defamation. Yelp wants to make sure users are aware of the potential trouble they could get into with posting negative reviews.

This increased concern for consumer safety comes alongside some consumer-oriented legislation being introduced in Congress. The Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 was introduced this April and works to ban gag clauses–portions of contracts that prohibit signers from speaking negatively about a business–from consumer-business contracts. The act also aims to protect the right of the consumer to speak freely about a company. The bill still has a long way to go, but would be a step in the right direction as far as protection of consumer free speech goes.

While it may seem scary that you could be sued for expressing your opinion online, it is important to remember that these cases are not super common. Part of the reason that legislation against these suits is just now developing is that this type of lawsuit is so new in the litigation sphere. Rest assured that your freedom of speech is still protected and that you will, most likely, not be sued for your next disparaging taco bell review.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Yelp Users Getting Sued for Negative Reviews appeared first on Law Street.

A petsitting company, Prestigious Pets, is suing a Texas couple over a negative Yelp review. The company is seeking a staggering $200,000 to $1 million in damages for the negative feedback.

The couple, Robert and Michelle Douchouquette, hired the company to watch their dogs and beta fish while they were out of town in October 2015. But they weren’t happy with the service they were provided, and reviewed the company accordingly. According to Consumerist:

The pet-owners expressed their dissatisfaction with the service, taking issue with the company’s fees and billing, an apparent lack of updates from the sitter, the fact that the sitter didn’t leave the house keys behind as requested. The couple also claim that their fish might have received sub-optimal care in their absence.

The petsitting company claims that as a result of this review, it has lost business, received threats of harassment, and was left a “shell of its former success.” The plaintiffs further claim that as a result of the negative review they’ve experienced “numerous rape and death threats… in addition to other forms of harassment such as identity theft, impersonations, crank calls, etc.” The petsitting company is claiming that the Douchouquettes violated a non-disparagement clause in the contract they signed with the company. The lawsuit not only alleges that the couple violated that clause, but also defamation and business disparagement.

The court will have to determine whether or not the lawsuit brought by Prestigious Pets is frivolous. The attorney for the Douchouquettes is claiming that the lawsuit is a SLAPP (a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.) Essentially that would mean the only reason Prestigious Pets brought the suit is an attempt to get the Douchouquettes from posting negative things about the company.

Prestigious Pets’ Yelp page now has a warning to let reviewers know what the company is up to. It states:

You should know this business has issued legal threats and/or taken legal action against reviewers for exercising their free speech. If your review accurately describes your firsthand experience, you have a First Amendment right to express your opinion on Yelp.

We’ll have to see if the lawsuit is successful–$1 million really does seem a bit too high a price to pay for one bad Yelp review, especially when free speech considerations are taken into account.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Petsitting Company Sues Couple Who Left Bad Yelp Review appeared first on Law Street.

In this day and age, we can rate pretty much anything we want online. Did you get food poisoning from the new takeout place down the street? Take your complaints to Yelp. Did you have a college professor that really changed your life? Leave a glowing review on RateMyProfessor. Did you stay at a hotel recently that was pretty good but could make some improvements? Maybe give it a four-star rating on TripAdvisor. Until now, online reviews have mostly been about services–whether they be food, lodging, or education. But starting in November, a new app, Peeple, will let you rank the people in your life, taking online reviewing to a whole new level.

Peeple, which is marketing itself as the “Yelp for people” is set to launch in November as a mobile app. It will allow individuals to leave ratings for each other both in the form of both comments and numerically–you can give someone between one and five stars. The founders are pushing it as a positive invention that will reward people for their good behavior and character. They’ve also promised that they will attempt to keep bullying and harassment off the site. Anonymous reviews won’t be allowed, as reviewers will be required to have a Facebook account that has been active for at least six months, and verify a cell phone number before posting. Those are all good goals, but there are also some serious possible flaws in this venture that have the potential to make it downright horrible.

First of all, anyone can rate anyone–friends, neighbors, casual acquaintances, whoever. But there’s no way to opt out of Peeple. It doesn’t matter if someone is signed up for the app or not, you can leave a review about him. There’s no way for the recipient to delete the review, unless it violates the Terms and Conditions of the app. According to the site’s founders, only positive reviews will show up for people who are not members. But that’s still concerning, especially because exactly what constitutes a negative rule is unclear. As the Verge puts it:

It’s also not clear whether negative reviews are judged to be so based only on the star rating or whether the actual content is also taken into account. If just the former, it means that users could give people extremely negative reviews but a good star rating, with the targets of these write-ups never knowing about them unless they signed up.

So, essentially, if you’re not signed up for the app, people could leave reviews about you that you never know about, as long as they are considered by the app to be “positive.” That’s concerning on a few different levels, and some worst case scenarios quickly spring to mind. Imagine a woman who has run away from an abusive relationship receiving a “positive” review from a neighbor. Her abuser could be able to find her from that information. Or what if an individual decides to out someone who is still in the closet. That could be a positive review, to be sure, but also incredibly damaging to someone who isn’t ready to come out to their friends and family. While these types of abhorrent behavior are of course possible without the app, Peeple has the potential to make them way easier and more visible.

For people who sign up for the app, negative reviews will be allowed, but submitted to a 48-hour review period, in which the recipient of the negative review will have time to look it over and contest it. The app’s website explains:

It goes into your inbox on the app, you will be notified, and now you have 48 hours timer to work it out with the user. If you cannot turn a negative into a positive the comment will go live and then you can publicly defend yourself.

That’s a horrifying premise as well–the app is basically encouraging users to confront people who don’t like them and convince them to change the review. If someone is going to publicly leave a negative review of an individual on an app dedicated to rating people, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess they’re not going to back down easily. This seems to be fodder for a lot of nasty fights.

The public reaction to Peeple has been relatively negative, with a lot of observers citing privacy and ethics concerns:

In an age where both truth and gossip on the Internet can literally ruin lives, this #peeple app is horrible AND scary #yelpforhumans???

— christine teigen (@chrissyteigen) October 1, 2015

How to download #Peeple: 1. Unlock phone 2. Tap “app store” 3. Throw phone in nearest body of water 4. Reexamine your life choices — Angela Morabito (@Bear2theRight) October 1, 2015

#Peeple: Because everyday life should be a horrifying minefield.

— Mike Drucker (@MikeDrucker) October 1, 2015

“All that matters is what people say about us,” say the #peeple founders. That is literally the opposite of what we try to teach children.

— Robert Perry (Pez) (@pez_sez) October 1, 2015

Given all the negative feedback, we’ll have to wait and see how well it ends up doing in the app marketplace.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Peeple: “Yelp for People” App is Coming Whether We Want it To or Not appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine this: you hire a contractor to install new hardwood floors. After the job is done, you discover that the floors weren’t built to code, multiple doors no longer fully open, and boot prints were visible in the varnish. So, you go on Yelp and submit a scathing review, “Absolutely horrible experience… The quality of the work is deplorable. Be warned!” Six months later, the company sues you for civil theft, intentional interference, and defamation, claiming that your online reviews had caused it to lose $625,000 worth of business, or $250,000 in profits; The company demands $125,000 in compensation. $60,000 in legal fees later, you settle for $15,000.

Unfortunately, this story is not a mere hypothetical. This is the story of Matthew White, a Denver-area resident who has become one of countless victims of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). In today’s online environment, a few bad reviews on Yelp can derail a fledgling company. SLAPP is the term used to describe legal claims made with the intention of silencing critics, despite having little chance of prevailing in court.

In response, consumer, media, and activist groups have lobbied for anti-SLAPP laws, and 28 states and Washington D.C. have passed laws intended to discourage SLAPP suits. There is no federal law yet, however.

Yelp, the $3 billion San Francisco company that publishes crowd-sourced reviews about local businesses, opened a political office in Washington last year to push for anti-SLAPP laws. In May, the Free Speech Act was introduced to a Congressional committee. According to Laurent Crenshaw, who handles national policy for Yelp, “This issue is really one that hits close to the heart for Yelp… The concern is that these types of lawsuits, even if not incredibly common, will have a chilling effect on people’s engagement online.”

The Free Speech Act aims to curb SLAPP suits by requiring a plaintiff in a speech-related case pertaining to matters of public concern to prove that he is likely to prevail. If he is unable to, the case would be automatically dismissed “with prejudice,” allowing the defendant to recover legal fees.

Yelp has built an impressive anti-SLAPP coalition, with endorsements from two major tech industry groups, the Internet Association and the Consumer Electronics Association, and has consulted with the likes of Facebook and Google. “Yelp’s involvement has been huge… It has really been tremendous for the cause” said Evan Mascagni, policy director for the Public Participation Project, a coalition pushing for anti-SLAPP laws.

Still, the road to a federal anti-SLAPP law will be long and arduous. Government transparency website GovTrack.us gives the Free Speech Act a 13 percent chance of being enacted, and accusations against Yelp claiming that the website solicited money for removing negative comments certainly does not help. Yelp is going to need to step up its game if it wants users to leave unfettered reviews without the fear of losing thousands in SLAPP lawsuits.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Yelp Pushes for Anti-SLAPP Legislation appeared first on Law Street.

We have apps for everything, especially for ranking things. If I want to know what a particular restaurant is like, I can use Yelp. If I need to hire a contractor (someday), I can use Angie’s List. Websites that help people share advice and feedback about doctors even exists in Healthgrades. When I was in college, I would look at my professors on Ratemyprofessor.com. At any given point, I can see rankings on pretty much anything I want, so it make sense that we’d be able to rank our civil servants as well. That was exactly the thought behind Five-O, a new app to rank cops created by teens.

Five-O was created by Ima, Asha, and Caleb Christian, three siblings who live outside of Atlanta. They wanted to provide a Yelp-like service for people who interact with members of the police force. This is how it works:

After interacting with a cop, users open the app and fill out a Yelp-like form on which they can grade the officer’s courtesy from A to F, check a box if they were verbally or physically abused, and add details about the incident. They can view ratings on other cops and police departments across the country, participate in community forums, and check out a Q&A titled “Know Your Rights.”

The Christians got the idea in light of incidences like Michael Brown’s death. They wanted to prevent tragedies like that from happening again by providing more information to the public.

The premise does seem a bit weird, I know. Services like Yelp, Angie’s List, or Healthgrades all provide rankings for industries that do allow consumer choice. If you don’t want to go back to a restaurant or doctor, you can choose to vote with your feet and walk away. The same isn’t true with cops — you don’t get to choose which officer pulls you over.

The app is important, however, for a different reason: accountability. In light of the horrifying events occurring in Ferguson, Missouri over the last few weeks, there are a lot of conversations floating around about accountability for cops. Some have suggested requiring cops to wear cameras would be make them more accountable for brutality and militarization.

Five-O would do something similar — it would allow the community to create and share information about their interactions with the police force. In towns where the police force has begun wearing cameras, interactions that led to complaints have gone down. In Rialto, California, cops have been wearing body cameras since 2012. After just one year wearing the cameras, complaints have gone down by almost 90 percent, and use-of-force incidents fell by 58 percent; however, those cameras can be very pricey. While the cheapest version of the software is about $40 per month per user, the app is a less invasive, and cheaper, way to provide some form of accountability.

Of course, the Five-O is significantly more subjective than a camera would be. If users are reporting their interactions, it’s possible that people will report inaccurately. But since incidents reported to the app don’t have any official status, hopefully no cops will be falsely accused.

The Christians say it’s not just about accountability, but it will also provide a way to thank and recognize police officers who do a good job. In general, it will provide a better way for communities to interact with each other about the police force. As the protests in Ferguson wage on and there’s a greater American conversation about cops and accountability, Five-O could prove to be an excellent idea to measure community interactions with police.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Teens Invent New App to Track Community Interactions With Police appeared first on Law Street.

How many times do we check online reviews of a product before choosing to buy it? Reviews are important for many consumers to make sure they are spending their money on something that is of good quality. But can companies really sue customers for posting a negative review of a product on an online forum?

After posting a negative Amazon review of a Mediabridge brand router, a Florida man recently received a letter from Mediabridge’s lawyers threatening a lawsuit. The company claimed that the review contained false information intended to hurt its reputation and that the man’s statements could be considered slanderous. The company went on to warn that it would sue the man unless he removed his review, stopped purchasing Mediabridge products, and ceased future discussion of the company on the internet.

Can companies really sue individuals over their negative reviews on the internet?

Legal precedent works in favor of the companies. For example, Virginia courts heard a case in 2012 of a similar issue on Yelp and Angie’s List. A retired military captain living in Fairfax County posted a negative review of a contracting service on Yelp and Angie’s List claiming that not only was the service poor, but also that she was billed for services that weren’t performed, and the contractor may have also stolen jewelry. The contractor, Christopher Dietz, sued her for $750,000 for defamatory remarks on an internet review site. Dietz argued that the reviewer’s statements were false and that her negative review impacted his business and reputation. The court held for the contractor. The case was later overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court.

How could this affect consumers?

Providing real insight into the quality of goods and services is the purpose of consumer reviews. It is helpful to read positive reviews in order to make a wise purchase, but negative reviews are also important to warn others of faulty products and poor service. If consumers realize that they can be sued over their critical comments about products, however, many may not be truthful or even write reviews at all anymore. Consumers have a right to know information about the quality of a good o service before they spend their money, but if people are deterred from sharing this information for fear they may create legal trouble for themselves it will become much harder for consumers to make informed decisions.

Can consumer reviews be protected?

Companies like Amazon need to step up to protect their customers. According to Amazon’s terms of use, product sellers are not allowed to demand consumers remove their reviews. These terms are there for a reason: Amazon wants customers to freely critique the items they have purchased through the site. If companies threaten customers with lawsuits over negative reviews, then Amazon needs to step in.

—

Sarah Helden (@SHelden430)

[National Journal] [TIME] [Amazon]

Featured image courtesy of [Wikipedia]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Reviewers Beware: Negative Product Reviews Might Cost You appeared first on Law Street.

Yelp suffered a crucial loss in a recent Virginia Court decision.

Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, a small business in Virginia, noticed a few negative Yelp reviews and did some investigation. The business claims that after studying their records, the Yelp complaints did not match any actual customer experiences in their books. Hadeed Carpet sent a subpoena to Yelp requesting the identities of the Yelp users who wrote the allegedly unfounded posts, but Yelp refused to comply with the subpoena and the case went to trial.

The Virginia Court of Appeals has sided with the small business and ordered Yelp to reveal the identities of the users. The court reasons that if the users who wrote the unfavorable comments were never actually customers of Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, then those negative reviews amount to defamation not worthy of any First Amendment protection.

Most commentators deride the decision for curtailing freedom of speech; yet, a longer look at Yelp’s litigation history illuminates why this ruling may help those harmed by Yelp.

Yelp has long heard the complaints of small-business owners who claim the company effectively extorts them for money. The common story often begins with a small business noticing a particularly negative comment on their Yelp page. Then the business discovers Yelp’s algorithm filtering out positive comments and thus making negative comments more prominent. Finally comes a sales pitch from a Yelp employee suggesting that the small business advertise on Yelp. Often, the sales pitch includes statements that advertising with Yelp will result in a better filtration process and the removal of negative reviews. Since an alluring Yelp page has a weighty impact on a business’ bottom, many business owners feel threatened by these solicitations.

Yelp has had to squash legal attempts to expose this allegedly coercive practice. In 2011, a class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all businesses who declined to advertise with Yelp or who advertised with Yelp in the last four years. The lawsuit claimed that Yelp “unlawfully manipulated the content” of a business’ Yelp page in order to push the business to pay for advertising. In that case, the Plaintiff, Levitt, alleges this story in their Brief:

Two days after Levitt’s conversation with Yelp’s employees – during which he declined to purchase advertising — six out of the seven 5-star reviews were removed from his business page leaving Levitt with an overall star rating of 3.5 stars. As a result, during the month of August, Levitt’s business Yelp page received only 158 page views as opposed to the 261 page views Levitt’s business experienced in July of 2009. Since then, Levitt’s business revenues experienced a decline that corresponded almost directly to the decline in page views.

The Brief outlines other stories with other businesses voicing a narrative that echoed Levitt’s tale about Yelp’s knavish advertising schemes. While Yelp managed to dismiss the lawsuit, that cessation did not help distance Yelp from their alleged aggressive sales practices. Their victory was more technical than substantive. In the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs recounted two exploitative tactics they claim Yelp engaged in: 1.) fabricating negative reviews; and 2.) manipulating a business’ Yelp page to highlight negative reviews and filter positive reviews.

On the first practice, the court dismissed the charge due to lack of proof, not lack of guilt. The court reasoned that businesses could not prove beyond speculation that Yelp actually authored any of the negative reviews that businesses claimed Yelp fabricated. This conclusion had undoubted truth because, up until recently, courts had not allowed businesses to subpoena Yelp about the actual sources behind reviews. Yelp had successfully been able to argue that anonymous users had privacy and freedom of speech rights that prevented access to their identity. If the allegations alleged against Yelp had any merit, Yelp crookedly used freedom of speech and privacy rights as a shield preventing any discovery about their practice of self-composing negative reviews.

The recent ruling in favor of Hadeed Carpet Cleaning has special importance for marking a change in this tolerance. Instead of bending to freedom of speech concerns, the court focused more on the right to protect one’s reputation. Thus, this ruling in Hadeed Carpet might facilitate a proper exploration of the complaints of small-business owners since the court has finally allowed a Plaintiff to learn the identity of dubious anonymous users – and, perhaps, that these users were Yelp employees. While businesses previously had no method to prove their allegations that Yelp penned negative reviews, the court’s ruling in Hadeed Carpet might finally give businesses some recourse.

This seems all the more important, since the second complaint against Yelp – that they filter their messages in a duplicitous manner – has little prospect of victory. In the 2011 class action lawsuit, this claim failed due to the Communications Decency Act (CDA), a Congressional statute that lets “interactive computer services” – like Yelp – edit and manipulate content posted on their website without any risk of liability.

The CDA emerged out of a desire to promote internet freedom and growth. Congress wanted to facilitate the success of websites like Twitter, Facebook, and Yelp by immunizing these sites from lawsuits brought because of the actions of a user on the website. Basically, if a Twitter user says something defamatory on Twitter – like when Courtney Love tweeted that her fashion designer was a former prostitute — the CDA posits that the defamed party can sue the Twitter user, but not Twitter. This allows websites like Twitter, Facebook, and Yelp to function without having the legal burden of monitoring everything that’s said.

Even if these websites have no legal burden to monitor, the CDA still wants to encourage some sort of filtration process to monitor and remove hate speech. Courts have interpreted the CDA to let websites like Yelp filter messages without any risk of liability if they fail to succeed in catching and removing any invective prose. Websites like Facebook have an incredible volume of information, and the CDA hopes to encourage some editing and filtering process even if it sometimes inevitably fails. Consequently, a website faces no liability for their choices to edit or filter content. If the allegations against Yelp have any merit, Yelp again contorts the intention of this policy for its own economic self-interest. Instead of merely filtering hate speech, the allegations contend that Yelp filters innocent, positive messages to induce companies to buy Yelp advertisements.

Importantly, the CDA immunizes Yelp from this practice and courts have said as much. For example, in the Dismissal of the 2011 Class Action, the Judge wrote: “Yelp’s alleged manipulation of their review pages – by removing certain reviews and publishing others or changing their order of appearance – falls within the conduct immunized by § 230(c)(1)” of the CDA. The court even says that the statute currently allows filtering and deleting of comments done with a “wrongful motive.” Even if businesses can prove Yelp filters comments with a wrongful motive, courts have held that the CDA allows websites like Yelp that privilege.

Thus, the ruling in Hadeed Carpet Cleaning has importance to businesses hoping to prove their allegations against Yelp. The CDA literally allows Yelp to manipulate a business’ Yelp page without any risk of liability. The only recourse available to businesses hoping to expose that Yelp extorted them is to prove that Yelp fabricates negative reviews. Such a practice would be a crime, and the best – and perhaps only — way to prove that is through learning the identities of users who post dubious negative reviews.

Importantly, Yelp has officially and repeatedly denied that they engage in this practice. It could just be that these businesses had the misfortune of encountering rogue Yelp sales associates who employ overzealous tactics to earn their commissions. Or, the story could have no truth at all. For now, the CDA and freedom of speech rights have prevented us from knowing.

The main takeaway, however, focuses on how we balance rights. In Hadeed Carpet the court determined that Hadeed’s right to protect its reputation trumped a Yelp user’s right to remain anonymous. These allegations against Yelp highlight how rights always have tradeoffs: if you allow absolute freedom of speech and privacy rights, you disallow any discovery about whether Yelp effectively blackmails businesses. Additionally, sometimes rights tradeoffs occur due to external factors. Might the court in Hadeed have known about the intractable immunity granted to Yelp by the CDA and consequently softened the freedom of speech and privacy rights its users enjoy?

No one actually knows if Yelp engaged in the practice of extorting businesses into buying advertisements. We do know, however, that the law would have allowed them to legally do it…at least before the recent ruling in Hadeed Carpet Cleaners.

—

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York City whose blog explores the legal implications of social media and the internet. Contact him via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [Steven & Courtney Johnson & Horowitz via Flickr]

Imran Ahmed

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York. Contact Imran at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Feeling Extorted by Yelp’s Business Practices? Help May be on the Way appeared first on Law Street.