O/T California High Court: Yelp Can't Be Ordered To Take Down Posts

[Leon]

I don't usually get into this kind of legal mumbo jumbo but this precedent would have not been a good one for our forum had it gone the other way. I have often spoken of protections Net54baseball has in being held liable for what is said by our forum members other than me. Section 230 - Federal Communications and Decency Act defines the publisher of information as the person saying it, not the venue. So if a member says something they are liable for it and not the forum owner, unless the forum owner is involved in that particular communication and says something they are liable for. Fortunately as the internet, and our forum, has matured the Cease and Desist orders to me for what members on the forum say have ceased. When I first took over I was getting Cease and Desist orders monthly :). I have to admit I had fun with them (all except the one I was liable for, it wasn't as fun). If anyone makes this into a politics thread it won't go well for you. Fair warning.

http://start.att.net/news/read/article/the_associated_press-california_high_court_yelp_cant_be_ordered_to_remo-ap-2/category/finance
.

[btcarfagno]

Archive was such a troublemaker back in the day...

[Rich Klein]

I have always said both publicly and to Leon when we've had lunch (we're about due for one of those) -- that one of Net 54's greatest strength is that if you get involved in a controversial thread or start up one, you are named. In America, there is a concept about being able to face your accuser and as such Leon's position makes this a strong board

Rich

[Bpm0014]

It's a great policy and an extremely well-run board.

[pokerplyr80]

I can certainly understand why a forum owner would be pleased with that ruling. But there are a lot of millennial d bags out there who write fake or exaggerated reviews to hurt the reputation of a business. Some of these people will even threaten a business with a negative review to get their way. Just look at that guy in the canceled transaction thread. People like him are why I personally believe in certain situations a business owner should have a way to get a review not based in fact removed.

[Tabe]

I can certainly understand why a forum owner would be pleased with that ruling. But there are a lot of millennial d bags out there who write fake or exaggerated reviews to hurt the reputation of a business. Some of these people will even threaten a business with a negative review to get their way. Just look at that guy in the canceled transaction thread. People like him are why I personally believe in certain situations a business owner should have a way to get a review not based in fact removed.

Well, other than not thinking the d-baggery is confined to one age group, I completely agree with this.

I have no problem with the bar being set high for post removal, I *DO* think it should be an option.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I can certainly understand why a forum owner would be pleased with that ruling. But there are a lot of millennial d bags out there who write fake or exaggerated reviews to hurt the reputation of a business. Some of these people will even threaten a business with a negative review to get their way. Just look at that guy in the canceled transaction thread. People like him are why I personally believe in certain situations a business owner should have a way to get a review not based in fact removed.

And just how do you propose to define those situations? IMO you start down a slippery slope and who knows where it ends. Not to make this political but I would hate to see courts in the position to censor ordinary libelous posts, short of some national security concern.

[Leon]

And just how do you propose to define those situations? IMO you start down a slippery slope and who knows where it ends. Not to make this political but I would hate to see courts in the position to censor ordinary libelous posts, short of some national security concern.

I agree. What seems is being forgotten, is people CAN still be held LEGALLY liable and pay a high price for writing false information publicly (committing libel). Anything you write on this chatboard you can be held legally accountable for, trust me. :)
.

[pokerplyr80]

And just how do you propose to define those situations? IMO you start down a slippery slope and who knows where it ends. Not to make this political but I would hate to see courts in the position to censor ordinary libelous posts, short of some national security concern.

It would be difficult, but not impossible to define some kind of parameters. The burden of proof would fall to the company to prove a review contains false information and is damaging their business or reputation. But in extreme cases where they have evidence they can present that would warrant removal I feel there should be a legal way to get it taken down.

Leon i am aware they could sue the person who wrote the review. I'd be surprised if 1 yelper in 5 would ever pay a judgement even if the suit was successful.

[drcy]

It doesn't say a company can't take down bad posts, but they can't be legally forced to. Many places, such as newspapers in their comment sections can and do remove inflammatory or rule-breaking posts, and that their removal has nothing to do with the law.

A practical problem for Yelp and the like is that if too many of the reviews are frivolous, wrong or for non-related reasons, the public will no longer use the sites as sources for information. Irrelevant to the law, it may be in Yelp's own interest to remove defamatory, irrelevant and related posts.

As far as suing the reviewer, a dentist successfully sued a reviewer that said the dentist intentionally tried to poison the reviewer's kid.

[rhettyeakley]

I can certainly understand why a forum owner would be pleased with that ruling. But there are a lot of millennial d bags out there who write fake or exaggerated reviews to hurt the reputation of a business. Some of these people will even threaten a business with a negative review to get their way. Just look at that guy in the canceled transaction thread. People like him are why I personally believe in certain situations a business owner should have a way to get a review not based in fact removed.

I agree, as a small business owner you deal with more of these types of situations than you should. Health care providers are even further hindered, if a review is made they are prevented from responding to said remarks due to HIPAA laws so they have absolutely no recourse against a exaggerated or false review. Then there are those that will stoop to the level of extortion, demanding that you give them discounts or even free service or they will give a false negative review. It is the world we live in.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It would be difficult, but not impossible to define some kind of parameters. The burden of proof would fall to the company to prove a review contains false information and is damaging their business or reputation. But in extreme cases where they have evidence they can present that would warrant removal I feel there should be a legal way to get it taken down.

Leon i am aware they could sue the person who wrote the review. I'd be surprised if 1 yelper in 5 would ever pay a judgement even if the suit was successful.

I am quite certain I don't want the government taking down posts merely because they defame someone.

[sreader3]

Leon,

I agree with this ruling. And thanks for all you do. (BTW I am an IP lawyer).

Scot

[calvindog]

I agree. What seems is being forgotten, is people CAN still be held LEGALLY liable and pay a high price for writing false information publicly (committing libel). Anything you write on this chatboard you can be held legally accountable for, trust me. :)
.

The woman who made the false, defamatory post in the Yelp case was sued personally and didn't respond. She had no concern about a 7 figure default judgement being entered against her as she has no money. This leaves the aggrieved party with no recourse and is why I think the ruling stinks.

[calvindog]

I am quite certain I don't want the government taking down posts merely because they defame someone.

If someone defamed your business online you would sing a different tune.

[sreader3]

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (§ 230(c)(1)), and “No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section” (§ 230(e)(3)). The fact that it was 4-3, rather than 7-0, is disturbing.

Seems pretty clear to me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If someone defamed your business online you would sing a different tune.

Just think how great it would be for lawyers, a whole new practice area, litigating to enjoin Yelp and Google and Facebook and whatever reviews.

[calvindog]

Just think how great it would be for lawyers, a whole new practice area, litigating to enjoin Yelp and Google and Facebook and whatever reviews.

Defamation lawyers. The already exist. Instead of suing for money damages they'd sue for money damages and a requirement that the offending defamation be removed online. Not that big of a deal.

[calvindog]

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (§ 230(c)(1)), and “No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section” (§ 230(e)(3)). The fact that it was 4-3, rather than 7-0, is disturbing.

Seems pretty clear to me.

No one is claiming that Yelp should be liable for the defamation posted on its site -- just that they should be required to remove defamatory posts.

[Leon]

The woman who made the false, defamatory post in the Yelp case was sued personally and didn't respond. She had no concern about a 7 figure default judgement being entered against her as she has no money. This leaves the aggrieved party with no recourse and is why I think the ruling stinks.

There should be some way to make her criminally liable. Then she could be thrown in jail and the punishment would fit the offense. Separating the two aspects of the situation, I see your point.

For the record, posts have been modified or taken down on this board because of blatantly false information. So i do agree with the premise that someone shouldn't be able to trash someone else (or company), falsely, with no real consequences. I have no problem taking care of common sense situations on our board. :)

Btw, for those that sent a kind word on how this board is managed, thanks. It's appreciated. I can't imagine running it any other way than having people be accountable for what they write/say by having their names next to their posts.

[esd10]

People in general have such thin skin anymore and it's been getting out of hand for a while.

[Exhibitman]

I’ve had a few clients wanting to go after Yelp trolls for negatives. My approach is to look at the post carefully. Most of these trolls are so socially deficient that their posts give them away: rude, inflammatory, poor grammar and spelling, and so on. Not a sober, serious critique. It is probably better in the end to ignore it or to respond politely and rationally to the post and let the troll craziness speak for itself.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Defamation lawyers. The already exist. Instead of suing for money damages they'd sue for money damages and a requirement that the offending defamation be removed online. Not that big of a deal.

I disagree. Once you're talking about permitting affirmative censorship by the government, that's a big deal.