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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.
.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Leon

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.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

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.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.