YELP and the First Amendment

[Krgrecw]

In a decision that could reshape the rules for online consumer reviews, a Virginia court has ruled that the popular website Yelp must turn over the names of seven reviewers who anonymously criticized a prominent local carpet cleaning business.

The case revolves around negative feedback against Virginia-based Hadeed Carpet Cleaning. The owner, Joe Hadeed, said the users leaving bad reviews were not real customers of the cleaning service — something that would violate Yelp’s terms of service. His attorneys issued a subpoena demanding the names of seven anonymous reviewers, and a judge in Alexandria ruled that Yelp had to comply.

Should a person have the right to post an anonymous review critical of a business? Does the business have the right to the identity of that reviewer?

The court decided that a person has the right to post a negative review, if that is their opinion. But the business has the right to verify that the reviewer was indeed a customer. If not, then this is no longer opinion, but a false claim, and the reviewer’s comments are not protected by the First Amendment.

This is an important precedent.





Curious how people feel about this?

[zitothebrave]

Kinda fun, can you imagine the battles that will take place? Yelp having an appeal process now?

I don't disagree with the ruling.

[jpx7]

This is an important precedent.

Beyond how I feel about this specific case (and my feelings are mixed, though I lean in the pro-anonymity direction), I'm not sure it will actually set an important precedent, one way or another. From what I've read, Virginia's state laws are pretty generous to the party seeking revelatory redress in these matters, so in a lot of states Hadeed's suit wouldn't have even made it this far.

[The Chosen One]

You can generally sue someone for defamation or libel. So I think this would also count as that as well.

[goldfly]

how is this a first amendment issue?

[goldfly]

i wish kg would come back to this one

[Krgrecw]

That was the quote from the article. Cut and pasted all but the last sentence. Don't remember where I linked it from. Yahoo perhaps?



From theconsumerist:
A Viriginia appeals court ruled that Yelp must identify seven of the anonymous reviewers who left anonymous reviews on the carpet cleaner’s page, reports Courthouse News, which is a win for the business and an apparent loss for reviewers in terms of First Amendment rights — if they are in fact, customers of the business.
See, the situation is a bit sticky — he couldn’t prove they weren’t customers because they’re anonymous, and Yelp can’t prove they are without revealing to him who they are. If they aren’t customers and are making false statements, that might be defamatory. But if they are customers, they should be protected by the First Amendment.

[50PoundHead]

Isn't this similar to the situation when the Whole Foods honcho got on-line, didn't reveal who he was (or manufactured a false identity) and ripped one of his competitors? I seem to remember something about that and that his actions were revealed. I don't know if there was litigation or not.

I tend to side with Hadeed here. Hadeed's competitors could be going on-line and posting fictitious reviews. If a person is upset enough with service to lodge an on-line complaint, they shouldn't have a problem signing their real name.

[Krgrecw]

50, I guess the argument is,even though an upset customer should sign his name do they have to? Shouldn't people have a right to post under 'anonymous' if they wish?



I imagine this is why some sites are starting to make people comments through Thier Facebook accounts.

[thethe]

You don't' have a right slander a business without just cause.

[zitothebrave]

You don't' have a right slander a business without just cause.

Well my more interesting question is does the business retaliate, and then what happens? Personally I like the anonymous factor of yelp if you really want to. But I think people shouldn't feel the need to post anonymous. If you have a terrible service the manager should know.

[thethe]

Well my more interesting question is does the business retaliate, and then what happens? Personally I like the anonymous factor of yelp if you really want to. But I think people shouldn't feel the need to post anonymous. If you have a terrible service the manager should know.

In my opinion that if they are allowed to find out whether or not these were actual patrons then they will have the right to sue. Not sure they will win but it will start change in that you won't be able to post anonymously.

[Krgrecw]

But doesn't a person have a right to give an opinion on a service without giving his name?

I think this really falls on Yelp. They have a right to protect someone's identity but they should also make sure complaints are legit.

I don't go to ESPN, but don't they make thread commenters log on through Facebook? Seems like the only viable way a site could do something.

[The Chosen One]

First amendment applies to government. Yelp can protect someone's identity but they can also freely give it out with or without subpoena. When you post on yelp's site you are posting openly on their property. Not considered public domain.

[50PoundHead]

50, I guess the argument is,even though an upset customer should sign his name do they have to? Shouldn't people have a right to post under 'anonymous' if they wish?



I imagine this is why some sites are starting to make people comments through Thier Facebook accounts.

But this is pretty much the same problem I have with the Citizen's United decision. I think people have darn near the right to say pretty much whatever they want to say and it's dicey to put limits on what is legitimate speech (legitimate in terms of actual, but should they be allowed to hide behind a cloak of anonymity? I'm not totally sold on Haddad's case, thus my use of the word tend. But there should be a way for Haddad to find out whether or not the negative comments were lodged by actual customers.

[Krgrecw]

But this is pretty much the same problem I have with the Citizen's United decision. I think people have darn near the right to say pretty much whatever they want to say and it's dicey to put limits on what is legitimate speech (legitimate in terms of actual, but should they be allowed to hide behind a cloak of anonymity? I'm not totally sold on Haddad's case, thus my use of the word tend. But there should be a way for Haddad to find out whether or not the negative comments were lodged by actual customers.

I agree. 100%. But how can it be done?

[gtcway]

Without anonymity, what sane person would post a negative review, even if justified, when there's a good chance they will be sued by the company. Let's say it's thrown out right away. So what? That person probably already lost at least a day of work, lost sleep worrying about it and spent money on a lawyer.
Not worth it to me. Which is exactly what these companies want, make everyone afraid to post a negative review.

[50PoundHead]

I agree. 100%. But how can it be done?

I honestly have no idea. Perhaps the site could turn over information upon request by the company that received negative reviews. Maybe some kind of threshold.

Don't anyone get me wrong. I'm all for freedom of speech, but I'm also for transparency. If you have guts enough to complain, you should have guts enough to put your name on it.

[goldfly]

love that kg is arguing that complaining without being man enough to put your name on the complaint is a free speech issue

[zitothebrave]

Without anonymity, what sane person would post a negative review, even if justified, when there's a good chance they will be sued by the company. Let's say it's thrown out right away. So what? That person probably already lost at least a day of work, lost sleep worrying about it and spent money on a lawyer.
Not worth it to me. Which is exactly what these companies want, make everyone afraid to post a negative review.

You can't be sued for defamation if you say something that happened.