Yelp Sues Law Firm For Posting Fake Reviews
from the be-careful-what-you-review dept
Fake reviews online are something many people have just come to expect. Just recently we discussed an example of where it was obvious there were a ton of fake reviews on Amazon.com. Many sites that include user reviews work pretty hard to scrub the obviously fake ones, but it appears Yelp has taken that to a new level, deciding to sue a law firm for posting fake reviews. It should be noted that this same law firm, McMillan Group, previously had sued Yelp, claiming that it had been "coerced" into buying ads to get favorable reviews, so you could argue that there's a reason this particular firm was targeted. But, either way, it raises some fairly interesting legal questions.Specifically, Yelp is arguing that when McMillan employees created fake accounts in order to post bogus positive reviews for their own firm, they violated the terms of service of the site. Thankfully, (unlike Craigslist), Yelp doesn't try to argue that violating the TOS is a CFAA violation. Instead, the lawsuit focuses on some specific charges including breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, unfair competition and false advertising.
The filing details, rather comprehensively, how over a period of a few months, it appears that employees at the firm created accounts and immediately posted positive reviews of the firm, sometimes claiming things that are unlikely to be true. For example, certain users claim to be clients of the firm, which focuses on bankruptcy law, and then point out that the individuals in question have never filed for bankruptcy. There's also an amusing bit in which four accounts are created, one after the other, from a McMillan IP address, each leaving very positive reviews within minutes of creation, then logging out right before another account is created. And, of course, none of those accounts ever logged back in. Oh, and two of the accounts created one after the other started their posts with the identical sentence, including a typo:
They promissed [sic] me a fresh start through a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and I got it.Same exact sentence in both, one posted right after the other, but with different names and different accounts. Throughout the filing, you realize that these attempts to fake reviews are so hamhanded, that they were clearly done by someone who has no idea how to cover their own tracks. There were lots of cases of using the same IP address which was already associated with the company. In another case, the same email address is used for multiple accounts. It's as if they don't realize that Yelp can check these things.
No matter what, this should be an interesting lawsuit. While it does seem pretty clear that Yelp has caught this firm red-handed writing fake reviews, there are some pretty big questions as to whether or not that's actually a legal offense for the courts to sort out. There's a part of me that thinks that Yelp has every right to take action on its own site against those reviews and reviewers -- such as deleting the reviews and banning the reviewers -- but making the legal claims stick feels like a pretty big stretch. Also, some of the reviews they complain about don't even seem that questionable -- such as the so-called "circle of local lawyers" in San Diego who all reviewed each other. In some cases, those reviews just say things about how they recommend their own clients to those other lawyers when an issue comes up (such as bankruptcy) that another lawyer specializes in. That may actually be completely accurate.
There may be something to the fact that lawyer advertisements tend to be much more heavily regulated, so I could see a potential issue with false advertising, but I'm not sure that that's an issue for Yelp to take up directly, rather than whoever's in charge of making sure lawyers are advertising within the limitations of existing regulations. There's also some potential argument that a customer of the law firm could have standing to argue that they were harmed after believing fake reviews (though, even that's a stretch), but to argue that Yelp itself is harmed is, again, a bigger stretch (not impossible, but not a slam dunk).
None of this is a defense of the actions of whoever wrote those reviews, as it appears there's fairly strong evidence that the reviews are faked, I'm just not convinced that means it violates the law.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: breach of contract, fake reviews, false advertising, law firms, reviews
Companies: mcmillan group, yelp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cease and Desist
At this point the fake reviews are like harassment. They're annoying, easily identified, but still take time and energy to remove.
While the default lawsuit strategy is "go for the money" a simple C&D would be enough to both get the point across.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cease and Desist
This law firm is clearly diluting the quality of Yelp's offerings. If this firm is putting up fake reviews, you know there are 100s more people doing the same thing.
Perhaps it's negligible in microcosm, but there is harm being done to Yelp here no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not clear at all! Distrust SOLE source: interested party!
And a Techdirt axiom is: IP address isn't identity.
Oh, and unless they've a physically signed paper and consideration was exchanged, website Terms Of Service mean exactly nothing. It's sheer baloney that bozos can bind persons to contracts with a little bit of text just because it's wrapped in HTML.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not clear at all! Distrust SOLE source: interested party!
It all makes sense if you just think about it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not clear at all! Distrust SOLE source: interested party!
Even if all your repeated text were logically consistent, you are manifestly sheerly prejudiced against the law firm and apparently me.
For (self-referencing) example and as absolute proof, the above text evidencing your prejudice is now on your own computer! And so you must now prove the negative or it's absolute fact. Enjoy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not clear at all! Distrust SOLE source: interested party!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not clear at all! Distrust SOLE source: interested party!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not clear at all! Distrust SOLE source: interested party!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not clear at all! Distrust SOLE source: interested party!
Not everyone knows how stupid you are.
If you keep posting like this, the word will get around and in no time; everyone will know what an idiot you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not clear at all! Distrust SOLE source: interested party!
Also, while it's true that IP doesn't necessarily equal identity, you can be a whole lot more confident when it's a business. Most businesses have at least one static IP and tight security around that IP. If somebody not authorized by them is able to use their network to do things, they have a lot more issues than just Yelp suing them (with possible access to court documents and all). Methinks they probably shouldn't try that defense in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Decreasing Yelp Value both perceived & monetary
If a business is posting fake reviews not only are they violating TOS and guilty of false advertising (since they are promoting their own company), they are materially decreasing Yelp's value in their central business activity. At a minimum an organized process to fake reviews should have incur a civil liability for a legal response in Yelp's point of view. Not sure how much it's actually worth but it's a solid argument in Yelp's favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Decreasing Yelp Value both perceived & monetary
Less spot-on is MikeM's take: "I'm just not convinced that means it violates the law." A contract is private law, and, while a court will decide officially if it does, it seems pretty apparent that the fake posts violate that law. (MikeM's take is appropriately equivocal to the extent it deals with statutes regulating advertising.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Decreasing Yelp Value both perceived & monetary
Are you comfortable saying that a TOS is the equivalent of a signed contract? I realize some courts have said that, but I'm a bit uncomfortable saying that when no one reads them and there's no actual signature involved.
Less spot-on is MikeM's take: "I'm just not convinced that means it violates the law." A contract is private law, and, while a court will decide officially if it does, it seems pretty apparent that the fake posts violate that law. (MikeM's take is appropriately equivocal to the extent it deals with statutes regulating advertising.)
Again, I'm less comfortable with jumping to the point of saying that a TOS is no different than a standard contract, and I'm also slightly troubled by the idea that people can be brought to court for merely violating a TOS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Decreasing Yelp Value both perceived & monetary
If there's good news here, it's that Yelp is suing a law firm, who will hopefully know which arguments to make.
If there's bad news, it's that the law firm was apparently doing things which make it a rather unsympathetic defendant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead of going to the courts
Attach a link to a summary of the evidence, no ip's or email addresses of course, but a summary like the one in this article.
Think of it as more speech to combat bad speech. Don't 'censor' the reviews. Let the reader decide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It also sets an example for other companies telling them Yelp might name and shame them too.
And of course the value of Yelp would decrease if they did nothing... They make a business out of true reviews so overflooding it with fake ones is bad for business. Especially such clueless ones...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This should be good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yelp is heading down a dark path
Then there is Yelp. The story from small business is pretty much the same with everyone regarding Yelp: DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE. Ignore their calls, avoid them, don't have a conversation.
If you do have conversation - you better be ready to purchase a 'program' - otherwise - you will suddenly see previously 'filtered' reviews become 'unfiltered'. Or visible reviews become 'filtered.' Whether these reviews are legitimate or not is not the point - it's that they magically show up when you turn Yelp down on businesses to 'help' your restaurant/bar/whatever. Ask anyone in the restaurant business and they will tell you this. Super common.
Yelp benefits from angry reviewers and even fake reviews. The more reviews the better - it does not matter if they are fake - either way they are ammunition.
Yelp is headed for trouble with the FTC. The legal issues brought up here pale in comparison to the larger issue of defining whether Yelp is an 'advertiser' or an 'information tool'. If the FTC deems Yelp an advertiser - then Yelp will be held responsible for reviews. If they are their business as a review site is DONE. They will subject to every imaginable lawsuit. Just Google 'Yelp' and 'extortion' to see the massive amount of anecdotal evidence.
Yelp's sales team is playing with fire trying to meet the quarterly guidance to the Street. Stay away from this thing if you are an investor. And if you are a small business - don't talk to them at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yelp is heading down a dark path
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yelp is heading down a dark path
That is called "discovery".
Now Businesses typically can not have a principle sue, the suit has to be done by a lawyer.
Feel free to track down a restaurant run by a lawyer who will be pissed off enough to go down the lawsuit path and get back with us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yelp is heading down a dark path
the FTC? I think the law firm is more in the dark here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yelp is the most despicable for profit extortionist organization on the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yelp suit
I sincerely hope they prevail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Review filter
Yelp supposedly has an advanced filter. If the fake reviews are filtered, what damage is caused to yelp?
I wonder if they are suing other small businesses who made fake reviews, which seems different than selling reviews.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amending 47 : 230 to stop some Yelp (et al) damage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roofing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business Court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suppressive business practices..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]