FTC Goes After Yelp Because Yelp Has The Audacity To Let Kids Use Its App

from the wait,-what's-the-problem-exactly? dept

For years now, we've discussed the ridiculousness of the COPPA law (the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act). The rallying cry of "protect the children!" quite frequently leads to very poor policy decisions, and COPPA (and the enforcement around it) is a perfect example of that. While there might possibly be good intentions behind the law, the practical reality is that it's a joke. It effectively places a much larger burden on any site that allows anyone under 13 to use the site. While, in practice, it's supposed to only apply to sites that are targeted to kids, in an attempt to avoid that, many sites put a blanket ban on those under 13. In our own terms of service we explicitly tell anyone under 13 not to register with our site. Our lawyers more or less insisted that we had to do this, and plenty of other sites do the same. So the end result is that kids under 13, who often should be using the internet, are told that they can't use large parts of the internet -- including sites that are useful to their education. But of course many of them still use the internet. They just lie about it. In fact, one researcher found that the only practical effect of the law is that it leads parents to teach their kids that it's okay to lie. Even worse, the FTC seems entirely unconcerned about the real impact of the law -- but prefers to insist that it's really protecting children, despite no actual evidence to support this. In fact, the FTC has even pushed to expand the law.

The FTC has now gone after its latest COPPA "violator": Yelp. According to the complaint filed against the company Yelp had the audacity to let kids under 13 register for its service via the company's iOS and Android apps. And then? Well, I assume that the very small number of kids who did so, used the app to *gasp* find reviews on restaurants and such things. The FTC complaint doesn't present any evidence of any actual harm here. Just the fact that it let a small number of kids register, and then didn't meet all the checkbox requirements of "protecting the children."

I'm honestly curious if the "consumer protection division" at the FTC thinks that kids would be better off if they were blocked from using Yelp entirely, or if they just think,"Aha, gotcha!" when they file these kinds of lawsuits?

Filed Under: apps, coppa, ftc, protect the children, under 13
Companies: yelp

EFF Files Amicus Brief In State Supreme Court Appeal Of Case Threatening Anonymous Speech

from the should-be-protecting-all-speech,-not-just-the-stuff-you-like dept

The EFF has filed an amicus brief in a case involving a business suing anonymous reviewers for defamation. In 2013, Hadeed Carpet Cleaning took seven anonymous Yelp reviewers to court over allegedly defamatory reviews. It asked the court to unmask the people behind the reviews, claiming that they weren't customers and therefore, their reviews were false and defamatory per se. Yelp, the host of the contested reviews, refused to comply with the subpoena, arguing that it didn't meet the constitutional requirements needed to override First Amendment protections.

Unfortunately, the state of Virginia has a much lower bar for plaintiffs to hurdle in unmasking anonymous commenters and reviewers. The Dendrite rules, which have been applied in a number of states, weren't used in this case. Instead of having to prove that these reviewers had definitely broken the law, all Hadeed had to do was show the court that it had a "good faith basis" for believing the reviews were defamatory. Hadeed never contested the content of the reviews, but rather relied on the assumption that these reviews weren't posted by actual customers and, almost solely because of this, were actionable.

The EFF notes in that the lower court decisions took this low bar and went even lower, threatening to make Virginia a very dangerous place for anonymous speech, especially if it continues to place its state laws above the First Amendment.

Hadeed alleged that the reviewers aren't actually customers, but the lower courts didn't require it to provide proof. Nor did Hadeed show how the reviews were defamatory. Whether or not what Hadeed claimed was enough under Virginia law, the First Amendment requires significantly more evidence of defamation.

The brief itself points out that stripping away the protection of anonymity will just encourage further bad behavior from a variety of bad actors, who will be able to use subpoenas to expose their critics and subject them to further harassment.

Amicus EFF has witnessed these tactics at work firsthand. By bringing an ultimately frivolous lawsuit, litigants often seek to unmask anonymous speakers in order to humiliate them or discourage their speech. Thankfully, most courts have been aware of the harm that would flow from allowing such baseless subpoenas to issue without first considering the justification for unmasking these individuals…

The use of harassing subpoenas is also a favorite tactic in online copyright infringement litigation. In a typical case, the owners of adult movies file mass lawsuits based on single counts of copyright infringement stemming from the downloading of a pornographic film, and improperly lump hundreds of defendants together regardless of where their Internet Protocol addresses indicate they live. The motivation behind these cases appears to be to leverage the risk of embarrassment associated with pornography, as well as the accompanying costs of litigation, to wield as a sword to coerce settlement payments of several thousand dollars from each of these individuals…

The brief also argues that while anonymity is not guaranteed and can be removed under certain circumstances, the plaintiff's arguments haven't met these requirements.

All parties to this dispute agree that the constitutional privilege to remain anonymous is not absolute. Plaintiffs may properly seek information necessary to pursue reasonable and meritorious litigation. As the Court of Appeals put it, “if the reviews are unlawful in that they are defamatory, then the John Does’ veil of anonymity may be pierced, provided certain procedural safeguards are met.” (“Certain classes of speech, including defamatory and libelous speech, are entitled to no constitutional protection.”).

Rather, the dispute is as to the proper standard to apply in deciding whether to uphold the reviewers’ anonymity. The Court of Appeals rejected the guidance of numerous other state courts, including the leading case of Dendrite, and instead held that Virginia Code § 8.01-407.1 provides the sole standard for Virginia courts faced with unmasking anonymous speakers. This conclusion should be reversed because this interpretation of § 8.01-407.1 fails to meet the minimum standards of the First Amendment.

And if all of that fails to resonate, the EFF says there's also some jurisdictional questions with further First Amendment implications. Yelp's headquarters are in California and Hadeed should be filing its subpoenas there. Of course, the higher standard in California most likely means they would be rejected. But if the lower court's decision holds, people and companies looking to unmask anonymous commenters and reviewers will be making libel tourism stops in Virginia.

The lower court’s departure from standard practice means that Yelp is now subject to Virginia’s subpoena standards, rather than California’s. Under the rule that the lower court has adopted, Virginia’s subpoena jurisprudence can apply across the country. An enterprising plaintiff could file subpoenas in Virginia, knowing that Virginia has adopted a more lenient standard than its fellow courts. Non-parties would have to fight their requests in Virginia courts rather than the courts where the documents were stored, at additional and considerable expense. This is particularly problematic where, as here, the subpoena requests implicate First Amendment interests, which states are obligated to uphold on behalf of their citizens…

While there are many people who argue that online anonymity is just a way for people to say whatever they like without consequence, there's much more to it than insults, trolling and 4chan. The protections of anonymous speech date back to the founding principles of this country, predating the internet's rise as the simultaneous best/worst thing to happen to the world.

Online anonymity needs more protection than the state of Virginia is willing to afford it. The lower court set the bar for unmasking at toe-stubbing level and, if the state Supreme Court upholds it, will make Virginia the new home for the "tyranny of the majority." Hopefully, the state's top court will realize that it's also protecting the rights of American citizens, not just local businesses whose approach to criticism is to start filing lawsuits.

Filed Under: anonymity, dendrite rules, free speech, reviews, virginia
Companies: eff, hadeed carpet cleaning, yelp

Bad Idea: Threatening Public Citizen's Paul Levy For Asking You About Your Bogus Defamation Lawsuit

from the just-saying dept

Paul Levy (disclaimer: has represented us in the past) over at Public Citizen has a blog post up concerning yet another questionable lawsuit from a company, in this case, ToyoMotors, against some people who wrote negative reviews on Yelp. These kinds of questionable lawsuits are all too common. As Levy notes, the main target of the lawsuit, Jennifer Choi, made statements that didn't appear all that different from complaints from other consumer about ToyoMotors, and some of the statements that ToyoMotors claims are defamatory clearly would fall into protected statements of hyperbole. But all of that is kind of meaningless because of the major flaw in the lawsuit: the comments were made in 2009. The lawsuit was filed in 2013. The statute of limitations on defamation in Arizona is one year from publication. Do the math.

Even more ridiculous, is that when Paul Levy called up ToyoMotors' lawyer, Robert Lewis, Lewis responded to Levy in a manner I would suggest is unwise.

I tried to ask ToyoMotors’ counsel, Robert Lewis, about the apparent flaws in his complaint, but when I got him on the telephone he started exclaiming loudly about how he might sue me for defamation (assuming that I might make false statements) or extortion (if my statements were accurate), and threatening to file a bar complaint against me (apparently, for unauthorized practice of law in Arizona). When I followed up with specific emailed questions, he was unwilling to explain why he has any sound basis for proceeding against Choi.

In general, this is probably not the best way to respond to a lawyer calling you up to ask some basic questions about a lawsuit you've filed. More specifically, it seems exceptionally preposterous to do that to Paul Levy, recently described in a glowing profile as "the web bully's worst enemy." Either way, Levy is looking for some lawyers in Arizona who might be interested in helping to defend Choi against ToyoMotors' questionable lawsuit.

Filed Under: jennifer choi, paul levy, robert lewis
Companies: toyomotors, yelp

Property Management Company Files $1 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Critic And Former Tenant

from the sure,-venturing...-but-gaining-what? dept

Companies suing critics is nothing new, even if it's generally a bad idea. Even if completely justified (which it rarely is), the move does little to improve the company's reputation, especially if there's any amount of media coverage. The attempt to silence the criticism usually only solidifies the aggrieved company's link with negative phrases both in the minds of the public and search engine algorithms.

Techdirt reader ABJ sends in another story of a defamation lawsuit aimed at an online critic.

A Columbus man faces a lawsuit with potential damages of more than $1 million because of comments he made online about his experience renting at a Northwest Side apartment complex.

James Raney, an information-technology developer who now lives in Harrison West, commented on several forums about his time at the Meridian off W. 5th Avenue. He used a comic tone to contrast the complex’s purported “luxury apartments” and his view of their reality.

At least this time, the suing company has specified exactly which of Raney's statements it has found actionable. Its filing lists several statements made by the blogger/former tenant, including these.

• Connor is “gaming the system” by paying people to write positive reviews on apartment ratings websites.

• The company does not spend enough money for needed repairs at its properties.

• Connor “financially raped” residents with high fees.

With the truth being the most absolute defense against defamation allegations, the company will have to provide some information which refutes Raney's claims. The company claims it isn't trying to shut up critics, but rather attempting to address comments it feels are "untrue, malicious and defamatory." The company is asking for "more than $25,000" per allegedly defamatory statement, of which it has named 30. According to Raney, the grand total asked for exceeds $1.5 million.

Raney's blog details several complaints by other tenants of Connor properties, many of which allege negligent behavior by the company in response to maintenance concerns. Tenants have complained of flooding that has gone unaddressed for days on end, or hastily patched with paint or cardboard.

One former tenant has filed a personal injury lawsuit against the company after a waterlogged ceiling collapsed onto him in his bedroom. One complaint details an electrical outage in her apartment, which the maintenance crew apparently addressed by flipping the circuit breaker switch a few times and handing her a space heater to keep her powerless apartment warm (which did nothing for the food in her fridge that rotted while the maintenance crew periodically flipped switches).

The company currently holds an "A" rating at the Better Business Bureau but it's a highly suspect "A." (And, it must be noted, most BBB ratings can be considered suspect...) The company has fielded 312 complaints in the last 3 years, 216 of them listed as "problems with product/service."

A class action lawsuit alleging the company's failure to maintain a livable property at one apartment complex in Georgia alleges that Connor's business strategy (according to its own documents) is to "flip" underperforming properties -- buying and selling them within a couple of years -- which gives it no incentive to maintain the property once it reaches its desired occupancy level. This lawsuit is still ongoing, 19 months and 120 docket entries down the road.

All of this does not necessarily add up to a clear picture of malfeasance on The Connor Group's part, but filing a million-dollar lawsuit against one blogger doesn't necessarily make it look blameless, either. It has been racking up about one complaint every three days for the last three years, but that's mitigated by the fact that it's spread across the 15,000 units it manages.

The question remains as to why a company would further risk its reputation by expanding a blogger's limited scope and reach by making his claims public by filing a lawsuit. Paul Levy of Public Citizen offers this theory.

The personal nature of the criticism probably contributed to the lawsuit, said Paul Levy, an attorney at Public Citizen…

“It tends to be small to midsize companies” that sue for defamation, he said. “It tends not to be the General Motors of the world. It tends to be a company where there is an individual who built the company, and he doesn’t like it when the online world criticizes it.”

This seems to be true in a majority of company vs. critic lawsuits. The plaintiff is usually someone big enough to draw dedicated detractors but not confident enough to shrug off the attacks. This doesn't mean entities should just ignore vocal critics, but they should take into consideration that addressing the critic (rather than the criticisms) tends to play out very badly in the court of public opinion. Even if the legal system agrees with its claims, that will ultimately have little effect on the group that really matters -- potential customers.

Filed Under: defamation, landlord, reviews, tenants
Companies: connor group, connor properties, yelp

Watch Repairer Goes Legal Over Tame Yelp Review, Streisand Effect Takes Over

from the and-now-it's-everywhere dept

There must be something about Yelp reviews that make people act all crazy-like. Maybe it's the personal nature behind someone reviewing your goods or services, or perhaps there's something about seeing a review online in text that drives people off the deep end, but the number of legal threats and lawsuits connected to simple Yelp reviews always surprises me. Specifically, I'd have thought we've had enough of these stories by now that competent businesses would realize that issuing threats over reviews is a great way to get the Streisand reputation multiplier going.

But, apparently not. This latest example is of a watch repair shop issuing a legal threat over what I have to say is a relatively innocuous review of their business. The most scathing section appears to me to be this.

This is where Ron really lost points. I took both watches to a place called Precision Watch Repair, right around the corner, which had good ratings here on Yelp. I met with Eric, who told me first that he definitely could fix the vintage one, and also that he could repair the Ebel without sending it out - all for a good price. The Ebel was repaired in a day. I went from hopeless to happy within a span of 15 minutes. In addition, Eric called me THAT DAY with the estimate, and followed up the next day. So Ron Gordon loses in terms of creativity, and just overall slowness....which seems appropriate for a review of a watch repair shop.

No big deal, right? The review is on point, relevant to the business, and omits any real inflammatory language. Even if it turned out the claims in the review were exaggerated, we're not exactly talking about a vilification here. Well, the watch repair shop isn't taking all this mild complaining lying down, damn it.

Well, okay then. Call me crazy, but it seems to me that the claim that this one mild review was detrimental to Ron Gordon's business is probably more melodramatic than a high school freshman that just got stood up to the spring formal. This story going viral on the other hand? Yeah, that Streisand Effect is probably doing some actual harm to the business and its reputation for treating their customers well. Actually moving forward with any defamation lawsuit would be particularly tricky as well, given they'd have to prove the falsehood of the claim. Meanwhile, a whole lot more people know the name Ron Gordon Watch Repair than they did yesterday, and for all the wrong reasons.

As the original article notes, however, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised if Ron is getting bad legal advice, judging by the Yelp reviews for his lawyer.

Filed Under: defamation, lawsuits, reviews, watch repair
Companies: ron gordan watch repair, yelp

That Time Yelpers Took Revenge On A Bigot Restaurant Owner

from the have-a-gay-old-time dept

We've seen several examples of how Yelp and online reviews can impact a company's behavior. Sometimes that impact takes the form of the company in question going nuclear on the reviewers and subsequently crying "hack." Other times companies attempt to get reviewers into hot water through criminal charges. Or a company can just attempt to charge negative reviewers a couple thousand bucks, because that makes business sense. Mind you, none of this has slowed down the practice of the internet punishing poor behavior through negative reviews, including times when those reviews take on a farcical and/or creative tone.

Such is the case with with the owner of the Chicaro Club, a restaurant and bar in Oklahoma. See, Gary isn't what you'd call the most progressive business owner on the planet.

Last week, when a KFOR-TV reporter asked the owner of an Enid, OK, restaurant/bar about allegations that he wasn't exactly the most open-minded businessman in town, he admitted, "I've been in business 44 years, I think I can spot a freak or a faggot... I really don't want gays around. If I reached over there and slapped the sh** out of you, you should be offended," he explained. "But to call someone a 'chink' or someone call me a bigot, that doesn't bother me."

Ha! Racism and bigotry! Good one, Gary! Now, while Gary's speech and behavior are wholly reprehensible, that whole freedom of speech thing protects such asshattery. But it's a good thing it also protects the creative reviewers of Gary's establishment over at Yelp, too, because they're going to town on him as a matter of protest. Some highlights for you:

The mandatory "pants check" at the entrance was a little off-putting at first, but I totally understood once I got to the men's room. Definitely the hottest underwear party I've ever been to, and Gary takes the cake (and the FROSTING) as the best pivot man in the history of circle jerks! - Bruce M.

As a polysexual demiromantic Peruvian atheist that physically identifies as handicapped and ethnically identifies as a Cambodian transgendered sea turtle, it's understandably hard for me to find a place to fit in. This place was my safe zone. I'll never forget my first time. As a young newly open entity (I don't believe in labeling myself), I was looking for a place to feel free. The chick-fil-a had recently been shut down by the board of health and I was heartbroken. I found this place by coincidence. I had met this wonderful man on grindr, and mid-coitus, he stopped and asked me if I had ever been to Chicaros club. I told him I hadn't, and off we went. - Alex R.

Awesome place. My girlfriend and I stopped in and at first we were a little worried that all of the gay guys there might not be down with a couple of lesbians hanging out. My fears were quickly dashed! Not only was everyone super nice, the owner joined us all in a rousing rendition of "We Are Family"! The best part is that, after he found out that I was on welfare, the owner comped my entire meal and gave us a complimentary steak! What a guy! - Allison B.

Yes, the reviews are sophomoric, delightfully so. And, yes, this is just trolling to piss off Gary. But this is the internet people. Protest via trolling with a little public shaming dashed in is what the internet is for. Fortunately, there are enough serious reviews mixed in with the jokes such that I wouldn't expect any unsuspecting homosexuals to accidentally go to the Chicaro Club to hit on Gary.

All that's left is to see how Gary chooses to react to his new-found fame and glory. If he's a man of his word, he won't care one bit. If my faith in humanity is justified, hopefully he'll keep on not caring as he goes out of business due to a chronic lack of customers.

Filed Under: review
Companies: chicaro club, yelp

Dangerous Ruling In Virginia Allows Cleaning Company To Identify Anonymous Yelp Critics

from the getting-it-wrong dept

Last year, we wrote about a troubling case in Virginia, in which a cleaning company, Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, sued seven anonymous Yelp reviewers in an attempt to discover who they were. Hadeed did not dispute the contents of the negative reviews, but rather said that, comparing the information to their own database, they could not identify the reviewers, and thus believed that they might not actually have been customers. Thus, Hadeed claims, the reviews would be defamatory since they didn't actually represent the experiences of actual customers. Yelp fought back on behalf of its users, pointing out that the First Amendment protects anonymous speech. Yelp pointed out that 11 different states had adopted the so-called Dendrite rules concerning the high bar necessary to force a company to reveal anonymous commenters. The basic idea is that you need to really show that the law has almost certainly been broken before you can identify the individuals.

Unfortunately, the Virginia state court of appeals has decided that it won't follow those rules, but rather will follow a Virginia state law that may be a bit out of date and (much worse) that it will interpret that law to have a very low bar, thus requiring Yelp to identify the commenters just because Hadeed Carpet Cleaning has "a good faith basis" to believe that the comments were defamatory. That's a very low bar, and allows for all sorts of mischief by those looking to unmask anonymous critics. There is a brief dissent in the case, in which one of the judges on the panel notes that, while he agrees that Virginia's law is the important one, he's troubled by the claim that Hadeed had a "good faith" basis, noting that the law requires "reasonable efforts... needed to advance the claim" but that in court Hadeed's lawyer simply said they really "don't know whether that person is a customer or not...." It would seem like "well, we just don't know" is not exactly a "good faith belief" that they were not a customer and that the comment is defamatory. Unfortunately, the majority of the court didn't seem to understand this point.

Yelp is apparently considering appealing the decision. But, at the very least, this may lead to the Supreme Court eventually having to weigh in on a better standard for protecting anonymous speech.

Filed Under: anonymity, dendrite, first amendment, free speech, reviews, virginia
Companies: hadeed carpet cleaning, yelp

Online Retailer Says If You Give It A Negative Review It Can Fine You $3,500

from the yeah,-that-sort-of-thing-would-NEVER-backfire dept

Lots of quasi-legal action has been taken over negative reviews left by customers at sites like Ripoff Report and Yelp. Usually, it takes the form of post-review threats about defamation and libel. Every so often, though, a company will make proactive moves (usually bad ones) to head off negative reviews.

Nicci Stevens sends in this report from Salt Lake City's KUTV, which details the actions taken by one company against a dissatisfied purchaser who left a negative review at Ripoff Report.

For Christmas several years ago, Jen Palmer's husband ordered her a number of trinkets from the website kleargear.com. But for 30 days, Kleargear.com never sent the products so the transaction was automatically cancelled by Paypal, Jen said.

Wanting an explanation, Jen says she tried to call the company but could never reach anyone. So frustrated, she turned to the internet writing a negative review on ripoffreport.com.

"There is absolutely no way to get in touch with a physical human being," it says. And it accuses kleargear.com of having "horrible customer service practices."

That was the end of it, Jen thought, until three years later when Jen's husband got an email from Kleargear.com demanding the post be removed or they would be fined.

Kleargear, unfortunately, was not simply bluffing. Up until August 2013 at least (the date of the last crawl by the Internet Archive), Kleargear had this atrocious bit of wording on its "Terms of Sale and Use" page.

Non-Disparagement Clause

In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts KlearGear.com, its reputation, products, services, management or employees.

Should you violate this clause, as determined by KlearGear.com in its sole discretion, you will be provided a seventy-two (72) hour opportunity to retract the content in question. If the content remains, in whole or in part, you will immediately be billed $3,500.00 USD for legal fees and court costs until such complete costs are determined in litigation. Should these charges remain unpaid for 30 calendar days from the billing date, your unpaid invoice will be forwarded to our third party collection firm and will be reported to consumer credit reporting agencies until paid.

Nice. I'm not sure what part of "fair and honest feedback" includes threatening unhappy purchasers with a $3,500 fine for publicly expressing their displeasure, especially considering Kleargear has made the clause entirely "eye of the beholder" by including the phrase "in its sole discretion." There's nothing "fair or honest" about this policy or the people looking to enforce it.

It's especially shady considering the page has now been yanked by Kleargear. It no longer exists in its sitemap and reroutes to its "Bestsellers" page if the URL is typed directly into the address bar. The "Terms of Use" link simply puts you right back on its generic "Help" page. The nasty clause is gone and it's only gone because Matt Gephardt at KUTV started asking questions.

Why would Kleargear insert such a customer-unfriendly bit of wording into its "terms of sales?" Maybe because its reputation used to be atrocious. (I mean, more so...)

There are many posts in addition to Jen's on Ripoffreport.com as well as other online consumer complaint boards. In 2010, the company was slapped with an "F rating" by the Better Business Bureau for "not delivering products purchased online in a timely manner," says the BBB's website. Kleargear.com today has a "B" rating.

This clause makes you question the validity of its shiny "B" rating. (Not that a BBB rating isn't questionable in its own right…) If it's been heading off complaints with borderline extortionary tactics, that "B" is worthless. When Gephardt finally got an (anonymous) response from someone with Kleargear on its "Smile or Get Fined" policy, the person reached defended the $3,500 fee, stating that the threat towards Jen wasn't "blackmail," but rather "a diligent effort to help them avoid the fine."

Obviously, the company doesn't truly believe this tactic is truly justifiable or it wouldn't have memory-holed the page with the non-disparagement clause. Even worse, it's made no move to undo the damage it has already done to this customer's credit by sending the unpaid, completely bogus fine to collections.

According to the Internet Archive, that clause didn't exist in 2008, when Jen wrote her review, so there's no way the company can claim that charge is legitimate, even by its own shady metrics. It actually doesn't appear until June of 2012, suggesting that its battle to raise its BBB rating wasn't going as well as it had hoped, but rather than overhaul its customer service, it decided to bill its way back to the top at $3,500 a review.

Now, it would appear that if you're dissatisfied with your Kleargear experience, you're free to let the internet know about without getting hit with a $3,500 bill... for the moment. The clause may have been removed because the company's currently feeling a little heat, but if it was willing to use this sort of underhanded tactic to quiet unsatisfied customers, then there's a good chance it will put something like this back in its "Terms of Sales" once it feels the worst has blown over.

Or maybe, just maybe, it will finally, after a half-decade, make an attempt to fix the underlying problem.

Filed Under: fines, kutv, online reviews
Companies: kleargear.com, ripoff report, yelp

Yelp Reviewers Launch Class Action Lawsuit Claiming They're 'Unpaid Employees'

from the wtf? dept

Remember when a Huffington Post volunteer writer named Jonathan Tasini sued the company for not paying him, even though he had volunteered to occasionally contribute stories? That lawsuit went nowhere fast, but it appears that others are now trying something similar. A class action lawsuit has been launched by a small group of Yelp reviewers, trying to make the (laughable and ridiculous) case that reviewers on the site are actually unpaid employees who are now demanding compensation. It appears that they're hoping the recent success of a few lawsuits involving "unpaid internships" will now carry over to user-generated content sites as well. To put it mildly, this is incredibly stupid.

Nothing about the relationship of a Yelp reviewer to the company is anything like an employment situation (or even an intern situation). They aren't "hired." They don't have responsibilities or jobs that they have to do. They volunteer to share some reviews because they want to do so. Everyone has their own motivations for why, but the idea that it's some sort of unpaid employment situation is ludicrous. The entire argument seems to hinge on the idea that Yelp gets value out of their reviews. Well, duh. But that doesn't make it an employment situation at all. The lawsuit is also littered with out of context snipes at Yelp for other aspects of its business which have absolutely nothing to do with the legal questions in play. Part of the argument, believe it or not, is that Yelp "instructed" these "unpaid employees" to do more work... because it had policies associated with its various gamification mechanisms to encourage them to write more. For example, Yelp has long had a "Yelp Elite" status, but if you're not contributing lots of reviews, you can lose that status. But, again, all of that is voluntary and is no different than tons of sites with gamification/badges for activity. To argue that constitutes an employment relationship is simply laughable.

It appears that at least some of the plaintiffs are pissed off because, at some point, Yelp cancelled their accounts based on "flimsy explanations." But, that seems to work against their own arguments. If these folks were really so "exploited" by Yelp, and "forced" to write for no money... then, um, why are they so upset that they "lost" that "job"? The best the lawsuit can offer up (and I'm not joking) is that the "cult-like rewards and disciplines" associated with the gamification drove people to continue to "work" for free.

Once again, this seems like the sort of class action lawsuit that gives class action lawyers a bad name. Find a company that is making a lot of money and come up with some absolutely ridiculous reason for suing. Even in the ridiculously unlikely chance that this lawsuit goes anywhere, the only ones who will benefit are the class action lawyers.

Filed Under: class action, reviews, unpaid employees
Companies: yelp

The War On Fake Reviews Ramps Up: NY Fines Companies For Fake Yelp Reviews

from the this-could-get-interesting dept

It would appear that there's finally a bit of a war on fake reviews. Just a few weeks ago, we noted how Yelp had sued a law firm for posting fake reviews. And a few days ago, NY's Attorney General announced $350,000 in fines against 19 companies for writing fake reviews.

Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today announced that 19 companies had agreed to cease their practice of writing fake online reviews for businesses and to pay more than $350,000 in penalties. "Operation Clean Turf," a year-long undercover investigation into the reputation management industry, the manipulation of consumer-review websites, and the practice of astroturfing, found that companies had flooded the Internet with fake consumer reviews on websites such as Yelp, Google Local, and CitySearch. In the course of the investigation, the Attorney General's office found that many of these companies used techniques to hide their identities, such as creating fake online profiles on consumer review websites and paying freelance writers from as far away as the Philippines, Bangladesh and Eastern Europe for $1 to $10 per review. By producing fake reviews, these companies violated multiple state laws against false advertising and engaged in illegal and deceptive business practices.

NY actually set up a whole sting operation, posing as a Yogurt shop in Brooklyn, asking SEO companies how to deal with negative reviews. Some of the companies offered to write up fake reviews, and suddenly NY had some targets to investigate. While many of the companies NY went after were SEO/digital marketing companies, some were the companies who hired astroturfers themselves (and the NY AG even calls them astroturfers). This includes US Coachways, a big charter bus company and Laser Cosmetica, a laser hair removal place in the NYC area.

Given just how frequently astroturfing seems to happen these days, it could be interesting to see if there's a bigger crackdown by consumer protection agencies, arguing that astroturfing is a form of false advertising. Still, as some are pointing out, there are many reasons for fake reviews that have nothing to do with a business paying people to write them good reviews -- and that's why fake reviews may be difficult to really stop.

Filed Under: astroturfing, fake reviews, new york
Companies: yelp