Tons Of Companies Sued In Class Action Lawsuit Over Uploading Phone Addressbooks

from the class-actions-in-action dept

There was some controversy a month or so ago, when it came out that app maker Path was secretly uploading your entire address book to its servers. The company apologized and deleted all the data. Of course, pretty quickly, people realized that lots of apps do this, if you allow the app to search your address book to see who else you know is already using the service. The way they do this is to upload your address book. I would have thought this was, well, obvious, but not everyone seemed to think so (it's also why I never use that feature). Either way, lots of apps quickly changed either how they work or how they explain what happens with that feature.

But, of course, in our litigious society, that's not going to stop the class action lawsuits from being filed. In a 152 page document, a class action lawsuit has been filed against pretty much every big name company in the space:

Path, Inc., Twitter, Inc., Apple, Inc., Facebook, Inc., Beluga, Inc. ., Yelp! Inc., Burbn, Inc., Instagram, Inc., Foursquare Labs, Inc., Gowalla Incorporated, Foodspotting, Inc., Hipster, Inc., LinkedIn Corporation, Rovio Mobile Oy, ZeptoLab UK Limited aka ZeptoLab, Chillingo Ltd., Electronic Arts Inc., and Kik Interactive, Inc.,

The lawsuit kicks off by quoting Robert Fulghum's "All I really Need to Know I Learned In Kindergarten," saying, "Don't take things that aren't yours." Of course, as with many such class actions, this one is all about getting the lawyers paid. This isn't to say that I think the actions in uploading the address books were ok, but worth a lawsuit? Seems a bit extreme. It seems that the public pressure about all of this has caused pretty much all of these companies to change how they work, and it's unlikely any real significant "harm" came from this.

Filed Under: address books, class action, privacy, uploading
Companies: ea, facebook, foursquare, instagram, linkedin, path, rovie, twitter, yelp

Should We Pass A Law To Stop Yelp From Harming Chain Restaurants?

from the the-internet-enables-niches dept

We keep hearing stories about how "the internet is killing music" or "the internet is killing newspapers," which inevitably seem to suggest that "something must be done," and often that "something" involves the government getting involved. Of course, if you look at the details, you realize that the internet isn't killing music or journalism at all. In many ways it's just changing both and enabling new means of creation, distribution, promotion and sales. But, people like to interpret the struggles of one part of an industry, and pretend that represents the wider industry -- and then insist something must be done.

But, of course, one part of an industry becoming obsolete due to technology and market changes is the natural path of disruption, and not a cause for concern. Just to highlight this point, it's worth pointing to a Washington Post article with the title, How Yelp is killing chain restaurants. It refers to a study (pdf) that looked into the impact of Yelp reviews on restaurants. Among its many findings was that the market share of big chain restaurants appears to have declined.

When you think about it, this is not surprising at all. Part of the reason why chains are successful is because they offer familiarity, which allows potential diners to trust that the food they'll get at them will be of a certain quality. If you're unsure where to go, and want to minimize the risk, you are more likely to just hit up a big brand you're familiar with. But Yelp changes the equation. Now you can get an approximation of trust in a restaurant you've never heard of. It's not perfect, but it certainly decreases the risk, and thus increases the likelihood that you'll try a smaller alternative. At the same time, there's little that Yelp is likely to do to increase the attractiveness of a chain restaurant.

Of course, there's a wider parallel to other industries as well. We've heard some fears that the internet creates too many "winner takes all" situations, with a single dominant player, but the reality often seems quite different. It creates the ability to build a multitude of niches, because information decreases the risk of trying someone new or different. So rather than relying on a major record label to spoon-feed you the next big hit, you can find more niche music that you like. Rather than relying on the mainstream press for your news coverage, you can seek out alternative viewpoints. The rise of the internet and the ability to share information means that things are less likely to consolidate into single large players, because the reasons for such large entities often is undermined by more widespread information.

Filed Under: chain restaurants, protectionism
Companies: yelp

Dentist Has To Pay Legal Fees For Suing Yelp & Reviewer Over Bad Review

from the anti-slapp-and-section-230 dept

We've had a number of posts lately about lawsuits over bad Yelp reviews, and it appears they're not going so well. We pointed out a doctor losing a lawsuit over bad reviews, but Eric Goldman has the latest, in which a dentist who sued has to pay $80,000 in legal fees, not just to the reviewer, but also to Yelp itself. You see, the dentist and/or his lawyer apparently didn't bother to understand that Section 230 of the CDA protects the service provider from such a suit (which doesn't say much good about the lawyer). Once the lawyer learned of Section 230 (a bit late), they dismissed Yelp from the case... but the court still awarded legal fees to Yelp's lawyers. Hopefully this helps lawyers learn that filing bogus lawsuits against service providers over the actions of their users is not a smart move.

Filed Under: defamation, legal fees
Companies: yelp

Company Claims Submitting Negative Yelp Review Violates Contract

from the well,-don't-sign-such-contracts dept

Patty points us to a Reddit post where someone claims that after posting a negative Yelp review, the company being reviewed threatened the reviewer with legal action, claiming that the review violated a contract that the customer had signed. The business apparently is one that repairs damaged hard drives or recovers data off of them. The customer was clearly not satisfied. Where it gets strange though is that the company claims that the negative review violates the signed contract. As per standard Reddit practices, the details of the company are redacted, so it's a bit difficult to dig into the facts here. However, it seems likely that this threat is more about getting the person to back down than any realistic shot at legal action. One would hope the company would realize that if it actually took legal action, that information would spread far and wide across the internet, and would probably do significantly more harm than any single bad review on Yelp...

Filed Under: contracts, reviews
Companies: yelp

Doctor Sues Patients Over Bad Yelp Reviews

from the that's-not-going-to-help dept

We've seen all sorts of business owners get upset about Yelp, but it seems to be ratcheting up a notch. For example, take Denver chef, Scott Parker, who lashed out at Yelp reviewers in a recent interview (sent in by visual77). After being asked what he'd like to see less of, he stated:

Amateur instant online restaurant critics -- specifically those who write reviews for a website that rhymes with "kelp." Think about it: They review a McDonald's and then turn around and review Mizuna. I just imagine bored, jobless layabouts with not many friends who are convinced that they're going to have a bad time before they even step through the door of a joint. The kicker is, you can't respond to these inbreds and try to educate, or at least explain, why some things happen the way they happen. Have a little fun, for chrissakes. Loosen up when you go out, and let me be the stress ball in the kitchen busting my ass for twelve-plus hours trying to make you the best food I can. Fuck you!

This, of course, resulted in a fair amount of Yelp backlash.

Now, I was going to use this as a story to highlight how bitching about your critics could seriously backfire, but before I could finish that post folks started sending over the even more extreme story of a doctor in Chicago suing three patients after they wrote negative reviews. Dr. Jay Pensler apparently felt that these comments were defamatory, though the article seems to suggest that the people who complained appear to have somewhat legitimate gripes. Pensler is a plastic surgeon, and one woman apparently posted a picture showing uneven breasts with nipples that point in different directions -- something I could see leading to a negative review.

Of course, this isn't really a first either. A few months back we posted about another plastic surgeon who sued her patients for bad reviews on Yelp. Either way, it's difficult to see how that's going to be good for business. Would you go to a doctor who sued online commenters? It seems like these people just aren't going to be willing to take much criticism if they do a bad job... Of course, the lawsuits have resulted in a number of people deleting their criticisms of Dr. Pensler, which is probably the point of his lawsuits. Hopefully a bit more attention on the lawsuits themselves will counteract this.

What's equally troubling, however, is that the court reviewing this case seems to be ignoring the basic First Amendment questions and denied requests to quash the subpoenas in question. It seems like the complaining patients have a pretty strong First Amendment claim to support their anonymity -- a claim that many other US courts have supported. It's a bit worrisome that this court seems to be ignoring that First Amendment right.

Filed Under: jay pensler, reviews, scott parker
Companies: yelp

Once Again, Yelp Not Liable For Reviews Someone Doesn't Like

from the how-many-more-times? dept

It's really quite stunning how frequently people sue review sites because they're unhappy about reviews of their business. You would hope that the lawyers these upset business owners use would know better -- but all too often the lawyers appear to be totally unfamiliar with Section 230 of the CDA and with the basic concept of properly applying liability to the party who actually did the action. And every time this happens, the case gets thrown out on 230 grounds. It's happened yet again, with a dentist having a case against Yelp dismissed thanks to Section 230. Sometimes we do see some creative lawyering to try to get around Section 230, and this time, beyond the basic defamation claim, the lawyer tried to also claim "deceptive practices" (under NY state law). The problem there is that the law in New York applies to "consumer-oriented statements," and the complaint was about inaccuracies in statements that were meant for small business owners. As Rebecca Tushnet notes:

However, the CDA doesn't contemplate protecting Yelp's use of speech as leverage in its business model. Reit alleged that Yelp provided deceptive terms on its website, encouraging both businesses and individual users to believe that the reviews are not manipulated by Yelp. Also, Reit alleged that Yelp's sales force used negative reviews on the site as leads for new ad business, and that sales reps told business owners that, if they paid for ads, the reps would assist in deleting negative reviews. But if a business owner refuses, Yelp would delete positive reviews. Yelp's guide for business owners stated "We remove the guesswork by screening out reviews that are written by less established users. The process is entirely automated to avoid human bias," and yet the system is not entirely automated. This allegedly deceived the public by representing that reviews are ordered, reviewed and removed by computers, and not manipulated by people. Reit referred to class action suits against Yelp of which he is not a member, and did not allege that he was a victim of this conduct.

The General Business Law bars deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of business and false advertising, giving a private right of action to any person who's been injured; a plaintiff need not be a consumer, but must allege consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and that resulted in injury. However, the identified statement by Yelp isn't addressed to individual consumers seeking dentists, but to business owners. "Yelp's statement is not materially misleading to a reasonable consumer seeking dentistry, and is not a deceptive practice." Likewise, deleting postings for the purpose of selling ads would be business conduct, not consumer oriented conduct. Thus, the claim was dismissed.

Filed Under: defamation, section 230
Companies: yelp

What Would Yelp Be Without The Negativity? Recommendations Instead Of Reviews

from the nothing-nice-to-say dept

SF Weekly's 4,333 word exposition about Yelp delves into many of the recent foibles of the not-yet-profitable community site. Since its inception in 2004, Yelp has played a key part in imbuing every-day consumers with the powers of professional critics. Now, with consumer reviews posted and shared online, instead of disappearing into the black hole of the customer feedback box, businesses shudder with fear at the potential of a bad review on Yelp. Sure, any business that regularly provides bad service would eventually succumb to the collective ire of community displeasure, but anecdotally, Yelp seems to amplify this effect. Although consumer reviews have been around for ages on sites like Amazon and CNET, Yelp's focus on local businesses expose a vulnerability not really seen in, say, the consumer electronics or book industry. An evening's dining choice is relatively fickle compared to a decision to buy a plasma tv, and one can see how that decision could be easily derailed by one strategically placed negative review. That said, as consumers become more savvy to sites like Yelp, their tolerance for a bad review or two should hopefully build. Or, as seen in the recent case of a San Francisco pizzera, businesses could learn to embrace their bad reviews.

Here's a thought. Whenever I visit a new city, I ask my friends for their recommendations, not reviews, of restaurants in the area. While it might be amusing to hear them rant about how awful such-and-such place was, ranting really does little good when trying to pick a place to eat out of the vast array of options that a typical city has to offer. Instead, maybe it's time for Yelp to put on the rose-colored glasses and offer an alternative view of the world: one where only recommendations exist. This is the approach taken by eats.it, a restaurant recommendation site that currently only serves San Diego. With no bad reviews to complain about, the complaint that a merchant doesn't get enough recommendations sounds much more like sour grapes. Furthermore, advertising on a page that features only recommendations of their establishment is a much more palatable proposition. Is the consumer less served by this rosy-eyed view of the world? Perhaps, but it would not be hard to see which establishments received less recommendations than others. Maybe mothers everywhere knew the answer all along when they advised: "if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all."

Filed Under: negativity, recommendations, reviews
Companies: yelp

SF Pizzeria Puts 1-Star Yelp Reviews On Its T-Shirts

from the never-met-a-pizza-i-didn't-love dept

With all of the recent news about merchants up in arms over negative online reviews, a San Francisco pizzeria has decided to take a brilliant approach to the (albeit few) negative Yelp reviews about their restaurant. In a sort of "take back the night" approach, Delfina Pizza has adorned its staff with t-shirts that bear the text of their 1-star reviews. With sayings like "The pizza was soooo greasy. I am assuming this was in part due to the pig fat," Delfina boldly acknowledges that it understands everyone is a critic, and that it is not afraid of a bad review or two. Gone are the Ratatouille days where restaurants live or die by one star of some food critic's review; instead, perhaps restaurateurs will learn that reviews are a starting point for holding meaningful conversations with their customers. Of course, in this particular case, the strategy may backfire -- already one Yelp reviewer has submitted a 1-star review asking "am i good enough for a t-shirt now?"

Filed Under: embracing, reviews
Companies: delfina pizza, yelp

Lawyer Who Sues Yelp Admits He Had No Idea About Section 230 Safe Harbors

from the great-moments-in-lawyering dept

Last week, we wrote about a defamation lawsuit over a review on Yelp, which seemed to backfire -- bringing a lot more attention to the negative review than if left alone. That case actually was settled soon after, but yet another defamation lawsuit has been filed by yet another person -- this time a dentist -- over a negative review. There are a few things worth commenting on about this lawsuit, but the big one that caught my attention is that the lawsuit was filed both against the couple who wrote the review... and against Yelp.

Now, as pretty much everyone knows around here, filing against Yelp is a big no-no. Yelp is clearly protected by section 230 safe harbors that make third party service providers immune from liability for actions of their users. This is pretty widely known among anyone involved in anything having to do with internet law... but was not known by the lawyer who filed the suit. In fact, the lawyer admits in the article above that he "wasn't aware" of the law and will probably drop the suit against Yelp now that he knows about it. But, it certainly raises questions about the lawyer if he was totally unaware of a key piece of internet legislation before filing such a lawsuit.

Then, there's the bizarre response from the dentist, replying to the point that Yelp lets the service providers directly contact those who write negative reviews to try to clear up the problem. The dentist says: "I would be very upset and would not know what to say to them." Fascinating. So, rather than talking it out as adults and clearing up any misunderstanding (and from the sound of it, it was a basic misunderstanding), she jumps straight to the lawsuit stage? She doesn't know what to say to them, but has no problem dumping a lawsuit on them. Isn't America great?

Filed Under: liability, section 230
Companies: yelp