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

Lawyer Sues Opposing Lawyer For Defamation

from the careful-what-you-say dept

You don't see this one every day. A lawyer is suing the opposing lawyer in a high profile controversial case about a teenaged runaway, claiming that the opposing lawyer defamed him, by saying in a TV interview that he was "unqualified" and "that he has terrorist ties." While the latter clearly could be defamatory (the former might be... but seems more like a statement of opinion, not fact), it does make you wonder if such a lawsuit really is effective in preventing "damage to his reputation." I would think that most people would recognize the statements in context, rather than automatically assuming they were true.

Filed Under: defamation, lawyers

Why Canada Needs Safe Harbors And An Anti-SLAPP Law Too

from the pointless-waste dept

We've discussed in the past how Canadian Wayne Crookes appears to be fairly litigious in suing sites, including Google, Wikipedia, Yahoo and Myspace for hosting content he felt was defamatory. In one case, he sued P2Pnet blogger Jon Newton not for posting such content but for merely linking to such content. Unfortunately, without clear safe harbors or an anti-SLAPP law, Crookes has been able to keep the lawsuit alive. It easily lost at both the district and the appeals court levels, but rather than recognize that perhaps suing Newton isn't the best target, he's pushed forward.

Newton is pointing out that while his own lawyer is doing the work pro bono, and with lots of large companies filing briefs in his favor, it's still going to cost a fair bit of money for the trial, and so he's asking readers to help out and to raise $5,000 to help cover those costs (anything left over will go to charity). This is definitely an important case in Canada, and it's already upsetting that it's gotten this far.

If Canada had a real anti-SLAPP type law, this seems like a perfect case for it to be used -- where it would have helped Newton get the case tossed faster and easier. However, without such a law, then Newton has to go through with all of the court process, which is a huge waste of time, even with having a lawyer help out. A combination of better safe harbors and an ANTI-SLAPP law, it would seriously help others being put in such a position.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, canada, defamation, linking, safe harbors

Commodore Threatens Blogger For Being Skeptical About Its Amiga Plans

from the here's-an-opinion-for-you... dept

Slashdot recently pointed us to the fact that OSNews received a legal threat from Commodore USA for publishing an article that was highly skeptical of Commodore's Amiga plans. Slashdot focuses on the fact that the legal nastygram is obviously copied from ChillingEffects.org, including odd formatting and references. While that part is amusing, I don't think it's that interesting. While there's been some discussion about copyright on legal documents, in general, lawyers copy others' legal language all the time, and it's (mostly) considered to be okay.

What's more interesting to me is the threat itself. It's yet another case of someone getting upset about someone's opinion, and thinking that threatening a defamation lawsuit is somehow a good idea, rather than one that simply draws a lot more attention to the content they don't like. Just because someone says something you don't like, it doesn't mean it's illegal.

Filed Under: amiga, defamation, nastygrams
Companies: amiga, commodore, osnews

Lawyer Ranking Site Avvo Sued By Another Upset Lawyer

from the and-avvo-hits-back dept

We've seen plenty of stories of review or ranking sites that get sued by people upset about their reviews, but one such site that seems to get extra special attention is Avvo -- and that's because it's a ranking and review site for lawyers. Soon after the site was launched a few years back, it was sued -- leading a judge to dismiss the suit, pointing out that rankings are opinions and opinions are protected by that old First Amendment thing. However, it appears another lawyer is suing the site, claiming libel among other things.

Avvo hit back in a blog post highlighting some history that the lawyer in question, Joe Davis, probably doesn't want to generate any more attention (such as being "twice convicted and spent eight days in the pokey") and suggesting that it's the desire to hide this info that is the real reason behind the lawsuit.

So, how does Davis try to get around the whole "opinion/free speech" thing? Well, he tries to find some factual errors in his profile -- such as the page claiming that he practices "100% employment/labor law," which is apparently not the case. That said, it's difficult to see how such an error amounts to libel. Also, apparently Avvo has the wrong address, which Davis suggests is a "misrepresentation." He also claims that Avvo's "failure to take into account" Davis' Board Certification (which is mentioned over and over and over and over again in the complaint as if that, alone, conquers all) is a "misrepresentation" as well.

From there, Davis suggests that various fluctuations he saw in his ratings over a period of a few days "obviously occurred based solely" on his "level of participation" on the site, rather than "what is in the public record." Davis also gets upset that his profile points people to other, competing lawyers, and claims that Google forbids a similar practice. Unfortunately, I believe Davis is simply wrong on this point:

Google's AdWords' policies prohibit AdWords users from doing the very same thing that Avvo.com does--that is, to hijack a competitor's name as a key search word to trigger the appearance of a competitor's ad next to the competitor's search results.

But Google actually does allow that and has fought an awful lot of lawsuits that it's usually won, saying that such a practice is perfectly legal. In fact, Google just recently changed its European policy to have it match the US policy in allowing greater use of trademarked terms in AdWords.

There's also a suggestion that by using Davis' photo from his own website, Avvo may have violated copyright and local Florida statutes on using images of lawyers. The full complaint is a bit rambling, and at times rather informal, which makes for some fun reading, but seems like the sort of thing that a judge might not appreciate:

Filed Under: defamation, lawyers, opinions, rankings
Companies: avvo

When Will People Learn: Websites Are Not Liable For What People Write In The Comments

from the so-many-wasted-lawsuits dept

It still amazes me when lawsuits actually get filed against sites for things that people write in the comments. Section 230 case law is really well established on this, and you would think lawyers would know better. But, such lawsuits still get filed, and they get dismissed just as quickly. In this particular case, a TV news anchor who was arrested during a drug bust (though, later, not indicted) got upset about her (former) employer writing an article about her arrest, where some people wrote things she didn't like in the comments. So, she sued her former employer for "allowing unfiltered online comments which contained false information." Of course, allowing unfiltered comments is not, by itself, illegal, and the court made that clear:

Miles does not allege that the defendants wrote or revised the false comments. In fact, she alleges that the comments were not filtered by the defendants. Furthermore, she complains that the defendants merely allowed the comments, and there is no indication or allegation that the defendants encouraged defamatory comments on their website. As a result, the Court finds that the defendants are immune from liability for the allegedly defamatory third-party comments published on its website pursuant to the Communications Decency Act.

Filed Under: defamation, section 230

When Suing A Website For Libel, It Helps To Actually Sue The Right One

from the thedirt-vs.-thedirty dept

Last week, a story caught my eye, about a website being ordered to pay $11 million for failing to respond to a lawsuit claiming libel. The story caught my attention for a few reasons: first, I'm always interested in libel lawsuits involving blogs and second... the name of the site that was sued was TheDirt.com, which... er... seemed close enough to Techdirt.com that I had to pause for a second and make sure it wasn't us. Anyway, after all that, it didn't seem like the ruling was interesting enough for a post... until some other details came out.

The lawsuit itself came from a Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader/high school English teacher named Sarah Jones, who was upset that the site in question apparently posted a picture of her and reported that she had an affair with a player and had contracted two venereal diseases. Assuming there's no truth to the rumors, it sounded like a straightforward libel case -- though from all the reporting, it's not clear if the site owners themselves wrote the content, or if it was written by a user -- in which case the site might have Section 230 protections (potentially depending on how involved they were in encouraging such content).

So why is the case suddenly interesting? Well, perhaps because it now appears that Ms. Jones' lawyers sued the wrong company. Oops. The lawsuit was filed against Los Angeles-based Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, which runs the website TheDirt.com. Problem is that the site that contained the content in question was TheDirty.com, and that's run by a Scottsdale-based company called Dirty World LLC who had no indication that there was a lawsuit going on at all. Oops indeed. At least no one sued us.

Amusingly, the folks at TheDirt.com are amusingly asking if they should sue for libel right back, considering all the press coverage claiming (falsely) that they had libeled Ms. Jones. Oh, and as for TheDirty.com, it's also asking the AP for an apology for falsely reporting that it had lost the lawsuit when it hadn't even been served. Quite a dirty mess. Separately, I have to imagine that Jones' lawyer, Eric Deters, now regrets his statement to the AP:

"If they would have just taken it down, this all would have been over," Deters said. "They just kind of mocked the whole court system."

Might have helped if you sued the right company.

Filed Under: defamation, libel, mistakes, sarah jones, thedirt.com, thedirty.com

Argentinian Appeals Court Realizes It's Ridiculous To Blame Google/Yahoo For Search Results People Don't Like

from the welcome-to-the-interwebz dept

Last year, we wrote about a court ruling in Argentina that found Google and Yahoo liable for defamation claims, after a celebrity was upset that searches on her name had results that pointed to pornographic websites. There had actually been a similar decision in Argentina the year before as well. It seems silly to blame search engines if people don't like the search results on their name, but that's what happened. Thankfully, however, in an appeal to the first case we linked to above, involving Virginia Da Cunha, the court found that the sites could only be held liable if they were made aware of the "illegal content," and then failed to remove it. In other words, the court is effectively using a notice-and-takedown safeharbor setup. There are still problems with that, but it's a hell of a lot better than automatically fining Google and Yahoo even if those companies had no idea about the fact someone was upset with the search results. Still, it's not great. As another article notes, without an official safe harbor, the only effective way to win cases like this is to have the money to go to court. Even Google and Yahoo are still fighting a bunch of similar lawsuits and will have to keep going through the process, until there's a real safe harbor in place.

Filed Under: argentina, defamation, liability
Companies: google, yahoo

Guy Sues Online Game Company NCSoft, Saying That Lineage II Is Too Addictive

from the personal-responsibility? dept

Apparently, a federal district court is allowing a guy to sue NCSoft for making the super popular online game Lineage II too addictive. Seriously:

Craig Smallwood, the plaintiff, claims NCsoft of South Korea should pay unspecified monetary damages because of the addictive nature of the game. Smallwood claims to have played Lineage II for 20,000 hours between 2004 and 2009. Among other things, he alleges he would not have begun playing if he was aware "that he would become addicted to the game."

Smallwood, who did not immediately respond for comment, alleged that the company "acted negligently in failing to warn or instruct or adequately warn or instruct plaintiff and other players of Lineage II of its dangerous and defective characteristics, and of the safe and proper method of using the game."

This sounds like the sort of case that should be easily dismissed, but not so fast according to the judge. You can read the judge's full ruling here: Reading through the details, the story just gets more and more bizarre. Not only does Smallwood claim that NCSoft failed to alert him to the addictive nature of the game... he also gets upset when he was later banned from the game. It's difficult to see how both of those issues can co-exist, though, he uses it to explain how the "addiction" and the sudden forced cold turkey cut-off meant that he was "unable to function independently, he has suffered psychological trauma, he was hospitalized, and he requires treatment and therapy three times a week."

Of course, we still haven't seen any evidence that video games create a real addiction issue. Yes, people can get very into games, but to the point of being "unable to function independently" seems a bit extreme. Anyway, the court does dismiss some of the claims, pointing out that he fails to make the case for "intentional misrepresentation," "negligent misrepresentation," "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and "unfair and deceptive trade practices." However, the court does find that Smallwood can at least move forward on claims of "defamation," "negligence and gross negligence," and "negligent infliction of emotional distress," though the judge still does sound a bit skeptical that those will really go anywhere.

Filed Under: addiction, defamation, lawsuits, lineage ii, negligence, video games
Companies: ncsoft

Teacher Loses Defamation Lawsuit Against Student Journalist

from the quite-the-lesson dept

One of the points of a student newspaper is to teach kids about journalism, and it looks like one student at Churchill High School in Nevada got quite the lesson when the school's music teacher sued the student for defamation, after an article that was critical of the music teacher was published. Thankfully, a judge has dismissed the lawsuit, noting that "nothing written by the student was false, defamatory or negligent." Many people seem to feel that anything they don't like that's published about them must be defamation, but that's not how it works. Even so, it seems pretty extreme for a teacher to go so far as to file a lawsuit against a student journalist. Nice to see that this lawsuit went nowhere fast.

Filed Under: defamation, journalism, schools, student, teacher