8 Yelp Reviewers Hit With $1.2 Million Defamation Suits 210
New submitter goodboi writes: A Silicon Valley building contractor is suing 8 of its critics over the reviews they posted on Yelp. The negative reviews were filtered out by Yelp's secretive ranking system, but in court documents filed earlier this month, Link Corporation claims that the bad publicity cost over $165,000 in lost business.
The company is suing FAKE reviews (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The company is suing FAKE reviews (Score:5, Informative)
Owners response: Right FAKE FAKE FAKE if this was true how come your insurance company or the police or cslb or anyone has never contacted us. I tell you why this is not even real. This person all these negative reviews are random Pics Google images and you will see who these people are.. Google images all negative Reviews are fake. Good news is this individual is digging himself into a deep hole..
(I couldnt find (2) on Yelp)
Owners response: Hi I am the owner of Link corporation. Funny how we get 2 bad reviews same day yet we have never met you. If you can prove a contract an email estimate or business card to show it was our company I will buy you a vacation to Europe fly you first class any where.. There is another company trying to copy located in Cupertino called Link build and design, Our lawyers sent a letter to that company to stop using our name. Please you can call our office directly or myself we will show you it was not us we have no problems except people making things up online. Prove it was our company and please remove this review
Owners response: Right I do not know who you are but we never have problems. You must be part of a Nigerian scam show any kind of proof were we did work for you or someone we had problems with. Fake review for 1 person writing all bad crap..We are friends with 99% of all our customers we always have at least 4 homes under construction that anyone can visit and talk with our clients
Owners response: This guy is on drugs and this is not valid Post..We have pride and 100% care in all the work we do and i want all our jobs perfect..This scam man has never ever contacted our company except during the holidays asking for donations.. He has no friends and no proof.. We have never ever in 23 years done any work in los gatos Nothing..99.9% of all our jobs our Referrals..
Owners response: We have been bombarded by fake reviews the last few days and are having our Legal Te
Re:The company is suing FAKE reviews (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they are fake, but based on this jackasses responses, I certainly would not do business with him.
Re:The company is suing FAKE reviews (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't know what a 'water hammer' is don't ever plumb.
Free Speech vs. Vigilantism (Score:2)
At what point does exercising one's right to free speech become vigilantism? IMHO, there's a lot of the latter going on these days. Say you don't like some business owner's view on a particular issue. Does that give you the right to destroy that person's career? Do they not have an equal right to free speech? Why is it okay to destroy that person's career through activism and social media when you can't do it through the law?
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to the marketplace of ideas?
If you assume Joe's Pizza runs a good business, makes a decent product and generally treats his customers well, how can one reviewer with an ideological axe to grind ruin his business by posting a negative review? Wouldn't a preponderance of otherwise favorable reviews drown the cranks out?
Sure, one person with a serious problem can go nuts trying to ruin a business in many ways but not by writing one or two reviews.
I think a lot of time these complaints agains
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that in a well-functioning review marketplace a single reviewer (good or bad) should become lost in the noise. That's not what the plaintiff in this case is alleging though -- they're alleging that one person conspired to place eight different negative and fraudulent reviews in an attempt to circumvent said well-functioning review marketplace. Without additional information, this suit may have been placed to avert new negative and fraudulent reviews from being placed.
Random aside: the suit mentions
Re: (Score:2)
Yelp would have to want to deal with fraudulent reviewers -- and I think we've seen some claims or evidence that Yelp uses negative reviews, perhaps even dishonest ones as a "sales incentive", so they may not want to.. ..but if they wanted to, they could require reviewers to "check in" at the business (using GPS locating to ensure the customer was actually at the business) within X days of visiting the business to write a review which would then be flagged as "VERIFIED CUSTOMER" kind of the same way Amazon
Re: (Score:2)
but if they wanted to, they could require reviewers to "check in" at the business (using GPS locating to ensure the customer was actually at the business)
snicker [google.com]
The right way to do it is reputation. Reviews on TripAdvisor are generally ignored if they are not attached to a human with good reputation. Nothing else matters but the web of trust. It's difficult and time-consuming to fake enough content to get a whole bunch of accounts good fake rep in such a system.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in this particular case, it sounds like the reviews are super fake. Not just super fake, but also insulting (to and at least borderline offensive. *Either* of those would be enough to get the reviews pulled completely (not just hidden). So it's strange they'd go straight to the courthouse, instead of just flagging the reviews for deletion? I flag reviews all the time (usually by people who don't know how to use yelp and have posted reviews to the wrong place, but occasionally also for other reasons),
Re: (Score:2)
So it's strange they'd go straight to the courthouse, instead of just flagging the reviews for deletion?
One assumes the owner is tired of playing whack-a-mole with the person constantly posting fake reviews? (Lots of assumptions there, of course...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fake Reviews and Libelous (Score:2, Interesting)
I know we've all seen too many cases of companies trying to abuse Yelp reviewers to shut down criticism, but in this case they may have a point.
A number of the reviews are from accounts that have no other reviews, and use images from stock photo sites - attached to ethnically stereotypical names (Shlomo the Jew, Sassy the black woman, and Jenyu the Asian) complete with racist stereotypical stories - Shlomo's Jewishness was insulted, Sassy got CPS called on her, and Jenyu said in stereotyped Asian style "Plu
Re: (Score:2)
After reading the complaint (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it would seem the defendant(s) would have a pretty good defense if they can show receipts for rework, notices of failed inspections, proof of injury to the daughter and the resultant investigation, etc
Absolutely correct. On the other hand, if, as the owner suspects, they have none of those things, they'd better try to settle as fast as they can!
Re: (Score:2)
it would seem the defendant(s) would have a pretty good defense if they can show receipts for rework, notices of failed inspections, proof of injury to the daughter and the resultant investigation, etc
Absolutely correct. On the other hand, if, as the owner suspects, they have none of those things, they'd better try to settle as fast as they can!
If they are one person as the owner suspects I highly doubt they have them and should be talking to a lawyer about crafting a settlement, a you point out.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably fake (Score:5, Insightful)
2) It is appropriate to sue for fake, defamatory reviews. I only wish it was legal to sue for fake promotional reviews. That it basically just business as usual.
3)They are suing for the full amount 8 times not because they want to get paid x8, but because they are concerned that they might only be able to prove one review is fake. I fully expect that once the identities are revealed, the law suits will be consolidated from 8 to fewer, probably only 1. This way if they prove even a single issue they will get fully paid.
Loads of money to be made by whoever solves this (Score:4, Interesting)
There has to be some way to figure this problem out. It should be especially easy with restaurants since they all use software to track orders. Maybe something like a new Diners Club Card where the Restaurant/Server and Customer can rate each other based on real data. For instance if the customer complains about waiting too long the data should show when they were seated and ticket was opened and when the food was served. If the customer complains about the soup but didn't order it the customer's other reviews be suspect. If the customer claims the server was rude but that server otherwise gets great reviews then they should be suspect. If the restaurant owners could get that kind of feedback on which dishes/servers were liked or disliked it would help them as well. And if you present the card when you show up and you have a good reputation as a diner you could get higher ranked servers.
Re:Goodbye free speech (Score:4, Informative)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Civil versus criminal law (Score:5, Insightful)
You're still free to say/write whatever the hell you like, but if you do so maliciously and mendaciously and it causes articulable damages to another person, then they have grounds to bring suit. It's not the government that acts against you, it's the injured party.
Re:Civil versus criminal law (Score:4, Informative)
That has nothing to do with the case IF what is said is true. Remember, truth is a defense against slander / libel. The motivation behind what is said is only considered if what was said is not true.
Re: (Score:2)
Mendaciously means falsely, e.g., "lying, untruthful, dishonest, deceitful, false, dissembling, insincere, disingenuous, hypocritical, fraudulent, double-dealing, two-faced, Janus-faced, two-timing, duplicitous, perjured;"
He already had lack of truth as a condition, therefore it has everything to do with the case.
Re: (Score:3)
OK, I'll bite.
Name one.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'll bite.
Name one.
He may be naming the UK as a locale... up until recently (and in many cases probably still true), the UK's libel laws were a nightmare for whoever found himself as a defendant - even if the defendant told the absolute truth, it may not be enough of an escape from liability depending on circumstance, timing, and delivery.
In the US, if you told the truth (and can prove it), you're generally safe from judgement (though not legal bills). Outside of the US, it may not be so cut-and-dried.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1st amendment doesn't apply, as libel is a civil infraction.
If anyone could win a civil lawsuit against any gun owner (no matter how responsible) for emotional damage because "guns are scary", would you still think people had the right to bear arms?
It's not the government that acts against you, it's the injured party.
Then explain why there's a court involved, and why the government will enforce collection of the civil suit damages?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the alternative would be some kind of wild west scenario where the party who can summon the most naked force to his cause wins. That might be the wet dream of anarchists, but most civilized societies have a consensus that this is a better way.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the alternative would be some kind of wild west scenario where the party who can summon the most naked force to his cause wins.
That would be me. If someone were threatening me with bodily harm over something
I said, I'd call the cops on them. Let's see them summon more force than that.
Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment (Score:2)
Free speech is not the same thing as saying anything you want at any time without consequence. There are (for very good reasons) certain types of speech that are exceptions [wikipedia.org] to the protections of the First Amendment.
Libel is not protected speech. Neither is obscenity, defamation, incitement, incitement to riot, fighting words, fraud, threats, speech covered by copyright, some forms of commercial speech and speech integral to criminal conduct.
Re: (Score:2)
Libel/slander is not protected speech.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between libel and slander [thefreedictionary.com] is that libel is written and slander is spoken. The legal burden is the same for both. In this case all the plaintiff alleges that none of the transaction actually occurred. The defendant(s) have to show that they did have the transaction with the plaintiff and show evidence that the rest of the factual representations in the reviews are also true and the judgement will go against the plaintiff.
It does make review site look kinda dangerous and in the end does stifle speech.
Libellous speech needs to be stifled. How else does a company fight agai
Re:Goodbye free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of Speech has never implied freedom from responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are others' actions my responsibility? If I post something, and someone else makes a decision, that decision is also influencable by someone else's (i.e., the corporation's) speech. Why don't they use free speech to fight free speech they find offensive? Why do they try to ban it?
Re: (Score:2)
If you caused harm to someone, such a business, by saying a false thing, then you are at fault and liable.
But if the thing you said was true, then the someone cannot blame you for saying a true thing.
Reviews having a greater likelihood of being contentious may need a stricter legal standard before finding fault, but the potential is still there and rightfully so.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of Speech has never implied freedom from responsibility.
It does if by "responsibility" you mean "consequences". And especially if by "consequences" you mean "government will do nasty things to you".
Hint: libel laws are an exception to free speech, not a "responsibility".
Incorporation (Score:2)
Re:Goodbye free speech (Score:5, Informative)
It's already illegal to intentionally make false statements in writing for the purpose of causing harm. It's called Libel, and it's not new. This is not an "on the internet" law, this is just a law.
Re: (Score:3)
It's already illegal to intentionally make false statements in writing for the purpose of causing harm. It's called Libel, and it's not new. This is not an "on the internet" law, this is just a law.
Come on, you've been around long enough to know that facts and law doesn't matter when posting to /. What matters is ranting about how "Our freedoms are being taken away" when some idiot gets hit with a clue by four for doing something stupid on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody read your reviews. All you did was help an extortionist.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the contractor will lose and a zillion more people will know they're a bad contractor because they sued and it became a news story.
Re: (Score:3)
Does freedom of speech automatically grant the ability to defame someone? We have one filing hearing one side of the case. Not enough information is available to decide the merits of the case.
Some of the reviews appear to be opinions so not defamation. Some of the reviews make statements that may be false which could be defamation. If the reviews are based mostly on fact sprinkled with the typical amount of hyperbole for a review site, it does look like the contractor has a case of the butt hurts.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing. It's you and others like you that think it is something it isn't - never was, never was intended to be.
Re:Goodbye free speech (Score:5, Informative)
1. Freedom of speech is a government thing.
2. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of such speech. Whether you're Anita Sarkeesian, the Dixie Chicks or Sir Tim Hunt - anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion - and potentially in the court of law if a target of your speech feels that your speech crossed the boundary into libel / slander / defamation.
In this particular case, the business owner believes that the reviews are malicious, fake, the act of a single person, etc. etc. (read the actual document). Now it's up to the court to decide whether or not Yelp will have to notify the author(s) of those reviews, or hand over personal information directly, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Court orders to reveal someone's identity are also a government thing.
anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion
And the real courts have fuck-all to do with that. Using them as a tool to out your enemies goes against everything we supposedly believe in.
In this particular case, the business owner believes that the reviews are malicious, fake, the act of a single person, etc. etc.
I "believe" Google should pay me for
Re: (Score:2)
A completely different government thing. You can't just link them together and suggest that the government should intervene in a civil law case just because pudding is delicious.
You'd think I would have followed that up with a reference to something about courts. Oh wait, I did :)
Re: (Score:2)
Right after you: 1) File a lawsuit against Google for this, 2) prove just WHY Google must pay you money using currently applicable laws (bonus if you cite legal precedents), 3) win said lawsuit against Google and get a judgement awarded.
Step 1 is easy. Anyone can do this. Step 2 is a bit harder. Especially if your claim has no legal merit (for ex
Re: (Score:2)
I "believe" Google should pay me for beta-testing their various products that almost never leave beta. When can I expect the courts to make them send me a check?
When you can point to a law that says it's illegal for them to not pay you.
The difference between you and the owner is that he has legal recourse since libel is illegal. You on the other hand have no legal recourse. What could possibly make you think these two things are even remotely comparable?
Re: (Score:2)
And yet preventing or stopping harassment and damage from fake malicious rules is also completely reasonable thing for a business to do and within their rights.
If he's wrong and simply trying to intimidate people, then he is then leaving himself open to a countersuit.
There is no problem here.
Re: (Score:2)
Did I say freedom of speech?
I will say it is not defamatory to make the factual statement you hired someone and got bad service, no batter what the business thinks.
Bullshit. Do you have facts to support this? Or are you just asserting it?
Me, I'm as likely to think this is a bullshit SLAPP [wikipedia.org] lawsuit designed to intimidate people from making negative reviews.
If those people actually did hire this company, and if they are giving actual negative reviews, this
Re: (Score:2)
If you are making a factual statement - and I interpret that to mean a statement of fact that is actually the truth - then by all means. In this case, the business believes that the statement is not the truth, and further believes it has damaged their business.
Whether or not that is actually the case (either way), let the courts decide.
Re: (Score:2)
the business owner believes that the reviews are malicious, fake, the act of a single person
I'm betting on spiteful ex-girlfriend but it could be a disgruntled ex-employee.
Re: (Score:2)
Well he said "or" not "xor" so that's okay.
Re:Goodbye free speech (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Freedom of speech is a government thing.
That rejoinder gets tossed around quite a bit. While it is technically true, it's misleading--the First Amendment (along with the rest of the Constitution) does inform the standards by which private conduct is judged.
The Supreme Court in Hepps decided that not only is truth an absolute defense to defamation*, but also that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the defendant's statements are false (ie presumption of truth). This is contrary to old English common law (presumption of falsity) and a direct result of First Amendment protection.
For the same reason you have to prove actual malice in the case of a public figure (Sullivan), and are protected from foreign judgments that would be contrary to the 1st Amendment (2010 SPEECH Act).
Other amendments also have things to say about private conduct. In Shelley, SCOTUS applied the for-government-only 14th Amendment to racially restrictive property covenants. It may be a contract between two private parties, but enforcement of a contract or judgment is a government thing.
*Public interest/public figure, if we're being exact.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't mod up, so just a reply then: thanks for the additional information.
I think it falls back to my second point, though; "inform the standards by which private conduct is judged" in no way suggests that you can't be sued, and "truth an absolute defense to defamation" is still a defense that would have to be brought before the court?
Re: (Score:2)
If the truth of your statement isn't materially in dispute, or its clearly a statement of opinion not fact, then you can potentially get the case thrown out early on in summary judgment. It doesn't obviate court entirely, but it's much chea
Re: (Score:2)
I argue this. Lets say hypothetically that they are not fake. And the company is just plain out bad at what they do. Deformation laws are such where they can contest just about anything, true or untrue. E.G you did a crap job for someone and they complained truthfully so you sue. In effect you can win that provided you can demonstrate clear loss of income.
Where I feel this gets sticky is not this issue though since my above example is not common. What the issue is for me is that lets say it was one person w
Re: (Score:3)
Famous last post...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not because of speech; it's because of consequences. You repeatedly tell some gay faggot he's a gay deepthroating faggot giving everyone AIDS and he has severe emotional issues because you're an asshole? LAWSUIT FOR HARASSMENT! You make up a bunch of shit about a dude having sex with 11-year-old girls? LAWSUIT FOR FUCKING UP HIS SOCIAL LIFE! You scream into a crowd and cause panic and rioting? CHARGES FOR CAUSING PERSONAL DAMAGE, PROPERTY DAMAGE, AND CIVIL UNREST!
Lawsuits come from standing;
Re: (Score:2)
But it doesn't stop Jane from decking you if you scream "Jane, you ignorant slut!" at her. Nor does that stop you from suing her for the medical costs associated with the black eye resulting from you being decked. Nor does that stop her from counter-suing for the slanderous defamation of her character. It only stops the government from putting you in prison for the rest of your life simply because of your opinion on Jane's promiscuity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that conclusion doesn't follow even if you accept the premise. Most severe crimes are committed by repeat offenders who commit them many times - over and over.
So even if you accept the premise that prison has no deterent effect (a premise not entirely without merit I guess) it still doesn't follow that without a justice system crime rates would be unchanged - simply because it doesn't account for the crimes not committed while serving your sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes. People are insane, and have all kinds of ludicrous arguments, especially those which see the world as a single absolute. I often compare ghettos to suburbs in death penalty arguments: in the ghetto, so many murders and so much gang crime make it hard to investigate and identify murderers, and, besides, the murderers are like 99% likely to die by gang rival murder, and 1% likely to even get arrested by police for murder; whereas in suburbs, people aren't as exposed to crime, and reflect on thems
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that the death penalty is different from incarceration however - in that I truly believe it doesn't have much deterrent effect at all.
In areas where you have gang violence and the like - why be scared of execution your chances of being killed is so high to begin with that if anything sitting on death row increases your life expectancy.
For the suburb case there are basically three common motives for murder.
Crimes of passion: by definition these cannot be deterred, a crime of passion is an emotional
Re: (Score:2)
If that is the methodology then indeed it would be the lowest - since they have the longest sentences, and so the the biggest gap where you can't repeat the crime, also that long gap in it must reduce the risk of going back to it (if only because it breaks your networks).
I strongly suspect that if you count "number of times the crime was likely committed before you were caught the first time" that for rape it is near the top - the rate of rapes occurring versus the amount of actual rapists suggest this almo
Re: (Score:2)
(which is silly because you can yell fire in a theater if, you know, the theater is on fire).
Actually I don't believe you can legally. The law was created in the belief the panic from hearing fire yelled would do more harm than good as panic stricken patrons trampled over each other to get out.
/s
I'm not sure how you notify them without striking fear into them but I'm sure the law addresses that in the details
Re: (Score:2)
(which is silly because you can yell fire in a theater if, you know, the theater is on fire).
Actually I don't believe you can legally. The law was created in the belief the panic from hearing fire yelled would do more harm than good as panic stricken patrons trampled over each other to get out.
I'm not sure how you notify them without striking fear into them but I'm sure the law addresses that in the details /s
You asked that with the sarcasm flag, but seriously if the fire alarm system doesn't sound, and only you noticed the fire, I would go to the movie theater staff and alert them so they can follow their emergency procedure. I'd imagine that procedure involves something like stopping the movie and asking patrons to exit the theater calmly and quietly, perhaps with the theater staff offering a partial or full refund or tickets to a later showing and implying (or outright stating) that the reason for the stoppag
Re: (Score:2)
But that still leaves the most important question unanswered.
Is it legal to shout "Theater" in a crowded firehouse ?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, guys like him should really try lying under oath in a court and then claiming "Freedom of speech" as a defence against the resulting perjury charges...
Re:Goodbye free speech (Score:5, Informative)
Once it was deemed to interfere with commercial activity it got trumped.
Somewhere along the line it became illegal to say "I hired this company and they gave shitty service".
No it didn't, at least not if the statement is factual. Given how Yelp is the 8 defendants may well be competitors who were just trying to knock the competition down a couple of notches.
I see crap like that all the time on smaller businesses around here with which I am familiar. There'll be 5-star ratings that look like they were written by an employee and then 1-star ratings that look like they were written by someone who's never been there.
Re: (Score:2)
After reading the reviews it sounds more like an ex-girlfriend being spiteful, but who knows.
Re: (Score:2)
Once it was deemed to interfere with commercial activity it got trumped.
Somewhere along the line it became illegal to say "I hired this company and they gave shitty service".
No, it becomes libel when, rather than stating an opinion that you were not happy with the results you make up things to harm the other's reputation. It's been that way a long time before this internet thing...
Re:Goodbye free speech (Score:5, Interesting)
I like how he got Yelp to remove EVERY bad review, and some of those are very obvioulsy not fake.
I know we all like to hate yelp but this guy really seems to be gaming the system.
Re: (Score:2)
How can you tell? Just because the plaintiff says so? Some of those reviews look legit and yes a few look fake. I notice he doesn't complain about the obviously fake good reviews (how does a company in Cali get a positive review from a teen in New Jersey.)
If the images are anything to go by, then one of them is a Hasidic Jew from Israel, another is an actress in Chicago, and another is some guy in New York.
Unless they aren't, in which case their picture icons are being used in violation of Copyright, unless they have written permission from the image owners...
Google image search? (Score:4, Informative)
Did you do a Google Image search too?
On Yelp, this guy is Deepak Patel http://www.yelp.com/not_recomm... [yelp.com]
But at Norwest Venture Partners, he's Sanjay Rao https://angel.co/norwest-ventu... [angel.co]
They also had no complaints at the BBB. http://www.bbb.org/losangeless... [bbb.org]
Also, I looked on Google for the lawsuit National Collection Agency, Inc. Vs Link Corporation, Et Al Case Number 1-08-CV-129441
Couldn't find it.
Re: (Score:2)
going on yelp to say that you got ripped off is NOT basis for a libel suit
Yes. It is. And unless you can prove it's true it's also the basis for a libel suit that you will lose.
Saying you were "ripped off" is pretty much saying you were robbed, and therefore tantamount to criminal libel (if you have such a thing). It's certainly a serious accusation.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you relating two seperate issues or does the EPA ruling have something to do with Free Speech?
Also, you think buisnesses should be bound by the 1st ammendment? Do you understand the point of the Bill Of Rights and what it was suppose to be limiting (Goverment..)
Re: (Score:2)
Even the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the EPA had to consider cost when determining what was "necessary and proper." Cost trumps the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights. If my free speech costs someone money, the Bill of Rights has no standing. Government at least is prevented (heavily restricted) from prosecuting people for their speech. Business has no such Constitutional amendment restraining its desire to quelch speech it thinks offensive.
Business is fundamentally undemocratic and unconstitutional.
No, business behaves a sociopath because much of it is being run by a small, avaricious and sociopathic clique of oligarchs. You can run a business in a pretty democratic and egalitarian way. There are plenty of examples of that in may different forms, even in the USA. Such organizations just get dumped on a lot by right wing nuts for being 'socialists' but they exist and some are quite successful.
Re: (Score:3)
You need to be MUCH more precise in your language, as that speech has to be fraudulent, violate some contract, or involve some other kind of tort. If this review were accurate, for example, it could cost Link money, but it would not be actionable.
Re: (Score:3)
If this review were accurate, for example, it could cost Link money, but it would not be actionable.
Not strictly true -- it's possible to make a series of true statements but present them in a way that is misleading or inappropriately singles out a person or company in a misleading way. If there is evidence that this was done deliberately and maliciously, there could still be basis for an action. Contrary to popular belief, truth is not an absolute defense to defamation, especially if truth is presented in a selective and deliberately misleading way.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the war cry of the butt hurt to me.
Well GP was reviewing a colonic irrigation service
Re:Maths much? (Score:5, Informative)
One sided. (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish I could sue those "image management" services that post fake positive reviews.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for Angie's List to get sued because a scammer paid them to push the bad reviews off the front page.
Basically I don't understand why anybody trusts AL. But once burnt by a scammer that paid the AL extortion, why isn't AL liable for the deception they practice as a business model?
Granted the BBB has used the same AL business model for a century and is still un-sued. I expect they get away with it by never having any money, that can't be AL's method.
Re: (Score:3)
Granted the BBB has used the same AL business model for a century and is still un-sued. I expect they get away with it by never having any money, that can't be AL's method.
The BBB has been sued plenty of times [google.com]. My understanding is that Angie's List has never turned a profit [forbes.com]. They're both scams in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, the answer is for some smooth-talkin' Slashdotter to seduce Angie. Then, once the deed is done, put a nasty negative review on Angie's List. "C-, would not bang again." BOOM goes the dynamite!
Wait... smooth talkin' Slashdotter? Never mind. It will never work.
Re:Maths much? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I wondered about the joining of the 8 separate reviews. It sounded like they were separate reviews (real or fake) and not the same person making 8 duplicate reviews. However I think his argument was that the 8 reviews together hurt his overall image that cost a job totalling $165k plus an additional made up number of $1m in butthurt I mean reputation damage. As such, he wants all parties found responsible to be jointly and severally liable for the total award, not 8 * (165k + 1m) total.
Re:Maths much? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They must suspect that the party in question is a competitor looking to undermine them. Not unheard of to malign your competition in order to siphon off business. Look at political campaigns, or commercials saying how stupid you are for using "the leading brand" of X.
If they have very good reason to believe the bad reviews are from a malicious competitor or a party they have never actually done work for then this is not unreasonable at all. You'd do the same thing. Say like if you were a freelance software
Re:Maths much? (Score:5, Interesting)
But what if it isn't? What if its 8 different honest reviews? Does their privacy get eviscerated because some corp has money for lawyers?
It sounds like he is pretty sure they are false, so yes, libel trumps privacy in this case. If the reviews are honest they can go to court and request to be dropped from the suit if named or provide proof to Yelp and ask not to be unmasked.My guess and TFA indicate he has agog idea who it is based on work he has done but needs Yelp to verify who did it prior to naming them.
And $8m for $165k damages? CA is a failed state.
Actual and punitive damages. He can ask but may not get anywhere near that number.
Personally, this sounds like a project that, for whatever reason, went south and rather than cut their losses one side decided to get revenge and is now finding out that may not have been a good idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Well if they are honest reviews, and the contractor is claiming they are fake, in addition to being dropped form the suit they can coutersue for libel. Once you gotta get a lawyer for thing like this, and you gotta pay them, you don't typically go half measures.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. It would be much cheaper/safer to buy a few thousand fake positive reviews to drown out the negative ones.
Re: (Score:3)
They already paid Angie's List to hide them. Didn't you RTFS?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea why anyone visits Yelp. It is well known they are a scam, holding hostage companies that refuse to pay to remove bad reviews, and refusing to remove fake good reviews of companies that do pay.
Actually I kind of hope the lawsuit turns up that Yelp itself created the bad reviews.