Court Orders Yelp to Reveal Anonymous Reviewers' Identities

[Newsjock]

Source: Gawker

In a case that might have First Amendment consequences and will certainly strike fear in the hearts of anonymous trolls, a Virginia appeals court upheld a contempt ruling against Yelp, demanding that it release the identities of seven reviewers whom a carpet cleaner intends to sue for defamation.

Joe Hadeed of Alexandria's Hadeed Carpet Cleaning is meticulous about responding to reviewers of his business on Yelp, but in mid-2012, he noticed several negative reviews whose writers didn't seem to show up on his customer rolls. Since that would mean they'd made up their accusations of "shoddy service," Hadeed sued them for making defamatory statements, according to Tuesday's court opinion.

Except, since he didn't know who to sue, he got a subpoena for Yelp to release info about the reviewers' identities. Yelp threw Hadeed shade, so he won a court order of contempt against the company.

Alexandria's state Court of Appeals said that order was legit. "While 'an internet user does not shed his free speech rights at the log-in screen,' the right to speak with anonymity is not absolute, Judge William Petty said for the majority," according to Courthouse News Service.

Read more: http://gawker.com/court-orders-yelp-to-reveal-anonymous-reviewers-identi-1498108583

[TheBlackAdder]

1. I think that's the same in NJ. If you slander someone, or they perceive it, they can sue you. n/t

[frazzled]

2. This should be an interesting case

If his business was harmed by the untruthful comments of anonymous users, he's got a point. But shouldn't Hadeed first be required to turn over his detailed records of customers to determine, before any names are released, that they are truly accurate? I mean, he could turn around and harrass these people.

The Internet is the Wild West, and I mostly just accept it. Anyone who believes all Yelp reviews (positive or negative) is naive. I just assume some competitors or enemies are posting bad reviews, and that many good reviews are written by friends or supporters. I just look for the middle-of-the-road reviews, and the consensus. Even that is probably risky.

[okaawhatever]

3. The interpretation will be interesting. If the reviewers made a false claim about having been his

customers I say they aren't entitled to anonymity. They made the conscious decision to sabotage someone's livelihood and that shouldn't be considered free speech. Slander or libel has never been considered free speech. I think a more egregious example of free speech rights being violated is the individual a business is suing for $3,500 for giving a bad review. It appears the "fine print" of their purchase contract said someone didn't have the right to write any negative reviews about them. I don't think you should have to forfeit that right, unless what you say isn't truthful.