page contents

«

»

Print this Post

Appeals Court Questions Merchants, Yelp In ‘Payola’ Case

Merchants seeking to revive
their “extortion” lawsuit against the Yelp faced some hard questions at a recent appellate hearing.

The merchants alleged in a 2010 lawsuit that Yelp offered to bury bad reviews
and promote good ones in exchange for ad buys. Their case was dismissed in 2011, when U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen in the Northern District of California ruled that the Communications Decency
Act immunizes Yelp from liability for reviews authored by users, as well as for decisions about how to display those reviews. That law generally says that Web service providers aren’t liable for
content posted by users.

The merchants appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the federal law doesn’t protect companies that “manipulate” reviews — such as
tinkering with the placement of reviews in exchange for ad purchases.

But the three-judge appellate panel that heard the case last Thursday pointed out that Yelp continually shuffles the
order of reviews, and that any changes that occurred after merchants were contacted about potential ad purchases could have been coincidental. “Isn’t it true that the number of positive and
negative reviews fluctuated regardless of advertising?” one member of the panel asked the merchants’ lawyer at the hearing.

The merchants’ lawyer, Lawrence Murray, said the case was
dismissed prematurely, before the business owners had the opportunity to prove that Yelp changed the mix of positive and negative reviews to persuade companies to advertise.

Another judge,
Marsha Siegel Berzon, wanted to know whether the allegations amounted to extortion. “Why is giving somebody something for their advertising extortion?” Berzon asked.

She
indicated that a site that gave companies that advertised positive ratings might be misleading consumers, but wasn’t necessarily “extorting” advertisers.

The merchants said in
their court papers that business owners who purchase monthly ads from Yelp see their “five star summary rating increases immediately and dramatically.” The merchants also alleged that Yelp
removed good reviews from companies that declined to purchase ads.

One of the plaintiffs, San Francisco dentist Tracy Chan, alleged that Yelp took down nine of her top five-star reviews
within days of her refusal to purchase ads.

Yelp argued at the 9th Circuit that Chen correctly dismissed the case, given that the federal Communications Decency Act provides that Web sites
aren’t responsible for content posted by users.

But the judges at last week’s hearing — Berzon, Richard Paez and Richard Tallman — expressed reservations about that position as well. They
questioned Yelp’s attorney about whether the lawsuit was dismissed prematurely, given that the company is not immune from liability under all circumstances. For instance, Yelp would not be immune if
it paid people to write reviews, according to the judges.

One of the judges on the panel said he was “uncomfortable” deciding whether Yelp was immune without more clarity about
how the company operated. “The facts are a moving target here, and the facts matter,” he told Yelp’s attorney, Ashlie Beringer.

Yelp has always denied allegations that it would
bury bad reviews for paying advertisers. Nonetheless, in April 2010, the company agreed to some changes to how it shows reviews. Among others, Yelp said it would stop allowing business owners to pay
to have a favorite review highlighted at the top of its page.

(382)

About the author

Mystic Maggie

All of the Mystic Maggie Posts are RSS Reader Feeds from around the web. All copyright remains with the original publisher. No copyright is claimed or intended. Where supplied, links back to the original article are included.

Permanent link to this article: http://yelp-sucks.com/appeals-court-questions-merchants-yelp-in-payola-case.html


Powered by WordPress Lab
Powered by Yahoo! Answers