Jan. 02, 2013
Virginia Court Says Comments on Yelp Should Not Be Squelched

Ruling Confirms That Injunction Against Negative Reviews Amounts to Censorship
LINK

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a positive move for free speech on the Internet, a Virginia court has lifted an injunction against a woman who posted criticisms on Yelp about a contractor.

The court’s Dec. 28 decision was in response to an appeal filed by Public Citizen, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, to end a Fairfax County judge’s injunction against a woman who was being sued by someone about whom she made negative comments on the Internet review site Yelp. The groups said the injunction violated the First Amendment.

Jane Perez had been ordered to remove parts of a negative review she made about a contractor named Christopher Dietz. She also was barred from repeating those claims in other reviews. Public Citizen argued that the contractor could get damages if, after a full trial, a jury agrees that Perez made false claims about him that meet the standard for libel. Because such a process has not occurred, forcing Perez to remove her comments amounted to censorship.

“The decision confirms the importance of not shutting down public discussion on the Internet just because someone doesn’t like what’s being talked about,” said Paul Alan Levy, an attorney for Public Citizen. “Review sites like Yelp are vehicles for the free flow of ideas by helping consumers make informed decisions on how to spend their hard-earned dollars.”

To read the court’s decision and other case documents, please visit http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/getlinkforcase.cfm?cID=794.

Virginia Supreme Court Says Court Was Wrong To Force Woman To Change Yelp Review
from the good-move dept
LINK

We've seen a bunch of stories over the years about local businesses upset about critical online reviews on sites like Yelp and Angie's List. Sometimes these business owners go to court, but rarely get very far. However, in a hearing last month, a court in Virginia issued a preliminary injunction, telling Jane Perez that she needed to make two changes to reviews she posted on those two sites of DC contractor Christopher Dietz. Dietz had sued Perez for $750,000 over the negative reviews, and arguing that Yelp and Angie's List should be held responsible as well, despite their clear protections under Section 230.

The preliminary injunction made her change some claims about possible "stolen" jewelry as well as her characterization of a small claims lawsuit that Dietz had filed against her for non-payment (that case was dismissed due to procedural failures, though she described it as a win for her on summary judgment), but did allow the rest of the posts to remain. This was a partial victory for Perez, since Dietz wanted the entire posts removed, but it still raised some significant questions. Public Citizen and the ACLU asked the court to review, noting that this was classic prior restraint:
Thus, even in jurisdictions that allow an injunction against the repetition of a libel that has been found false and defamatory after a full trial, or in which that issue remains open, injunctions may not issue against speech that has not been finally determined to be false and defamatory. For this reason, courts have rejected attempts to obtain preliminary injunctive relief against Internet speech.
Basically, a court cannot issue an injunction on speech that might be defamatory. It needs to wait until it's actually been proven to be defamatory. As the filing notes, in this case, the court didn't even find that Dietz had shown a "likelihood of success" let alone determined that the statements were defamatory.

Thankfully, the Virginia Supreme Court quickly recognized the error and has vacated the injunction allowing the original text to stay in place while any lawsuit continues:
Upon further consideration whereof, the Court also finds that the preliminary injunction was not justified and that the respondents have an adequate remedy at law.
Good news for free speech, though it's unfortunate that the lower court didn't get it right the first time. Of course, as always, this kind of thing makes you wonder what good it could have possibly done Dietz to file this lawsuit. Whether or not the original allegations were true, now he's made it clear that he's willing to sue over reviews as well. It seems like most people might see that and decide to hire a contractor who not only has good reviews, but doesn't have a history of suing his customers over their online reviews.