Yelp can protect critics in rough reviews row: Virginia yanks rug from under furious carpet biz Top judges in Virginia have ruled that Yelp can keep the identities of its anonymous reviewers a secret from Hadeed Carpet Cleaning Inc – a cleaning business that wanted to sue the armchair critics for defamation. In a majority opinion [PDF] handed down today, the state's supreme court overturned a 2014 appeals court verdict …
Your average business, or even a very customer-centered business is going to get some unfavorable word-of-mouth, because a customer happened to be there when service was not at its peak, or because for reasons good or bad the customer doesn't like the owner or his family, or because the customer in question is just overly demanding. And you can have spreading untruths about a business, in order to sabotage it. It's the same thing on Yelp, except that the word of mouth is available in text form.
There is of course the threat of inserting false negative or positive reviews into Yelp in return for or to extort payment. I can't get behind that either way, and both are risks in both Yelp and in word of mouth.
However, I get concerned when a business threatens Yelp reviewers with litigation. In this case, the business claims that the negative reviewers are not actual customers, and instead are acting maliciously. Except that this business obviously doesn't know who the reviewers are, otherwise they would not be asking for the identities from Yelp. So I have a serious problem with the plaintiff's reasoning, even if they have a suspicion of who the reviewers are and are looking for confirmation from Yelp.
I wish the judge would have thrown the case out on the grounds of free speech.
It's quite possible to know that a review is fake. For example if they complain about something that the business doesn't actually do. If there is a complaint about an overcooked steak, and the restaurant is purely vegetarian. Or if there is a complaint about a service that the company stopped providing.
And surely posting a fake review of a service that you have never used, _and pretending that it is true_, is not covered by free speech.
True. But a simple response from the business such as: "You are mistaken. We've never offered steaks as we're a vegetarian restaurant" would usually clear that up. Then again, Amazon books is loaded with fake reviews, reviews from friends/relatives of authors, etc. Reviews are purely one or more person(s) views on a given item. Since they're free, they're generally worth what you've paid for them.
We've all seen this... hardware/software reviews that go from damnation to high praise for the same product. The truth is usually in the middle and the discriminating buyer will understand this.
'Word of mouth' is different from a location where multiple people can post and read reviews.
Exactly how different is another question, but it isn't quite the same thing because people are publishing their views expressly for the purpose of other people - when they don't know - to read.
This puts it into the sphere of libel.
There are two concerns when determining this - first, whether the statements in question are statements of fact or opinion and, second, if they are statements of fact, whether those facts are indeed true or not.
The truth of a statement of fact is open to be determined in court but before it gets to that point, it must be decided whether the statement was fact or opinion.
So, I suppose it's down to what was said. If review said that the cleaner was rude then my take is that that counts as opinion. If someone says that the cleaner arrived an hour late or damaged the carpet or left it carpet wet or didn't remove the stain then that is a statement of fact and fit to be decided in a court.
In this instance, the court was right to rule as it did but, should this go to a court where they do have the authority then it becomes a more interesting question.
It is my position that if someone wants to request the details of these reviewers then they must satisfy a court that the statement - each statement - is a statement of FACT and not opinion. If it is a statement of opinion then there is no need for the company to get the names in the first place.
IIRC the claims from Hadeed were that on the dates posted in the reviews, none of the specific services were provided in the localized area identifiable from the review. That ought to be something a court can confirm. But first Hadeed has to be able to confirm the real name and address of the poster. Risk on the other side is the complaint is valid and Hadeed is just trying to strong lawyer someone they've already abused. Maybe the poster changed the dates so they couldn't be identified, maybe they changed something else for the same reason.
Complicated, messy. But you get that with real people.
Where I come down on this is that there ought to be a legal way for some sort of arbiter to confirm or force a retraction for the review. But it can't involve the company with the bad review getting the name of the reviewer until after the arbiter confirms it is a false accusation or at least that there is a reasonable expectation it can be successfully challenged in court. You know, the sort of thing Grand Juries were theoretically supposed to do.
The Just Eat reviews for my local Chinese are about 50% 1 star, 50% 4 stars
I don't believe any so just ordered from them, it was a good meal, not brilliant but good.
Since then I've ordered several more times, always about the same, not brilliant but good......so my review say's consistent food.
Reviews, like beauty, are down to a single persons perception, like opinion polls, they are never more than a guide book
Except that this business obviously doesn't know who the reviewers are, otherwise they would not be asking for the identities from Yelp.
I'm local to the area so I hear Hadeed commercials on the radio all the time. This case is a bit more complicated than you suggest. Not sure if the article I read was here on El Reg or elsewhere, but the details were that according to Hadeed, they checked the on the bad reviews in an effort to identify the customer to make things right. In reviewing their billing records they could not find any instances that matched the details of the reported bad service. Hence the claim of defamation.
I don't know that I believe Hadeed, but I think they've presented sufficient evidence to call into question the validity of the bad service reviews on Yelp.
The problem then becomes how to protect both Hadeed and the reviewers. I think the only way to resolve that is that the identities have to be revealed to a court appointed auditor (or whatever title you want to give them) who talks to the reviewer and the reviewer has to document the validity of his posting. If the reviewer finds sufficient evidence that the event is valid, the court rejects Hadeed's claim. If on the other hand he finds insufficient evidence, or evidence to the contrary then Hadeed should be able to proceed with the defamation case.
"There was a concern that the appeals court's judgment could set a precedent, encouraging organizations or anyone with a chip on their shoulder to trample on free speech by demanding the identities of anonymous reviewers posting online. The threat of legal action against those who write negative reviews will have a chilling effect on free expression."
The flip side is also true. Let's assume for the moment that the anonymous person posting the review WAS fake or not a customer. Depending on what they said, it could be considered libel, which has legal recourse. Should a person be protected under "free speech" for libel just because they made themselves anonymous? Think about how fast false information can travel these days. It used to be much harder back in the days before widespread internet to anonymously spread misinformation. Nowadays, it's incredibly easy.
As far as the solution (at least in this case)? Maybe set up some third party to authenticate whether the person was actually a client without the carpet company being told who it is. That might be hard to do while maintaining privacy for the actual customer list.
Yelp is just a stupid idea. So is Angie's List. Professional reviewers, whether SW or Movies or Restaurants or Carpet Cleaners, are the only ones I ever pay any attention to. Otherwise, it's my friends and relatives I listen to. I don't trust Yelp or Angie's List or Amazon reviews any farther than I can throw them. Especially when you consider that review numbers are almost always skewed toward complainers.
Of course it wil be skewed to complainers they are normally the only ones motivated to review somrthing. Then again the number of times something is so good you just got to say so isnt all that common is it?
Further, people tend to be negatively biased when reading such reviews, good reviews are suspicious for the reasons other posters indicate.
On the whole, most customer reviews are too contaminated to be useful
Which is why I prefer Which? or professional reviews which at least you can compare.
"Professional reviewers, whether SW or Movies or Restaurants or Carpet Cleaners, are the only ones I ever pay any attention to."
Professional reviewers have been known for getting under table deals, or are afraid of offending companies that advertise on their newspaper/magazine/website.
While neither of them are something I'd probably consult, they have their place and people use them successfully. My roommate/landlord did get a subscription to Angie's list because she needed to have a major remodel done on the house (new floor for the kitchen, new cabinets, extended the project into the foyer, and picked up the bathroom off the foyer). Not the sort of thing you purchase repeatedly and not necessarily the sort of thing your friend have done so word of mouth isn't as useful as you'd like it to be. Angie's list (and presumably Yelp) are attempts to extend that word of mouth effect.
As for only negative reviews, she picked the contractor based on his good reviews. So it's not all toads and snails.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
