The Inquirer-Home

Court orders Yelp to unmask anonymous reviewers

Carpet blaggers to be exposed
Mon Jan 13 2014, 16:14

A UNITED STATES COURT has ordered customer reviews website Yelp reveal the names of seven of its anonymous reviewers.

The order follows a lawsuit filed by a firm called Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, which suspected that some of the reviews placed online about it were made up.

According to a report at The Atlantic the only way for Hadeed to find out whether this was the case was to subpoena Yelp for the information. Hadeed pressed, Yelp resisted, and chose to ignore a county court order, and an additional court was charged with ruling.

The Virginia state Court of Appeals ruled in favour of the carpet cleaning company and insisted that Yelp must reveal the names of those users that otherwise would have remained anonymous.

"In its complaint, Hadeed alleged that it tried to match the negative reviews with its customer database but could find no record that the negative reviewers were actually Hadeed customers. Consequently, Hadeed alleged that the negative reviewers were not actual customers; instead, the Doe defendants falsely represented themselves to be customers of Hadeed," said the court's ruling.

"Hadeed's complaint further alleged that the negative comments were defamatory because they falsely stated that Hadeed had provided shoddy service to each reviewer."

Yelp will now have to come up with the names of the reviewers, while Hadeed Carpet Cleaning will also get $1,000 towards its legal costs.

The reviews looked dodgy to Hadeed because they came from areas where it does not operate. The talk is of shrunken carpets in Washington and bad business in New Jersey, a state where a shagpile of any kind is presumably looked after by other outfits.

"After combing its customer records, Hadeed was at a loss to find record[s] of these allegations," added The Atlantic.

While it is usually permissable to be anonymous, the courts do not look favourably on defamation. If these 'reviewers' were not customers of the company then the negative reviews could not possibly be truthful and might be libel. The court ordered Yelp to comply in order to ascertain whether this is the case.

Yelp has posted to its blog in response to the announcement. It said that litigation is not a viable alternative to customer service and that an overreaction to a bad review can be worse than a bad review itself.

"Other courts and other states have shown support for citizens' First Amendment right to speak anonymously. Consumers may feel the need to speak anonymously for privacy reasons or for fear of unfair retaliation by a business," it added in a statement to The INQUIRER.

"This ruling could have a chilling effect on free speech in Virginia specifically and Yelp will continue to fight to protect consumers' privacy and free speech rights. This ruling also shows the need for strong state and federal legislation to prevent meritless lawsuits aimed solely at stifling free speech." µ


Share this:

blog comments powered by Disqus
Subscribe to INQ newsletters

Sign up for INQbot – a weekly roundup of the best from the INQ

Existing User
Please fill in the field below to receive your profile link.
Sign-up for the INQBot weekly newsletter
Click here
INQ Poll

Microsoft Windows 10 poll

Which feature of Windows 10 are you most excited about?