Court & Legal News
Today's Date: Bookmark This Website
California high court: Yelp can't be ordered to remove posts
Legal World News | 2018/07/02 13:43
Online review site Yelp.com cannot be ordered to remove posts against a San Francisco law firm that a judge determined were defamatory, a divided California Supreme Court ruled Monday in a closely watched case that internet companies warned could be used to silence online speech.

In a 4-3 opinion, justices agreed, saying removal orders such as the one attorney Dawn Hassell obtained against Yelp "could interfere with and undermine the viability of an online platform."

The decision overturned a lower court ruling that Yelp had said could lead to the removal of negative reviews from the popular website.

Hassell said Yelp was exaggerating the stakes of her legal effort. Her attorney, Monique Olivier, said in a statement that the ruling "stands as an invitation to spread falsehoods on the internet without consequence."

She said her client was considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Hassell's 2013 lawsuit accused a client she briefly represented in a personal injury case of defaming her on Yelp by falsely claiming that her firm failed to communicate with the client, among other things.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Donald Sullivan found the online statements defamatory and ordered the client and Yelp to remove them. Hassell said the client failed to answer her lawsuit or remove the posts, so she had to seek a court order demanding that Yelp do it.

A second judge and a state appeals court upheld Sullivan's order.

"Ms. Hassell did exactly what she should have done," Olivier said Monday. "After both the defamer and Yelp refused to remove untrue and damaging statements, she obtained a judgment against the defamer, and sought to enforce that judgment by requiring Yelp to remove the defamation."

Yelp said the lower court ruling would give businesses unhappy about negative reviews a new legal pathway for getting them removed.

Yelp said the removal order violated a 1996 federal law that courts have widely interpreted as protecting internet companies from liability for posts by third-party users and prohibiting the companies from being treated as the speaker or publisher of users' posts.


[PREV] [1] ..[837][838][839][840][841][842][843][844][845].. [2061] [NEXT]
All
Law Firm News
Legal World News
Law Firm Press Release
Legal Information
Attorney Interview
State Law Issues
Court Updates
Local Legal Events
Lawyer Court Feed
A Canadian man facing 14 mur..
Alleged white supremacist pl..
Tiger Woods says he'll seek ..
Trump is at the Court as it ..
Wisconsin man who ordered ba..
Federal judge blocks Pentago..
Supreme Court sounds skeptic..
Judge rules US government ov..
Immigration lawyers accuse V..
No new trial for man convict..
US and Israeli attacks on Ir..
Trump administration's 'thir..
House will vote on an Iran w..
Suspect in mass shooting at ..
Trump is threatening to bloc..


   Law Firm Blog Links
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
East Greenwich Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
www.jantonfamilylaw.com/about
Rockville MD Divorce Attorney
Rockville Maryland Family Law Attorneys
familylawyersmd.com
Law Firm News Updates
Legal News Updates
Click The Law News
Daily Legal News
Legal News Voice
Recent Legal News
 
 

© 2016 www.lawfirmnewsworld.com. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by lawfirmnewsworld.com as a community service to the legal and internet community and is not intended to represent legal advice or act as substitute for legal consultation with a licensed professional attorney in a particular cases or circumstances. Attorney & Law Firm News postings and hosted comments are available for general informational purposes only and should not be used to assess any legal situation. | Affordable Law Firm Website Design