Techdirt. Stories about "angie's list" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories about "angie's list"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:26:55 PST Contractors Lining Up Against Free Speech Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/08214421605/contractors-lining-up-against-free-speech.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/08214421605/contractors-lining-up-against-free-speech.shtml tremendously helpful, even if you know to take reviews with a grain of salt (in both directions). At the very least, they provide some good fodder for understanding strengths and weaknesses. Recently, we wrote about a case in Virginia, in which a contractor named Christopher Dietz took a woman, Jane Perez, to court for $750,000 because she wrote negative reviews about him on Yelp and Angie's List. A lower court had initially told Perez to change her reviews, but the Virginia Supreme Court overturned that, saying that it could not require changes under the 1st Amendment until a full hearing was held on whether or not the content was defamatory.

It's worth noting that Perez only posted her negative reviews after Dietz had already sued her in small claims court, a case that was dismissed (some of the defamation claim concerns Dietz disagreeing with how Perez described the end result of that court case in her reviews). Dietz has also suggested during a video interview on MSNBC that he wanted to go after both Yelp and Angie's List, and that they shouldn't hide behind Section 230 of the CDA. At this point, it would appear that Dietz either does not understand or underestimates the power of the Streisand Effect as well as the importance of free speech and the importance of secondary liability protection for service providers. It's a trifecta!

Perez has pro bono legal help from Public Citizen and the ACLU, but there are still substantial legal costs that she needs to cover. To help pay for it, she's put up an IndieGoGo campaign in which she notes that some comments on a popular site for home builders suggest that an association for home builders may be backing Dietz's lawsuit. The site in question does have a running update on the case, which includes one post where a spokesperson for the National Association of the Remodeling Industry claims that they "support [Chris Dietz] in the quest to right this wrong" and that the organization is "reviewing the case and will determine next steps." It's not clear if this means that NARI is actually financially supporting Dietz's lawsuit, but either way, "supporting" Dietz's misguided lawsuit still doesn't seem like a particularly smart stance, for reasons we'll get to below. NARI could do a lot more good for contractors by teaching them how to properly deal with negative reviews.

That same page includes a couple different reports from other contractors, insisting that contractors need to support Dietz and stop this scourge of people saying bad stuff about them. There's one post that insists the lawsuit is a good thing, saying it will take a "perfect storm" to lose (unlikely), while also mocking review sites claiming most of his customers have never heard of them. Then there's another one that mocks both review sites and the ACLU for daring to think that this was an important case.

I can certainly understand why contractors are upset about negative reviews -- just as lots of other businesses are worried about negative reviews. It's no secret that not all reviews are accurate, and it really does suck, emotionally, to see a negative review that's not true. But there are ways to deal with negative reviews that don't make the situation worse. Jumping straight to defamation lawsuits generally are the opposite of that. They do make the situation worse. SearchEngineLand has a great post in response to this very case, in which they point out that there are much better ways to deal with negative reviews online. Suing only creates news about those negative reviews -- and having it become widely public news that you sued a customer about their negative review seems likely to have a lot more damaging impact on a business than those negative reviews might have had in the first place.

Yes, we live in a legalistic society, where it is the first response of many people to "go legal" when they feel wronged, but in a world where information is widely available, there are often much better ways to respond to "negative" information than going legal. If these contractors really wanted to "support" Dietz, they should encourage more of their colleagues to read the SearchEngineLand article, rather than supporting a dangerous lawsuit that could undermine key principles of free speech or secondary liability.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> tragic http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130108/08214421605 Wed, 2 Jan 2013 16:30:00 PST Virginia Supreme Court Says Court Was Wrong To Force Woman To Change Yelp Review Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130102/12464921550/virginia-court-says-court-was-wrong-to-force-woman-to-change-yelp-review.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130102/12464921550/virginia-court-says-court-was-wrong-to-force-woman-to-change-yelp-review.shtml 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.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> good-move http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130102/12464921550 Fri, 2 Jul 2010 12:04:00 PDT Concrete Company Sues Woman For Posting Negative Review On Angie's List Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100629/16155410008.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100629/16155410008.shtml towing company has backfired on the company. But, yet again, we have a story of a business suing over a negative review. This time, it's a woman in Chicago who wrote a negative review of a local cement company on the site Angie's List because it refused to even give her an estimate, saying it didn't work in her area. She was upset because the company was only based 5 miles away, and on Angie's List, said it did work where she lived. So she wrote about her experience and rated the company an "F." In response, the company, All Fields of Concrete Construction, sued her, claiming she "willingly and maliciously tried and succeeded in damaging my company's reputation." Once again, it makes you wonder: which is more damaging to your reputation? Getting a bad rating online, or suing the person who gave you that rating? It's difficult to see how the concrete company has much of a case. The "F" rating is clearly an opinion, not a statement of fact. And it's hard to show that the woman was "malicious" in her rating. She gave her opinion. But, now, thanks to the lawsuit, a lot more people know her opinion of All Fields of Concrete Construction.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> well,-now-we-know-who-to-avoid http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100629/16155410008