<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;yelp&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 10:05:49 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Kitchen Nightmares Lawyers Threaten Infamous Samy And Amy If They Talk About Their Experience On The Show</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/01321523153/kitchen-nightmares-lawyers-threaten-infamous-samy-amy-if-they-talk-about-their-experience-show.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/01321523153/kitchen-nightmares-lawyers-threaten-infamous-samy-amy-if-they-talk-about-their-experience-show.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last week we wrote about the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130515/07262023094/restaurant-facebook-goes-nuclear-facebook-over-reviews-gordon-ramsay-owner-cry-hack.shtml">crazy mess</a> that followed the recent episode of the show <i>Kitchen Nightmares</i> on Fox, in which the star of the show, Gordon Ramsay, actually walked away from Amy's Baking Company, after the owners, Samy and Amy Bouzaglo, didn't take well to any criticism.  After the episode aired, they were further mocked on Yelp and Reddit (Yelp "haters" were a key part of the episode), and there was an explosion of anger on the restaurant's Facebook page, though the couple insists they were hacked.
<br /><br />
Following all of this, however, the restaurant announced that it was doing a grand "re-opening" today, which involved a planned press conference and a <a href="http://consumerist.com/2013/05/20/amys-baking-company-needs-to-hire-30-people-held-weekend-job-fair/" target="_blank">"job fair"</a> to try to hire 30 new workers.  As the show noted, the Bouzaglos apparently have difficulty keeping staff employed for very long.  However, the "press conference" has been <a href="http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_northeast_valley/scottsdale/amys-baking-company-cancels-press-conference-re-opening-still-a-go" target="_blank">cancelled</a>.  The couple claims it had to do with <a href="http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/05/amys-baking-company-death-threats-press-conference-canceled/" target="_blank">death threats</a> they received, though it might have more to do with a very different kind of threat: <a href="http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/05/kitchen-nightmares-lawyers-threaten-restaurant-owners-amys-baking-company/" target="_blank">a legal threat from the producers of the show</a>, as reported by RadarOnline.
<br /><br />
Lawyers representing the producers of Kitchen Nightmares, Upper Ground Enterprises, sent the couple a letter warning them that talking about the show would be a breach of contract:
<blockquote><i>
We understand that you are planning a public event on May 21, 2013, at which you will discuss your experiences and your "unflattering portrayals" on the show.  If you speak about the show without Upper Ground's and Fox's prior approval, and if you disparage the show, its host, or its producers, you will breach your obligations under Paragraph 10 of your Personal Release and Paragraph 14 of your Participant Agreement.  These agreements prohibit you from speaking publicly about <b>Kitchen Nighmares</b>, other than to acknowledge "the mere fact of your participation in the Series in personal publicity relating to yourself."  Your conduct exposes each of you to liability for liquidated damages of $100,000.
</i></blockquote>
Hmm.  While this is a reminder to be careful about what sorts of gag clauses you sign before you do anything, it still seems like a highly questionable move by the producers.  The more they seek to silence the couple, the more it suggests that perhaps the portrayal wasn't entirely fair.  Meanwhile, the more the couple is allowed to stay in the news, the better one would think it would be for the TV show.  The couple's actions and statements on the episode were absolutely ridiculous and clearly showed a restaurant/ownership not worth patronizing.  Since then, the couple's <a href="http://consumerist.com/2013/05/20/owners-of-amys-baking-company-say-yelpers-are-endangering-their-lives/" target="_blank">confirmed statements</a> (even ignoring the Facebook comments, whether or not you believe they were the result of hackers) concerning Yelp have only served to confirm that the couple can't take any criticism and seem to think that bad reviews of bad food are the world out to get them.
<br /><br />
The decision to call out the gag order in the contract to silence them seems ridiculous by Fox.  Even if the couple trashed the show (as expected), does anyone think that the couple has even the slightest credibility at this point?  No one believes them.  Pulling out the gag order makes the show look like it has something to hide.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/01321523153/kitchen-nightmares-lawyers-threaten-infamous-samy-amy-if-they-talk-about-their-experience-show.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/01321523153/kitchen-nightmares-lawyers-threaten-infamous-samy-amy-if-they-talk-about-their-experience-show.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/01321523153/kitchen-nightmares-lawyers-threaten-infamous-samy-amy-if-they-talk-about-their-experience-show.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hmmm</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130521/01321523153</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 15:48:30 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Yelp Fights Back Against Carpet Cleaning Service That Sued Anonymous Critics For Defamation</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130509/01524123017/yelp-fights-back-against-carpet-cleaning-service-that-sued-anonymous-critics-defamation.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130509/01524123017/yelp-fights-back-against-carpet-cleaning-service-that-sued-anonymous-critics-defamation.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've seen plenty of lawsuits involving people upset about Yelp reviews, but here's a fairly extreme case.  Apparently, a DC-area carpet cleaning service named Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, which is somewhat infamous in the area for its "pervasive advertising" and direct mail coupons promising a $99 cleaning special, <a href="http://www.yelp.com/biz/hadeed-carpet-alexandria#query:Hadeed%20Carpet" target="_blank">does not have the greatest reputation on Yelp</a>.  The key issue: apparently that $99 deal is often not honored.  Also, there are multiple reviews of people getting a quote, dropping off a carpet, and then being told later if they want the carpet back they have to pay much more -- with various excuses being offered as to why they're charging more than the quote.
<br /><br />
Hadeed then decided to <a href="http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2013/05/hadeed-carpet-cleaning-seeks-to-suppress-a-dirty-secret.html" target="_blank">sue seven anonymous reviewers for defamation</a>.  Here's the oddity: Hadeed does not appear to be suing them over the <i>contents</i> of the bad review.  In fact, the company doesn't seem to dispute the various complaints about its pricing practices.  Rather, it argues that it could not match these seven reviewers to actual customers within its database, and therefore, the reviewers are defaming them by misrepresenting that they were ever Hadeed customers.  Hadeed appears to suggest that they reviews were really written by a competitor.
<br /><br />
As we've discussed, many courts have adopted the so-called <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=dendrite">Dendrite rules</a> for identifying anonymous speakers.  The rules require giving the anonymous users a chance to respond and (more importantly) require the plaintiff to present enough evidence to prove there's an actual case.  However, the court in Virginia chose to not apply any such rules, but rather allowed a subpoena to Yelp ordering it to identify the posters.  Yelp has refused, and the court ordered compliance, which Yelp again refused, leading to the court saying Yelp was in contempt.
<br /><br />
Public Citizen has now filed a brief on behalf of Yelp with the appeals court, arguing both that the Virginia court had no jurisdiction over Yelp, a California company, and that Yelp was correct to ignore the order since the First Amendment (which protects anonymous speech) requires much more proof before an anonymous speaker can be revealed.
<blockquote><i>
When pervasive advertisements from a local merchant feature prices that seem to be just too
good to be true, they may, in fact, not be the price that the average consumer will pay. Dozens of
consumers who have used pseudonyms to post about their experiences with appellee Hadeed Carpet
Cleaning, Inc. (&#8220;Hadeed&#8221;) on the popular website www.yelp.com, maintained by appellant Yelp Inc.
(&#8220;Yelp&#8221;), report that Hadeed routinely fails to honor the advertised discount prices. Hadeed&#8217;s
responses to several consumers on Yelp suggest that it recognizes the problem; yet its complaint for
defamation singles out the authors of seven reviews posted on Yelp that say the same thing as the
other online detractors of Hadeed and its sister business, Hadeed Oriental Rug Cleaning. Based on
that allegation, Hadeed invoked the court&#8217;s subpoena power to strip its pseudonymous critics of their
First Amendment right to speak anonymously.
<br /><br />
The main question on this appeal&#8212;an issue of first impression at the appellate level in
Virginia&#8212;is whether the trial court applied the proper legal standard in overriding the anonymous
speakers&#8217; First Amendment rights. Courts elsewhere have recognized that, given the valuable role
played by the First Amendment right to speak anonymously in encouraging ordinary people to
express themselves fully, it is necessary to balance that right against a plaintiff&#8217;s right to seek redress
for wrongful speech by adopting a standard requiring a plaintiff to do more than articulate a good
faith belief that the speech &#8220;maybe tortious.&#8221; Before stripping the defendant of a First Amendment
right, these courts take an early look at the merits of the plaintiff&#8217;s claim to determine whether a
valid claim has been alleged and whether there is a prima facie evidentiary basis for that claim. In
this appeal, Yelp urges Virginia to adopt the same approach, and to remand this case to give Hadeed
an opportunity to pursue its subpoena by meeting the proper standard.
</i></blockquote>
In the meantime, though, we have yet another case of a company suing over Yelp reviews -- which just makes me wonder how they ever expect to get more customers.  Any company that sues over online reviews someone makes is clearly a company not worth doing business with, since they might, potentially, sue you over any bad review you write online about them.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130509/01524123017/yelp-fights-back-against-carpet-cleaning-service-that-sued-anonymous-critics-defamation.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130509/01524123017/yelp-fights-back-against-carpet-cleaning-service-that-sued-anonymous-critics-defamation.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130509/01524123017/yelp-fights-back-against-carpet-cleaning-service-that-sued-anonymous-critics-defamation.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-for-yelp</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130509/01524123017</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:26:55 PST</pubDate>
<title>Contractors Lining Up Against Free Speech</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/08214421605/contractors-lining-up-against-free-speech.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/08214421605/contractors-lining-up-against-free-speech.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I've recently been dealing with some building contractors over some work, and the process is no fun at all.  Finding someone you can trust is a pretty harrowing experience, because if you pick wrong, the consequences can be huge.  Online review sites, like Yelp, have actually been <i>tremendously</i> 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130102/12464921550/virginia-court-says-court-was-wrong-to-force-woman-to-change-yelp-review.shtml">overturned that</a>, 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.
<br /><br />
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 <a href="http://video.msnbc.msn.com/cnbc/50122132#50122132" target="_blank">during a video interview on MSNBC</a> 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 <i>and</i> the importance of secondary liability protection for service providers.  It's a trifecta!
<br /><br />
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 <a href="http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/309293" target="_blank">an IndieGoGo campaign</a> 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 <a href="http://www.shawnmccadden.com/dietz-lawsuit-info-and-updates/" target="_blank">running update on the case</a>, which includes <a href="http://www.shawnmccadden.com/the-design-builders-blog/bid/85277/Deitz-Lawsuit-Update-Ralph-Nader-To-Fund-Appeal-Against-Dietz-Case" target="_blank">one post</a> 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.
<br /><br />
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 <a href="http://www.shawnmccadden.com/the-design-builders-blog/bid/85254/The-Perfect-Storm-One-Contractors-Opinion-About-the-Dietz-Lawsuit" target="_blank">the lawsuit is a good thing</a>, 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 <a href="http://www.remodelcrazy.com/2012/remodel-industry-news/deitz-perez-man-bites-dog.html" target="_blank">mocks both review sites and the ACLU</a> for daring to think that this was an important case.
<br /><br />
I can certainly understand why contractors are <i>upset</i> 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 <i>are</i> 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 <a href="http://searchengineland.com/five-steps-to-successfully-navigate-negative-online-reviews-144174" target="_blank">much better ways to deal with negative reviews online</a>.  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.
<br /><br />
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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/08214421605/contractors-lining-up-against-free-speech.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/08214421605/contractors-lining-up-against-free-speech.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/08214421605/contractors-lining-up-against-free-speech.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>tragic</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130108/08214421605</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 2 Jan 2013 16:30:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Virginia Supreme Court Says Court Was Wrong To Force Woman To Change Yelp Review</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130102/12464921550/virginia-court-says-court-was-wrong-to-force-woman-to-change-yelp-review.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130102/12464921550/virginia-court-says-court-was-wrong-to-force-woman-to-change-yelp-review.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ 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 <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/550563-dietz-development-hearing-transcript.html" target="_blank">issued a preliminary injunction</a>, 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 <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/2012/12/04/1cdfa582-3978-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_story.html" target="_blank">sued Perez for $750,000</a> over the negative reviews, and arguing that <a href="http://video.msnbc.msn.com/cnbc/50122132#50122132" target="_blank">Yelp and Angie's List</a> should be held responsible as well, despite their clear protections under Section 230.
<br /><br />
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 <a href="http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2012/12/prior-restraint-doctrine-protects-negative-yelp-review-against-preliminary-injunction.html" target="_blank">asked the court to review</a>, noting that this was classic prior restraint:
<blockquote><i>
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, <b>injunctions may not issue against speech that has
not been finally determined to be false and defamatory</b>. For this reason,
courts have rejected attempts to obtain preliminary injunctive relief against
Internet speech.
</i></blockquote>
Basically, a court cannot issue an injunction on speech that <i>might</i> 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.
<br /><br />
Thankfully, the Virginia Supreme Court <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/550562-supremecourtreversal.html" target="_blank">quickly recognized the error</a> and has <a href="http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=3789" target="_blank">vacated the injunction</a> allowing the original text to stay in place while any lawsuit continues:
<blockquote><i>
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.
</i></blockquote>
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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130102/12464921550/virginia-court-says-court-was-wrong-to-force-woman-to-change-yelp-review.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130102/12464921550/virginia-court-says-court-was-wrong-to-force-woman-to-change-yelp-review.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130102/12464921550/virginia-court-says-court-was-wrong-to-force-woman-to-change-yelp-review.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-move</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130102/12464921550</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:28:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Yelp Takes Down Review That Sparked Legal Threat</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/11545121076/yelp-takes-down-review-that-sparked-legal-threat.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/11545121076/yelp-takes-down-review-that-sparked-legal-threat.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Yesterday we had the story of how an 18-month-old Yelp review for Casey Movers in Massachusetts spurred the company to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/02262421053/latest-company-to-discover-streisand-effect-casey-movers.shtml">send a legal threat</a> to the author, Kristen Buckley, leading her husband, Phil Buckley to do some research and uncover questionable "positive" reviews of the company, and to call the company out for its legal threat.  That story has been getting a lot of attention from a variety of sources, and some have noticed that <a href="http://www.yelp.com/biz/casey-movers-rockland#hrid:hBp-TeiAHmu710xjoTTjsw" target="_blank">the original review is gone</a>.  Yes, gone.  If you go there, you can now see Kristen's followup comment about the legal threat, and Casey Movers' response to the original review -- but not the original review itself.
<br /><br />
So what happened?  Apparently Yelp took the review down <a href="https://twitter.com/1918/status/269525507865985025" target="_blank">because it violated their policy</a> "because it lacks firsthand experience."  The issue is that Kristen admits that the movers were hired by her parents, and the review was on their behalf.  Peter notes that Kristen was present when the events happened, so the "lacks firsthand experience" is pretty questionable.  That said, the removal seems odd no matter what.  The review was up for 18 months and Yelp <i>just</i> took an interest in taking it down in the days after the legal threat went out?
<br /><br />
It seems unfortunate in timing -- especially since the reasons for the disappearance of the review are not made public (they were sent via email to Kristen).  Anyone reading about this story elsewhere and going to Yelp to see the review are likely to now believe that the original review was taken down due to Casey Movers' complaints about the accuracy of the review, when that doesn't appear to be the case.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/11545121076/yelp-takes-down-review-that-sparked-legal-threat.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/11545121076/yelp-takes-down-review-that-sparked-legal-threat.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/11545121076/yelp-takes-down-review-that-sparked-legal-threat.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>weak-sauce</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121116/11545121076</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:48:19 PST</pubDate>
<title>Latest Company To Discover The Streisand Effect: Casey Movers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/02262421053/latest-company-to-discover-streisand-effect-casey-movers.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/02262421053/latest-company-to-discover-streisand-effect-casey-movers.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this year, I was at a conference where there was an entire presentation on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect" target="_blank">The Streisand Effect</a>.  Considering I first came up with the term and have chronicled it over the years (and had already been asked to speak on a different topic at the conference), I offered to help out with that session -- and got back no response.  I went to the session to watch, and it was a really fun session, which didn't need any help from me at all.  It was done by Conrad Saam, who works for Urban Spoon (and previously Avvo) and had a ton of great examples of the Streisand Effect and the impact on online reputation management.  One element of online reputation management that he'd discussed, which I hadn't paid as much attention to, was the basics on how to deal with online reviews -- with a specific focus on Yelp.  There were some dos and donts... and two key things <b>not</b> to do were (1) threaten people who write negative reviews and (2) post fake positive reviews.
<br /><br />
Phil Buckley has a story of a Massachusetts-based moving company, called Casey Movers, which appears to have violated both of those rules, starting with a <a href="http://www.1918.com/casey-movers-threatens-lawsuit-over-bad-yelp-review/" target="_blank">legal threat to Buckley's wife</a> concerning a <a href="http://www.yelp.com/biz/casey-movers-rockland#hrid:hBp-TeiAHmu710xjoTTjsw" target="_blank">negative review</a> she had written about Casey Movers 18 months ago, after her parents had a very bad experience with the company.  It first took the company over a year to even notice the review and then post a weak defense of its practices.  It didn't respond to any of the specific complaints about unprofessional behavior or broken promises.  It only focused on the amount that the company had been willing to pay for damages, and gave a somewhat "technical" response about how this was what the "insurance option" she chose provided -- and even could be read as scolding her for not choosing the more expensive insurance option.
<br /><br />
And yet... five months later (18 months after the original complaint went up), the same guy who wrote that bizarre defense sends a threat letter saying that the company is prepared to sue for libel if the review isn't removed:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/uUoev"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/uUoev.png" width=560 /></a>
</center>
Of course, rather than having the intended effect, it just made Buckley furious (and quite reasonably so).  Buckley had no interest in removing the review, but rather than just telling Casey Movers to pound sand, he <i>started investigating</i>.  He found a variety of other negative reviews... but <i>also</i> a large number of reviews that had significant circumstantial evidence that the company was likely posting fake positive reviews (or had hired a company to do so).  It's fun to watch the investigation progress, so it's worth reading the whole thing, but here's a snippet:
<blockquote><i>
Someone decided enough was enough and decided to get some good reviews at CitySearch where they now have a majority of good reviews, except there&#8217;s a problem, they&#8217;re not real reviews. You may ask how I can say that with so much confidence? Go look at them yourself, one after another&#8230; notice how most names are generic or don&#8217;t have a human photo? Yes that&#8217;s level 1 of suspicious reviews. Start looking at the reviews the &#8220;people&#8221; have left. It&#8217;s quite a coincidence that so many people who have used a Boston moving company have also loved a sprinkler repair guy in Anaheim, California and Fun Hawaii Travel out of Honolulu.
<br /><br />
They also have a flurry of activity in August of 2012 &#8211; Aug 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14. That seems a bit sketchy as well.
</i></blockquote>
His investigation also turned up that the company had been posting images of positive review letters that some customers had signed, but in doing so, revealed all their private info.  Buckley contacted a few who seemed surprised and said that they had not provided permission to reveal their private info.
<br /><br />
For a while, Casey Movers and the main representative of the company involved in all of this, Matthew Overstreet, basically ignored Buckley.  But as his story kept getting more attention, Overstreet finally reached out to Buckley -- and again just kept focusing on the "insurance coverage," a relatively minor issue (made even more minor following the ridiculous threat of a libel lawsuit).  Eventually, Overstreet called Buckley on Wednesday night and seemed to indicate that there wasn't any interest in actually suing, though he refused to promise not to sue Buckley's wife.
<br /><br />
Either way, the whole story is yet another fun one to include in the long list of companies who get on the wrong side of the Streisand Effect.  Going beyond that, it really shows how a bogus legal threat can lead to not just backlash and attention, but <i>also</i> much deeper investigations into whoever originated the threat -- and that might turn up other questionable activity, such as posting likely fake positive reviews to try to counter the real negative reviews.  Oops.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/02262421053/latest-company-to-discover-streisand-effect-casey-movers.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/02262421053/latest-company-to-discover-streisand-effect-casey-movers.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/02262421053/latest-company-to-discover-streisand-effect-casey-movers.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-not-to-internet</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121115/02262421053</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 2 Nov 2012 11:50:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Best Of The Trademark Bullies: Village Voice Sues Yelp Over 'Best Of' Lists</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121102/02513620915/best-trademark-bullies-village-voice-sues-yelp-over-best-lists.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121102/02513620915/best-trademark-bullies-village-voice-sues-yelp-over-best-lists.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The latest in a long series of stupid trademark bullying lawsuits comes to us courtesy of The Village Voice (who should know better than to file bogus lawsuits).  The Voice is <a href="http://paidcontent.org/2012/10/29/village-voice-sues-yelp-for-using-best-of/" target="_blank">suing Yelp for trademark infringement</a>.  The Village Voice somehow convinced the USPTO that it deserved a trademark on the phrase "best of [place name]" for certain locations -- such as "Best of Seattle" or "Best of San Francisco."  Yelp, quite reasonably, also uses the term of "best of" to describe certain places:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/r0c2e"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/r0c2e.png" width=450 /></a>
</center>
Village Voice is claiming that Yelp's infringement is "willful" because it notified the company, and Yelp apparently told them to go away.  It's also ridiculously claiming that Yelp's usage has "irreparably harmed" the company.  I realize that's standard language used in such lawsuits, but seriously?
<br /><br />
The EFF points out that <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/stupid-lawyer-tricks-and-government-officials-who-are-helping-them" target="_blank">the US Patent and Trademark Office is partly to blame</a> for allowing registrations on such trademarks:
<blockquote><i>
 What is going on at the&nbsp;Patent and Trademark Office?&nbsp; For&nbsp;decades, folks have been complaining (with good reason) that the patent examiners need&nbsp;to do a better job of screening out bogus patent applications. It&#8217;s clear that the problem extends to the trademark side as well. The PTO has allowed companies and individuals to register marks in any number of obviously generic and/or descriptive terms, such as &#8220;<a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/riding-fences-urban-homestead-trademark-complaints">urban homestead</a>&#8221; (to refer to urban farms), &#8220;<a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/trademark-abuse-and-gaymer-community">gaymer</a>&#8221; (to refer to gay gamers), and &#8220;<a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/liberate-b-24-liberator">B-24</a>&#8221; (to refer to model B-24 bombers).
<br /><br />
Once a mark is registered, it is all too easy for the owner to become a trademark bully. And while companies like Yelp have the resources to fight back (as we expect it will), small companies and individuals may not. Just as dangerous, the trademark owner may go upstream, to intermediaries like Facebook who have little incentive to do anything other than take down an account or site that&#8217;s accused of infringement.
</i></blockquote>
Separately, the EFF asks the most important question: who is actually being deceived here?  There is no confusion.  No one associates "best of" with the Village Voice.  Everyone reads it as a perfectly normal descriptive term, rather than a trademark belonging to any single party.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121102/02513620915/best-trademark-bullies-village-voice-sues-yelp-over-best-lists.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121102/02513620915/best-trademark-bullies-village-voice-sues-yelp-over-best-lists.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121102/02513620915/best-trademark-bullies-village-voice-sues-yelp-over-best-lists.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>answer:-none</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121102/02513620915</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:46:34 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Tons Of Companies Sued In Class Action Lawsuit Over Uploading Phone Addressbooks</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/00561518126/tons-companies-sued-class-action-lawsuit-over-uploading-phone-addressbooks.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/00561518126/tons-companies-sued-class-action-lawsuit-over-uploading-phone-addressbooks.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There was some controversy a month or so ago, when it came out that app maker Path was secretly <a href="http://www.bgr.com/2012/02/07/popular-path-app-revealed-to-secretly-upload-all-iphone-contacts-to-its-servers/" target="_blank">uploading</a> your entire address book to its servers.  The company <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/08/path-apologizes-deletes-user-contact-data-and-updates-app/" target="_blank">apologized</a> and deleted all the data.  Of course, pretty quickly, people realized that <a href="http://www.consumersearch.com/blog/iphone-apps-and-the-secret-battle-for-your-contacts-list" target="_blank">lots of apps do this</a>, if you allow the app to search your address book to see who else you know is already using the service.  The way they do this is to upload your address book.  I would have thought this was, well, obvious, but not everyone seemed to think so (it's also why I never use that feature).  Either way, lots of apps quickly <a href="http://allthingsd.com/20120215/following-path-address-book-uproar-many-apps-clean-up-their-acts/" target="_blank">changed</a> either how they work or how they explain what happens with that feature.
<br /><br />
But, of course, in our litigious society, that's not going to stop the class action lawsuits from being filed.  In a <a href="http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txwdce/1:2012cv00219/540116/1/" target="_blank">152 page document</a>, a class action lawsuit has been filed against pretty much every big name company in the space:
<blockquote><i>
Path, Inc., Twitter, Inc., Apple, Inc., Facebook, Inc., Beluga, Inc. ., Yelp! Inc., Burbn, Inc., Instagram, Inc., Foursquare Labs, Inc., Gowalla Incorporated, Foodspotting, Inc., Hipster, Inc., LinkedIn Corporation, Rovio Mobile Oy, ZeptoLab UK Limited aka ZeptoLab, Chillingo Ltd., Electronic Arts Inc., and Kik Interactive, Inc.,
</i></blockquote>
The lawsuit kicks off by quoting Robert Fulghum's "All I really Need to Know I Learned In Kindergarten," saying, "Don't take things that aren't yours."  Of course, as with many such class actions, this one is all about getting the lawyers paid.  This isn't to say that I think the actions in uploading the address books were ok, but worth a lawsuit?  Seems a bit extreme.  It seems that the public pressure about all of this has caused pretty much all of these companies to change how they work, and it's unlikely any real significant "harm" came from this.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/00561518126/tons-companies-sued-class-action-lawsuit-over-uploading-phone-addressbooks.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/00561518126/tons-companies-sued-class-action-lawsuit-over-uploading-phone-addressbooks.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/00561518126/tons-companies-sued-class-action-lawsuit-over-uploading-phone-addressbooks.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>class-actions-in-action</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120316/00561518126</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 06:05:55 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Should We Pass A Law To Stop Yelp From Harming Chain Restaurants?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111008/01404116265/should-we-pass-law-to-stop-yelp-harming-chain-restaurants.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111008/01404116265/should-we-pass-law-to-stop-yelp-harming-chain-restaurants.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We keep hearing stories about how "the internet is killing music" or "the internet is killing newspapers," which inevitably seem to suggest that "something must be done," and often that "something" involves the government getting involved.  Of course, if you look at the details, you realize that the internet isn't killing music or journalism at all.  In many ways it's just changing both and enabling new means of creation, distribution, promotion and sales.  But, people like to interpret the struggles of one part of an industry, and pretend that represents the wider industry -- and then insist something must be done.
<br /><br />
But, of course, one part of an industry becoming obsolete due to technology and market changes is the natural path of disruption, and not a cause for concern.  Just to highlight this point, it's worth pointing to a Washington Post article with the title, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/how-yelp-is-killing-chain-restaurants/2011/10/03/gIQAokJvHL_blog.html" target="_blank">How Yelp is killing chain restaurants</a>.  It refers to a <a href="http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/12-016.pdf" target="_blank">study</a> (pdf) that looked into the impact of Yelp reviews on restaurants.  Among its many findings was that the market share of big chain restaurants appears to have declined.
<br /><br />
When you think about it, this is not surprising at all.  Part of the reason why chains are successful is because they offer familiarity, which allows potential diners to trust that the food they'll get at them will be of a certain quality.  If you're unsure where to go, and want to minimize the risk, you are more likely to just hit up a big brand you're familiar with.  But Yelp changes the equation.  Now you can get an approximation of trust in a restaurant you've never heard of.  It's not perfect, but it certainly decreases the risk, and thus increases the likelihood that you'll try a smaller alternative.  At the same time, there's little that Yelp is likely to do to increase the attractiveness of a chain restaurant.
<br /><br />
Of course, there's a wider parallel to other industries as well.  We've heard some fears that the internet creates too many "winner takes all" situations, with a single dominant player, but the reality often seems quite different.  It creates the ability to build a multitude of niches, because information decreases the risk of trying someone new or different.  So rather than relying on a major record label to spoon-feed you the next big hit, you can find more niche music that you like.  Rather than relying on the mainstream press for your news coverage, you can seek out alternative viewpoints.  The rise of the internet and the ability to share information means that things are less likely to consolidate into single large players, because the reasons for such large entities often is undermined by more widespread information.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111008/01404116265/should-we-pass-law-to-stop-yelp-harming-chain-restaurants.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111008/01404116265/should-we-pass-law-to-stop-yelp-harming-chain-restaurants.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111008/01404116265/should-we-pass-law-to-stop-yelp-harming-chain-restaurants.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-internet-enables-niches</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111008/01404116265</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 03:56:43 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Dentist Has To Pay Legal Fees For Suing Yelp &#038; Reviewer Over Bad Review</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110523/00162514389/dentist-has-to-pay-legal-fees-suing-yelp-reviewer-over-bad-review.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110523/00162514389/dentist-has-to-pay-legal-fees-suing-yelp-reviewer-over-bad-review.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've had a number of posts lately about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101110/19053611809/doctor-sues-patients-over-bad-yelp-reviews.shtml">lawsuits</a> over bad Yelp reviews, and it appears they're not going so well.  We pointed out a doctor <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110507/00044314194/court-says-complaining-about-doctors-bedside-manner-is-not-defamation.shtml">losing</a> a lawsuit over bad reviews, but Eric Goldman has the latest, in which a dentist who sued has to <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/05/dentist_pays_fi.htm" target="_blank">pay $80,000 in legal fees</a>, not just to the reviewer, but also to Yelp itself.  You see, the dentist and/or his lawyer apparently didn't bother to understand that Section 230 of the CDA protects the service provider from such a suit (which doesn't say much good about the lawyer).  Once the lawyer learned of Section 230 (a bit late), they dismissed Yelp from the case... but the court still awarded legal fees to Yelp's lawyers.  Hopefully this helps lawyers learn that filing bogus lawsuits against service providers over the actions of their users is not a smart move.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110523/00162514389/dentist-has-to-pay-legal-fees-suing-yelp-reviewer-over-bad-review.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110523/00162514389/dentist-has-to-pay-legal-fees-suing-yelp-reviewer-over-bad-review.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110523/00162514389/dentist-has-to-pay-legal-fees-suing-yelp-reviewer-over-bad-review.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>anti-slapp-and-section-230</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110523/00162514389</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:55:05 PST</pubDate>
<title>Company Claims Submitting Negative Yelp Review Violates Contract</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101201/00071412074/company-claims-submitting-negative-yelp-review-violates-contract.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101201/00071412074/company-claims-submitting-negative-yelp-review-violates-contract.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Patty points us to a Reddit post where someone claims that after posting a negative Yelp review, the company being reviewed <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/edxyk/submitted_a_negative_yelpcom_review_and_now_im/" target="_blank">threatened the reviewer with legal action</a>, claiming that the review violated a contract that the customer had signed.  The business apparently is one that repairs damaged hard drives or recovers data off of them.  The customer was clearly not satisfied.  Where it gets strange though is that the company claims that the negative review violates the signed contract.  As per standard Reddit practices, the details of the company are redacted, so it's a bit difficult to dig into the facts here.  However, it seems likely that this threat is more about getting the person to back down than any realistic shot at legal action.  One would hope the company would realize that if it actually took legal action, that information would spread far and wide across the internet, and would probably do <i>significantly</i> more harm than any single bad review on Yelp...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101201/00071412074/company-claims-submitting-negative-yelp-review-violates-contract.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101201/00071412074/company-claims-submitting-negative-yelp-review-violates-contract.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101201/00071412074/company-claims-submitting-negative-yelp-review-violates-contract.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well,-don't-sign-such-contracts</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101201/00071412074</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2010 07:10:11 PST</pubDate>
<title>Doctor Sues Patients Over Bad Yelp Reviews</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101110/19053611809/doctor-sues-patients-over-bad-yelp-reviews.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101110/19053611809/doctor-sues-patients-over-bad-yelp-reviews.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've seen all sorts of business owners get upset about Yelp, but it seems to be ratcheting up a notch.  For example, take Denver chef, Scott Parker, who <a href="http://blogs.westword.com/cafesociety/2010/11/table_6_exec_chef_scott_parker_on_hunger_eating_a_deep-fried_rosebud_and_inbred_amateur_restaurant_critics_who_frequent_a_site_that_rhymes_with_kelp.php?page=all" target="_blank">lashed out at Yelp reviewers</a> in a recent interview (sent in by <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=visual77">visual77</a>).  After being asked what he'd like to see less of, he stated:
<blockquote><i>
 Amateur instant online restaurant critics -- specifically those who write reviews for a website that rhymes with "kelp." Think about it: They review a McDonald's and then turn around and review Mizuna. I just imagine bored, jobless layabouts with not many friends who are convinced that they're going to have a bad time before they even step through the door of a joint. The kicker is, you can't respond to these inbreds and try to educate, or at least explain, why some things happen the way they happen. Have a little fun, for chrissakes. Loosen up when you go out, and let me be the stress ball in the kitchen busting my ass for twelve-plus hours trying to make you the best food I can. Fuck you!
</i></blockquote>
This, of course, resulted in a fair amount of <a href="http://blogs.westword.com/cafesociety/2010/11/people_hate_us_on_yelp_the_bac.php?page=2" target="_blank">Yelp backlash</a>.
<br /><br />
Now, I was going to use this as a story to highlight how bitching about your critics could seriously backfire, but before I could finish that post folks started sending over the even more extreme story of a doctor in Chicago <a href="http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/investigative/dr-jay-pensler-yelp-citysearch-reviews-20101115" target="_blank">suing three patients after they wrote negative reviews</a>.  Dr. Jay Pensler apparently felt that these comments were defamatory, though the article seems to suggest that the people who complained appear to have somewhat legitimate gripes.  Pensler is a plastic surgeon, and one woman apparently posted a picture showing uneven breasts with nipples that point in different directions -- something I could see leading to a negative review.
<br /><br />
Of course, this isn't really a first either.  A few months back we posted about another plastic surgeon who <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/01351110097.shtml">sued her patients</a> for bad reviews on Yelp.  Either way, it's difficult to see how that's going to be good for business.  Would you go to a doctor who sued online commenters?  It seems like these people just aren't going to be willing to take much criticism if they do a bad job... Of course, the lawsuits have resulted in a number of people deleting their criticisms of Dr. Pensler, which is probably the point of his lawsuits.  Hopefully a bit more attention on the lawsuits themselves will counteract this.
<br /><br />
What's equally troubling, however, is that the court reviewing this case seems to be ignoring the basic First Amendment questions and denied requests to quash the subpoenas in question.  It seems like the complaining patients have a pretty strong First Amendment claim to support their anonymity -- a claim that many other US courts have supported.  It's a bit worrisome that this court seems to be ignoring that First Amendment right.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101110/19053611809/doctor-sues-patients-over-bad-yelp-reviews.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101110/19053611809/doctor-sues-patients-over-bad-yelp-reviews.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101110/19053611809/doctor-sues-patients-over-bad-yelp-reviews.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-not-going-to-help</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101110/19053611809</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:22:20 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Once Again, Yelp Not Liable For Reviews Someone Doesn't Like</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100910/01272410963.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100910/01272410963.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's really quite stunning how frequently people sue review sites because they're unhappy about reviews of their business.  You would hope that the lawyers these upset business owners use would know better -- but all too often the lawyers appear to be <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090113/2207453397.shtml">totally unfamiliar</a> with Section 230 of the CDA <i>and</i> with the basic concept of properly applying liability to the party who actually did the action.  And every time this happens, the case gets thrown out on 230 grounds.  It's happened yet again, with a dentist <a href="http://blog.internetcases.com/2010/09/09/yelp-successful-in-defamation-and-deceptive-acts-and-practices-case/" target="_blank">having a case against Yelp dismissed</a> thanks to Section 230.  Sometimes we do see some creative lawyering to try to get around Section 230, and this time, beyond the basic defamation claim, the lawyer tried to also claim "deceptive practices" (under NY state law).  The problem there is that the law in New York applies to "consumer-oriented statements," and the complaint was about inaccuracies in statements that were meant for small business owners.  As <a href="http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2010/09/230-bars-defamation-not-false.html" target=_blank">Rebecca Tushnet notes</a>:
<blockquote><i>
However, the CDA doesn't contemplate protecting Yelp's use of speech as leverage in its business model. Reit alleged that Yelp provided deceptive terms on its website, encouraging both businesses and individual users to believe that the reviews are not manipulated by Yelp. Also, Reit alleged that Yelp's sales force used negative reviews on the site as leads for new ad business, and that sales reps told business owners that, if they paid for ads, the reps would assist in deleting negative reviews. But if a business owner refuses, Yelp would delete positive reviews. Yelp's guide for business owners stated "We remove the guesswork by screening out reviews that are written by less established users. The process is entirely automated to avoid human bias," and yet the system is not entirely automated. This allegedly deceived the public by representing that reviews are ordered, reviewed and removed by computers, and not manipulated by people. Reit referred to class action suits against Yelp of which he is not a member, and did not allege that he was a victim of this conduct.
<br /><br />
The General Business Law bars deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of business and false advertising, giving a private right of action to any person who's been injured; a plaintiff need not be a consumer, but must allege consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and that resulted in injury. However, the identified statement by Yelp isn't addressed to individual consumers seeking dentists, but to business owners. "Yelp's statement is not materially misleading to a reasonable consumer seeking dentistry, and is not a deceptive practice." Likewise, deleting postings for the purpose of selling ads would be business conduct, not consumer oriented conduct. Thus, the claim was dismissed.
</i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100910/01272410963.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100910/01272410963.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100910/01272410963.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-many-more-times?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100910/01272410963</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 6 Apr 2010 14:47:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Yelp Adds A Tiny Bit Of Transparency... And Inches Away From Pay For Placement</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100330/1539268795.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100330/1539268795.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Over the past few years, the review site Yelp has been no stranger to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080708/0001581617.shtml">controversies</a> regarding its treatment of comments and criticisms aimed at local businesses.  Negative reviews on Yelp have spurred <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703523204575130083774933918.html?mod=djemSB_t">various</a> <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/24/yelp-class-action-lawsuit/">lawsuits</a>, accusing Yelp of unfair business practices that have been called "<a href="http://www.eastbayexpress.com/eastbay/yelp-and-the-business-of-extortion-20/Content?oid=1176635">Extortion 2.0</a>" -- referring to the accusation that Yelp salespeople put pressure on companies to pay up for better ratings to appear more prominently on Yelp (and to remove the bad reviews that coincidentally seem to appear on the site when these salespeople allegedly suggest that better ratings could be bought).  
<br /><br />
In response, Yelp has explained (over and over again) that its algorithms are optimized to display the most "trustworthy" reviews of local businesses -- in a way that's completely unrelated to its sales efforts.  Trying to put a friendly wrapping around its umpteenth explanation, Yelp has even created a cartoon to help educate everyone on its methods:
<center>
<object width="480" height="291"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dqi-jjbEKcs&#038;hl=en_US&#038;fs=1&#038;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dqi-jjbEKcs&#038;hl=en_US&#038;fs=1&#038;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="291"></embed></object>
</center>
<br /><br />
However, no matter how simply these explanations are conveyed, they have not been particularly convincing to small businesses who feel punished by bad reviews and see Yelp's services as a veiled threat to their livelihood.  So Yelp has taken another step by <a href="http://officialblog.yelp.com/2010/04/announcing-steps-to-avoid-confusion-increase-transparency.html">announcing some changes to its services</a> to avoid further confusion:
<blockquote>
<li>Businesses can no longer buy a "Favorite Review" like they could before -- so that there's no confusion over businesses being able to influence reviews by paying Yelp.  This sounds like a pretty big step towards making it clear that companies can't just buy better reviews, but what does this mean for companies that formerly bought "Favorite Reviews?"  Those companies are being penalized with the unexpected removal of this service, and there's still no guarantee that ratings can't be manipulated by cunning business owners or competitors.  Though, the conspiracy theorists may never actually be satisfied on this point, and gaming online rating systems will likely always be a nagging concern.</li>
<li>Yelp is still keeping its review filtering algorithms a secret, but it will now display reviews that have been removed by its automated filters in an effort to allow users to see a bit of the reviews that Yelp deems suspicious or untrustworthy.  However, Yelp is not exactly highlighting these filtered-out reviews -- just making them available to be viewed in case anyone is curious to see what kind of reviews are tossed out on a regular basis.</li>
<li>Yelp is adding video ads as a service for businesses -- presumably to offset the loss of its "Favorite Review" feature.</li>
<li>Yelp says it's created a Small Business Advisory Council for companies to give feedback to Yelp management.  This is an interesting development, but it's not exactly easy to find out more information on how this council works.  Granted, it was just announced, but its announcement seems to lack a bit of commitment when there aren't any obvious links about it on yelp.com (yet?).</li> 
</blockquote>
Yelp proudly states that it's increasing transparency with these changes, allowing businesses and users to peek into what its algorithms are filtering out behind the scenes.  But it's not clear that anyone really asked for that feature -- and getting that look at the filtered reviews isn't going to ease the concerns that Yelp's algorithms are inherently weighted against small businesses who don't pay up for advertising space on Yelp.  
<br /><br />
The more significant change seems to be that Yelp is shifting away from a "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_for_placement">Pay for Placement</a>" business model with its reviews.  Replacing its "Favorite Reviews" with video ads seems a bit odd, though -- but apparently video ads were a top request from merchants.  So at least Yelp is listening to its customers and responding -- and if Yelp really wants to increase transparency, maybe we'll see how Yelp actually handles feedback someday.  But since Yelp doesn't allow commenting on its own blog, chime in here and tell us what you think Yelp is doing wrong or right with its approach.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100330/1539268795.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100330/1539268795.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100330/1539268795.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>extortion2.1</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100330/1539268795</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:17:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>What Would Yelp Be Without The Negativity? Recommendations Instead Of Reviews</title>
<dc:creator>Dennis Yang</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090313/1706574114.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090313/1706574114.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ SF Weekly's <a href="http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-03-11/news/faux-star-reviews/">4,333 word exposition about Yelp</a> delves into many of the recent foibles of the not-yet-profitable community site.  Since its inception in 2004, Yelp has played a key part in <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070507/105514.shtml">imbuing</a> every-day consumers with the powers of professional critics. Now, with consumer reviews posted and shared online, instead of disappearing into the black hole of the customer feedback box, businesses shudder with fear at the potential of a bad review on Yelp.  Sure, any business that regularly provides bad service would eventually succumb to the collective ire of community displeasure, but anecdotally, Yelp seems to amplify this effect.  Although consumer reviews have been around for ages on sites like Amazon and CNET, Yelp's focus on local businesses expose a vulnerability not really seen in, say, the consumer electronics or book industry.  An evening's dining choice is relatively fickle compared to a decision to buy a plasma tv, and one can see how that decision could be easily derailed by one strategically placed negative review.  That said, as consumers become more savvy to sites like Yelp, their tolerance for a bad review or two should hopefully build.  Or, as seen in the recent case of a San Francisco pizzera, businesses could learn to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090304/1711183996.shtml">embrace</a> their bad reviews.
<br /><br />
Here's a thought.  Whenever I visit a new city, I ask my friends for their <em>recommendations</em>, not <em>reviews</em>, of restaurants in the area.  While it might be amusing to hear them rant about how awful such-and-such place was, ranting really does little good when trying to pick a place to eat out of the vast array of options that a typical city has to offer.  Instead, maybe it's time for Yelp to put on the rose-colored glasses and offer an alternative view of the world: one where only recommendations exist.  This is the approach taken by <a href="http://www.eats.it/">eats.it</a>, a restaurant recommendation site that currently only serves San Diego. With no bad reviews to complain about, the complaint that a merchant doesn't get enough recommendations sounds much more like sour grapes.  Furthermore, advertising on a page that features only recommendations of their establishment is a much more palatable proposition.  Is the consumer less served by this rosy-eyed view of the world?  Perhaps, but it would not be hard to see which establishments received less recommendations than others.  Maybe mothers everywhere knew the answer all along when they advised: "if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090313/1706574114.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090313/1706574114.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090313/1706574114.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>nothing-nice-to-say</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090313/1706574114</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:21:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>SF Pizzeria Puts 1-Star Yelp Reviews On Its T-Shirts</title>
<dc:creator>Dennis Yang</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090304/1711183996.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090304/1711183996.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With <a href="http://www.opulenttemple.org/archives/000138.php">all of the recent news</a> about merchants up in arms over negative online reviews, a San Francisco pizzeria has decided to take a brilliant approach to the (albeit few) negative Yelp reviews about their restaurant.  In a sort of "take back the night" approach, Delfina Pizza has adorned its staff with <a href="http://www.7x7.com/blogs/bits-bites/yelp-tee-almost-more-brilliant-pizzeria-delfinas-pizza">t-shirts that bear the text of their 1-star reviews</a>.  With sayings like "The pizza was soooo greasy.  I am assuming this was in part due to the pig fat," Delfina boldly acknowledges that it understands everyone is a critic, and that it is not afraid of a bad review or two.  Gone are the <em>Ratatouille</em> days where restaurants live or die by one star of some food critic's review; instead, perhaps restaurateurs will learn that reviews are a starting point for holding meaningful conversations with their customers.  Of course, in this particular case, the strategy may backfire -- already one Yelp reviewer has <a href="http://www.yelp.com/biz/pizzeria-delfina-san-francisco#hrid:2D6M_HFJkCgdYCMCbaRiwQ">submitted a 1-star review</a> asking "am i good enough for a t-shirt now?"<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090304/1711183996.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090304/1711183996.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090304/1711183996.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>never-met-a-pizza-i-didn't-love</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090304/1711183996</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:48:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Lawyer Who Sues Yelp Admits He Had No Idea About Section 230 Safe Harbors</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090113/2207453397.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090113/2207453397.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last week, we wrote about a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090107/1201563316.shtml">defamation</a> lawsuit over a review on Yelp, which seemed to backfire -- bringing a lot more attention to the negative review than if left alone.  That case actually was <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10139278-93.html" target="_new">settled</a> soon after, but <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/13/BU40158CPE.DTL" target="_new">yet another defamation lawsuit has been filed</a> by yet another person -- this time a dentist -- over a negative review.  There are a few things worth commenting on about this lawsuit, but the big one that caught my attention is that the lawsuit was filed both against the couple who wrote the review... and against Yelp.
<br /><br />
Now, as pretty much everyone knows around here, filing against Yelp is a big no-no.  Yelp is clearly protected by <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?site=&#038;cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&#038;cof=FORID%3A9&#038;ie=ISO-8859-1&#038;q=section+230">section 230 safe harbors</a> that make third party service providers immune from liability for actions of their users.  This is pretty widely known among anyone involved in anything having to do with internet law... but was <i>not</i> known by the lawyer who filed the suit.  In fact, the lawyer admits in the article above that he "wasn't aware" of the law and will probably drop the suit against Yelp now that he knows about it.  But, it certainly raises questions about the lawyer if he was totally unaware of a key piece of internet legislation before filing such a lawsuit.
<br /><br />
Then, there's the bizarre response from the dentist, replying to the point that Yelp lets the service providers directly contact those who write negative reviews to try to clear up the problem.  The dentist says: "I would be very upset and would not know what to say to them."  Fascinating.  So, rather than talking it out as adults and clearing up any misunderstanding (and from the sound of it, it was a basic misunderstanding), she jumps straight to the lawsuit stage?  She doesn't know what to say to them, but has no problem dumping a lawsuit on them.  Isn't America great?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090113/2207453397.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090113/2207453397.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090113/2207453397.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>great-moments-in-lawyering</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090113/2207453397</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:13:17 PST</pubDate>
<title>Negative Review On Yelp Leads To Defamation Lawsuit</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090107/1201563316.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090107/1201563316.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There have been plenty of stories about companies <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081111/0244272795.shtml">suing people</a> for posting negative reviews about their business practices, and it still seems like a really dumb thing to do -- as in the end all it does is call a lot more attention to the negative review.  That's what appears to be happening with a <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10133466-38.html" target="_new">lawsuit over a negative review of a chiropractor on Yelp</a>.  The review claimed that the chiropractor was using questionable business and billing practices.  The chiropractor threatened the reviewer -- and even though the review was deleted, sued the guy for defamation.  Of course, now the details of the supposed unethical billing practices (involved trying to bill insurance companies significantly more, and when that didn't work coming back to the guy and asking him to pay up instead) are getting a lot more attention.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090107/1201563316.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090107/1201563316.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090107/1201563316.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-again?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090107/1201563316</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:50:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Yelp Angers Its Merchants By Deleting Their User Accounts</title>
<dc:creator>Dennis Yang</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080708/0001581617.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080708/0001581617.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Review site Yelp caused quite a ruckus this week when they <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/04/BUFU11IP6J.DTL">deleted a bunch of user accounts that they deemed to be gaming the system</a>.  Many of the users whose accounts were deleted were business owners -- Yelp accused them of trading positive reviews with other business owners, quid pro quo.  Yelp has had a tumultuous relationship with its merchants in the past because of negative reviews from Yelpers; some merchants had even tried to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070815/015033.shtml">ban</a> Yelpers from even visiting their establishments.  This tension is unfortunate, since Yelp makes its money from selling these very merchants their services.  That said, hopefully Yelp has not overlooked the larger problem that still exists on their site: an overwhelming number of reviews per establishment without any good tools for filtering or determining trust.  Furthermore, Yelp has become quite a <a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/bayareabites/2008/07/04/yelp-no-thanks-for-sharing/">target</a> for "Foodies," who complain that the reviews from users are pedestrian and inconsistent; Eater has an entire <a href="http://sf.eater.com/tags/yelp-wanted">column</a> devoted to the "shortcomings and nuances of the Yelp empire."  Despite all of the negative attention that Yelp has been getting, the most important factor is whether or not it continues to grow as a useful resource for users.  Yelp just recently <a href="http://siteanalytics.compete.com/yelp.com+citysearch.com/">surpassed</a> Citysearch in number of users in March of this year, so perhaps they are on the right path.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080708/0001581617.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080708/0001581617.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080708/0001581617.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yelp-me-rhonda</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080708/0001581617</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 23:11:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Knowing What Business You're In Includes Knowing Who Your Most Important Customers Are</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Lee</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080513/0454191100.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080513/0454191100.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>One of the themes we've emphasized here at Techdirt is that it's essential to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070125/004949.shtml">know what market you're in.</a> We've mostly talked about that in terms of knowing when to give away infinite resources in order to sell expensive resources. But another key component is recognizing where the value of your business comes from. For example, one of the keys to Google's success has been their recognition that even though their revenue comes from advertisers, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071130/110033.shtml">their real value is their users</a>, and so they've focused on keeping users happy. Google knows that as long as they have a lot of users, the advertisers will come to them, but if they drive away users they may not come back. The Bits blog has an <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/why-yelp-works/index.html">even more striking example</a> of the same principle: Bits says that Yelp, the restaurant review site, is succeeding because they recognize that the key to success for their market was to cater to a <i>subset</i> of their users -- their volunteer reviewers. If they have good reviews, users will come to them, and if they have users, the advertisers will come. So they've focused on making reviewing an easy and rewarding experience. The site has focused on building community among the reviewers themselves, adding social-networking functionality so reviewers can connect with each other and follow each others reviews, and even hosting social functions where the most prolific reviewers can meet face to face. Yelp is also careful to shield reviewers from irate restaurant owners: a business owner is allowed to send a reviewer one message, but if he doesn't get a response he's not allowed to contact the reviewer again.</p>

<p>One way to look at this is as a multi-sided market. Traditional media outlets, for example, operate in a two-sided market, where they trade content for eyeballs, and then sell the eyeballs to an advertiser. Yelp's business model is similar, except that they exist in a <i>three-sided</i> market. First, they have to make the site appealing enough to reviewers that they'll write a lot of reviews. Then they use the reviews to attract eyeballs, which they finally sell to advertisers. All three of these are "customers" in some sense, but because the reviewers are what ultimately attracts everyone else to the site, they're ultimately the most important to the site's long-term success. Although <a href="http://sf.eater.com/archives/2008/04/09/yelp_wanted_jeremy_s_will_ban.php">Yelp certainly has its share of critics</a>, the basic strategy of catering to reviewers seems like the right one for a review-oriented site.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080513/0454191100.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080513/0454191100.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080513/0454191100.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>three-sided-market</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080513/0454191100</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:46:55 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Banning Anyone Who Reviews Your Shop Online Isn't Likely To Generate Much Business</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070815/015033.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070815/015033.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We all know that sometimes customer reviews online can be a bit harsh, but it's something that companies need to learn to deal with.  Some take proactive approaches by responding to the complaints with their own side of the story or by apologizing and promising that changes will be made to avoid similar problems in the future.  However, one cafe owner has taken things to a different level, apparently putting a sign in the window of the cafe, saying that <a href="http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9759933-7.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20">users of popular online review site Yelp are not allowed as customers</a>.  This is effectively saying that the shop owner has no interest in what its customers think of it, has no interest in improving the quality of service and doesn't seem to realize that this will only encourage anyone who has a bad experience to go to Yelp and post about it.  In fact, putting this sign in the window seems likely to damage the reputation of the cafe a lot more than any bad review on Yelp.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070815/015033.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070815/015033.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070815/015033.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>what's-a-sign-that-your-store-isn't-customer-friendly?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070815/015033</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>