By: Sarabeth Smith
The California Anti-SLAPP Project (CASP) filed a motion to strike the complaint of Yvonne Wong, a pediatric dentist, against Yelp!Inc. Yelp! is an internet site which publishes user recommendations and reviews of local businesses. Dr. Wong's complaint alleges that two posters defamed her by posting a critical review complaining that she gave their son laughing gas, failed to discover all of his cavities, and filled a cavity using an amalgam containing mercury.
CASP is a public interest law firm and policy organization dedicated to preserving free speech by upholding the right to engage freely in civic affairs. CASP assists those who have become targets of SLAPP suits. A SLAPP is a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” These lawsuits are often filed by corporations against individuals and community groups. While these lawsuits are usually unsuccessful, they burden the defendants with the costs of the suit.
According the the San Fransisco Chronicle, the suit was filed in December in Santa Clara Superior Court. California has had legislation in place since 1993 to combat these SLAPP lawsuits. Once the California anti-SLAPP is found to apply to the case, the law places the burden on the plaintiff to come forward with a legally sufficient and factually supported case.
In addition, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, immunizes website operators from the statements of third parties. However, Wong named Yelp! as a defendant because the company refused to take down the negative reviews. Wong’s attorney, John Terbeek said to the San Francisco Chronicle that he will probably will dismiss the charges against Yelp because he wasn't aware when he filed the suit that Web sites publishing third-party content are protected under U.S. law.
This is the second suit in California revolving around Yelp! for the publication of negative reviews. San Francisco chiropractor, Steven Biegel, settled a libel case against a former patient who posted a review on Yelp! complaining about Biegel’s billing practices.
The California Anti-SLAPP Project (CASP) filed a motion to strike the complaint of Yvonne Wong, a pediatric dentist, against Yelp!Inc. Yelp! is an internet site which publishes user recommendations and reviews of local businesses. Dr. Wong's complaint alleges that two posters defamed her by posting a critical review complaining that she gave their son laughing gas, failed to discover all of his cavities, and filled a cavity using an amalgam containing mercury.
CASP is a public interest law firm and policy organization dedicated to preserving free speech by upholding the right to engage freely in civic affairs. CASP assists those who have become targets of SLAPP suits. A SLAPP is a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” These lawsuits are often filed by corporations against individuals and community groups. While these lawsuits are usually unsuccessful, they burden the defendants with the costs of the suit.
According the the San Fransisco Chronicle, the suit was filed in December in Santa Clara Superior Court. California has had legislation in place since 1993 to combat these SLAPP lawsuits. Once the California anti-SLAPP is found to apply to the case, the law places the burden on the plaintiff to come forward with a legally sufficient and factually supported case.
In addition, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, immunizes website operators from the statements of third parties. However, Wong named Yelp! as a defendant because the company refused to take down the negative reviews. Wong’s attorney, John Terbeek said to the San Francisco Chronicle that he will probably will dismiss the charges against Yelp because he wasn't aware when he filed the suit that Web sites publishing third-party content are protected under U.S. law.
This is the second suit in California revolving around Yelp! for the publication of negative reviews. San Francisco chiropractor, Steven Biegel, settled a libel case against a former patient who posted a review on Yelp! complaining about Biegel’s billing practices.
- If websites which allow third parties to post their own content exercise editorial control by adding or removing content, should they be liable for defamatory content?
- If websites which allow third parties to post their own content take a hands off approach and do not mediate the content, should they be held liable for the content?
- Is there a difference between the publisher and the distributor of information?
No comments:
Post a Comment