Social Review Sites Fight Back Against Law Firms Posting Fake Reviews
Provided by HG.org
Attorney advertising is a fairly new phenomenon in many jurisdictions. Rules of various state bar associations have eased over the last two decades to allow more and more freedom for attorneys wishing to advertise their services just like any other profession. However, the rise of new technology has presented a new twist and new source of liability for attorneys wishing to advertise online.
Numerous sites have popped up over the last few years allowing users to rate and review the services of different companies. Notable examples include the widely advertised Angie's List, AVVO for attorneys, and Yelp. More and more firms are appearing on sites like these, often without their own consent. Given the tendency of actual reviewers to only be motivated to discuss a law firm's services on such a site when disgruntled, the reviews are often quite negative. In response, several firms have taken to posting their own reviews, or offering incentives to others to do so for them.
As a result, Yelp is suing a law firm for allegedly having its employees flood the site with good reviews.
After San Diego-based law firm McMillan Law Group received its first review on Yelp in 2010 (a very negative one) the site suddenly received a flood of positive reviews from employees of the firm. This caused Yelp to become suspicious and, according to their lawsuit, upon review they realized that McMillan Law Group employees were pretending to be clients and reviewing their own employer. As proof, Yelp points to four specific examples of personal accounts created by the firm’s employees that were used to post five-star rave reviews about the firm and its supposed work for them.
Yelp also alleges that McMillan is one of a circle of firms in the San Diego area who trade glowing reviews of one other, despite never having hired each other.
As a result, Yelp asserts this amounts to a breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, and false advertising. Yelp's lawsuit asserts that that fake reviews harm Yelp's business and the interests of the public in general, because they undermine the integrity and reliability of its service. The lawsuit seeks recovery of an as yet unspecified amount of damages, including punitive damages, and seeks a trial by jury.
The practice of concealing the true source of a review in order to hide the fact that the source is not disinterested is known as “astroturfing.” McMillan's legal battle with Yelp began several years ago when the firm sued Yelp over allegedly coercing it to sign an advertising contract for good reviews. McMillan claims to have won that case, based on Yelp's own Terms of Service (TOS), and even advertises on its website that it will help clients do the same. The TOS indicate that before they can write reviews, Yelp users must agree to the TOS, which include prohibitions against writing fake, defamatory, or paid-for reviews, as well as trading reviews. These “anti-astroturfing” requirements will be key to Yelp's current lawsuit.
Because McMillan encouraged its employees (who, by use of the site, became Yelp users subject to its TOS) to breach the “anti-astroturfing” provisions of the TOS, it is liable for interfering with Yelp’s contractual relations with those users, Yelp claims in its lawsuit. The suit goes on to argue that because members of the public are likely to be deceived by the fake reviews, the firm is liable for unfair business practices and false advertising.
However, McMillan is not without a few powerful arguments of its own. In recent years, reviews on Yelp have become fodder for lawsuits against reviewers, usually based upon defamation. This has led to significant anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) legislation aimed at preventing attempts to shut down debate about public matters. McMillan will likely rely heavily on these laws to assert that its self-aggrandizing reviews should be permitted as a form of public participation in the debate over the quality of its services.
However, Yelp’s suit is probably not a SLAPP, so such an argument may not gain much traction. Generally, SLAPPs are meritless lawsuits that some individuals and businesses use to prevent others from petitioning the government or speaking out on public issues. In the Yelp/McMillan case, on the other hand, Yelp's intent appears to be to maintain the credibility of the consumer reviews on its website by ensuring the reviews are legitimate. In effect, Yelp appears to be attempting to improve the quality of public discourse, not to discourage it.
The suit has implications not only for attorney advertising practices, but for the first amendment itself. And, although the action involves a review by a law firm, it could as easily have related to any other industry, as well. If you believe that someone has improperly defamed you in a social review site, such as Yelp, you should contact a local attorney who can assist you in determining the most appropriate action to take. However, it is likely that violating a site's TOS to post positive reviews will not be the best option given the precedent set by this case and the liability to which it could expose your company.
Copyright HG.org - Google+
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
As a result, Yelp is suing a law firm for allegedly having its employees flood the site with good reviews.
After San Diego-based law firm McMillan Law Group received its first review on Yelp in 2010 (a very negative one) the site suddenly received a flood of positive reviews from employees of the firm. This caused Yelp to become suspicious and, according to their lawsuit, upon review they realized that McMillan Law Group employees were pretending to be clients and reviewing their own employer. As proof, Yelp points to four specific examples of personal accounts created by the firm’s employees that were used to post five-star rave reviews about the firm and its supposed work for them.
Yelp also alleges that McMillan is one of a circle of firms in the San Diego area who trade glowing reviews of one other, despite never having hired each other.
As a result, Yelp asserts this amounts to a breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, and false advertising. Yelp's lawsuit asserts that that fake reviews harm Yelp's business and the interests of the public in general, because they undermine the integrity and reliability of its service. The lawsuit seeks recovery of an as yet unspecified amount of damages, including punitive damages, and seeks a trial by jury.
The practice of concealing the true source of a review in order to hide the fact that the source is not disinterested is known as “astroturfing.” McMillan's legal battle with Yelp began several years ago when the firm sued Yelp over allegedly coercing it to sign an advertising contract for good reviews. McMillan claims to have won that case, based on Yelp's own Terms of Service (TOS), and even advertises on its website that it will help clients do the same. The TOS indicate that before they can write reviews, Yelp users must agree to the TOS, which include prohibitions against writing fake, defamatory, or paid-for reviews, as well as trading reviews. These “anti-astroturfing” requirements will be key to Yelp's current lawsuit.
Because McMillan encouraged its employees (who, by use of the site, became Yelp users subject to its TOS) to breach the “anti-astroturfing” provisions of the TOS, it is liable for interfering with Yelp’s contractual relations with those users, Yelp claims in its lawsuit. The suit goes on to argue that because members of the public are likely to be deceived by the fake reviews, the firm is liable for unfair business practices and false advertising.
However, McMillan is not without a few powerful arguments of its own. In recent years, reviews on Yelp have become fodder for lawsuits against reviewers, usually based upon defamation. This has led to significant anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) legislation aimed at preventing attempts to shut down debate about public matters. McMillan will likely rely heavily on these laws to assert that its self-aggrandizing reviews should be permitted as a form of public participation in the debate over the quality of its services.
However, Yelp’s suit is probably not a SLAPP, so such an argument may not gain much traction. Generally, SLAPPs are meritless lawsuits that some individuals and businesses use to prevent others from petitioning the government or speaking out on public issues. In the Yelp/McMillan case, on the other hand, Yelp's intent appears to be to maintain the credibility of the consumer reviews on its website by ensuring the reviews are legitimate. In effect, Yelp appears to be attempting to improve the quality of public discourse, not to discourage it.
The suit has implications not only for attorney advertising practices, but for the first amendment itself. And, although the action involves a review by a law firm, it could as easily have related to any other industry, as well. If you believe that someone has improperly defamed you in a social review site, such as Yelp, you should contact a local attorney who can assist you in determining the most appropriate action to take. However, it is likely that violating a site's TOS to post positive reviews will not be the best option given the precedent set by this case and the liability to which it could expose your company.
Copyright HG.org - Google+
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
