Supreme Court denies petition against Yelp over bad review of lawyer

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal to hear a case regarding Yelp Inc.'s refusal to remove allegedly libelous reviews, resolving a closely watched matter that could have potentially transformed online free speech liability.

The decision leaves a contentious state Supreme Court opinion, in which it ruled the online review company cannot be ordered to remove untruthful of offensive content, untouched in a favorable result for web platforms.

It is a defeat for San Francisco attorney Dawn Hassell and the Hassell Law Group, which filed the cert petition rejected Monday. Hassell et al. v. Yelp Inc., 18-506.

After a San Francisco County Superior Court judge and the 1st District Court of Appeal found a person's Yelp review to be libelous and ordered the company to remove it, the state high court reversed the decision, ruling the removal order conflicted with a federal law shielding internet service providers from liability for statements made by third parties.

Forcing a site to review and remove posts would "impose substantial burdens" on the company, wrote Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye for the majority in the 4-3 opinion. "Even if it would be mechanically simple to implement such an order, compliance still could interfere with and undermine the viability of an online platform."

The high court decision blesses "Congress's grant of robust immunity" to platforms which display third party content, according to Yelp Deputy General Counsel Aaron Schur, adding plaintiffs' arguments could be abused by litigants to eliminate online discussions injurious to their brand.

"We at Yelp repeatedly have seen lawyers attempt to bypass federal law and the Constitution to obtain removal of legitimate consumer criticism, even to the point of presenting fictitious or fraudulently obtained court orders," he said in a statement. "This decision will help us and similarly situated online publishers fight back against such efforts in the future."

Yelp, in addition to several technology companies like Google LLC which submitted friend-of-the-court briefs after lower court losses, long argued Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields online platforms from liability for statements users post.

But plaintiffs' attorneys argued the federal law protecting online free speech should be interpreted to mandate removal of "entirely unlawful" content, according to their petition for review to the Supreme Court. Victims of libelous content would have no remedy to remove the slanderous content if the state Supreme Court decision is allowed to stand, it continued.

The online service providers' and technology companies' position in this case would block courts from entering any order requiring the removal of "revenge porn, or the most intimate and private information, or child pornography ... no matter how blatant and injurious it might be," wrote plaintiffs' attorney Charles Harder of Harder LLP.

"If the courts are not allowed to be involved in requiring an online platform to remove a post that has been adjudicated to be defamatory, then the world has just gotten a whole lot scarier for everyone," he said in an email Wednesday.

The saga began in 2012 when Ava Bird sought representation in a personal injury case from the Hassell Law Group. Bird left a one-star review on Yelp, calling Hassell "dishonest" and "greedy."

Hassell said Bird withdrew from seeking the firm's services when she did not show up for a scheduled phone meeting and her characterization of his services are inaccurate. She later won a $558,000 defamation case when Bird failed to appear in San Francisco County Superior Court.

Bird has not responded and does not have the funds to pay the damages, Hassell said in a prepared statement.