Law Prof Characterizes Yahoo Suit as Extortion

netbuzz writes "Fair comment or libel? A law prof/blogger calls those behind the class-action suit against Yahoo 'extortionists.' The targeted lawyers, who include spyware/adware expert Ben Edelman, are not amused." From the article: "Goldman, who according to his blog 'holds leadership positions in the American Bar Association and the Computer Law Association,' addresses the merits of the suit in a generally academic fashion before winding up for the big finish: 'I think these lawsuits are nothing more than a shakedown for cash,' he concludes. 'Even unmeritorious class action lawsuits are expensive to defend, so the plaintiffs' lawyers can exploit those defense costs for their personal largesse. They can make this argument to defendants: settle with me for a fraction of your total expected defense costs, and we're both better off (defendants save some defense costs, plaintiffs' lawyers grab some personal loot).'"

Yahoo! is run by yahoos?

[fragmentate]

I don't think of Yahoo! as a technology company having worked with their "development team". They're a second-rate hack, at best. We have submitted YSS feeds [slashdot.org] to them and had them rejected with various problems. We would then wait 2 hours, and resubmit the feed, unchanged...

The feed is then accepted.

We also manage keyword buys. We'll submit a list of keywords, for example, "baby jump suits" -- to have it rejected (without notifying us -- we have to discover it after-the-fact). The word that actually goes in is "baby jump suit". The next time we submit, "baby jump suits" goes in... Clearly subjective, depending on which hack approved the submission.

One can deduce that their approval process is manual. That means they probably have a bunch of $10/hr. hacks doing the grunt work. It's inconsistant.

I digress...

My point is that if you have people instead of systems, algorithms, and/or applications to do the tedious work, you have:

• Human error.
• Human cheating.
• Disinterest.

I don't think Yahoo! the corporate entity is aware of these goings-on. But given the clear inconsistancies that make Yahoo! difficult to work with, I think they're accountable nonetheless.

At the same time, if someone on a boat isn't helping keep it affloat, you don't sink the boat. So, in spite of Yahoo! needing to be slapped -- I'd rather see them slapped with a dose of "hey your products suck" than a bunch of lawsuits by money-grubbing lawyers.

link to the blog post in question

[DrSbaitso]

for some reason, it's not in the headline.

Technology & Marketing Law Blog [ericgoldman.org]

Re:Why?

[overshoot]

Assuming for a second that the quoted individual isn't full of it, why are any unmeritorious lawsuits expensive to defend? Don't courts do things like order one party to pay the other's legal fees in cases like that?

He's not, they are, and the court's don't.

The main reason is that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure #10 is basically a dead letter.

• "Professional courtesy" means that other lawyers won't accuse an abuser of being abusive because the rest of the legal community will retaliate. Nobody likes a snitch.
• The Court won't because it just means more work, and they're too busy as it is. Besides, the Court of Appeals will probably reverse anyway.
• For a suit to be legally frivolous requires that a whole bunch of lawyers decide that there was no conceivable way that there was the slightest shred of argument to support it. Gimme a break! These are lawyers -- their training, their whole point in existence, is finding something to argue about.

Re:Class-action fix

[brusk]

A plurality, but not a majority. See http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/cap_st07.html#What [ranknfile-ue.org].

Re:Class-action fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Class Actions Fairness Act - passed last year. Ignorance must be bliss.

http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/do cs/clssactns/cafa05.pdf [findlaw.com]

"Fair comment or libel?"

[Jeian]

Fair comment or libel?

I think in order to be libellous, it has to be untrue.

Re:Shrill Criticism

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

What I'm saying is just because you make your arguement in a somewhat aggressive fashion, it doesn't mean your argument is automatically flawed.

Also, here [findlaw.com] is a link to an article discussing a Supreme Court desision pretty much on point where Justice Scalia calls it extortion.