Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy The Internet Your Rights Online Technology

Yelp Ordered To Identify User Accused of Defaming a Tax Preparer (bloomberg.com) 141

mi writes: California State Appeals Court ruled this week that Yelp can't shield the identify of an anonymous reviewer who posted allegedly defamatory statements about a tax preparer. "The three-judge appeals panel in Santa Ana agreed with Yelp that it could protect the First Amendment rights of its anonymous reviewer but it still had to turn over the information," reports Bloomberg. "The panel reasoned that the accountant had made a showing that the review was defamatory in that it went beyond expressing an opinion and allegedly included false statements."

Yelp Ordered To Identify User Accused of Defaming a Tax Preparer

Comments Filter:
  • by erp_consultant ( 2614861 ) on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @07:55PM (#55551403)

    anonymous comments can no longer be considered truly anonymous. Got it.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @08:31PM (#55551521)

      If you reveal your identity to someone in order to post a comment, then you really shouldn't expect to be beyond the reach of the law. You need to be logged in to post a Yelp review, so *obviously* you're not *really* anonymous.

      But seriously, the line between free speech and defamation isn't really that hard to navigate. You can be pretty offensive without libeling anyone.

      "This advisor is a worthless waste of space. He is personally obnoxious, morally repugnant, mentally negligible and physically repulsive. Merely by breathing he pollutes the good clean air of his city; in a just world, he would have been aborted and his mother done penance for conceiving him." - This is completely fair comment, protected speech. Nobody can sue you for posting this.

      "This advisor told me I could still file a XD-426 two days late and it would still be accepted" - now that is an alleged statement of fact, not an opinion, and you damn' well better be able to back it up.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        "This advisor told me I could still file a XD-426

        My advisor told me to file an ID-10T. I Googled it, and all I can find is a bunch of comments from people calling other people idiots for not finding the form.

        Please help! Where do I get an ID-10T form?

        • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

          Walmart.

        • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

          My advisor told me to file an ID-10T. I Googled it, and all I can find is a bunch of comments from people calling other people idiots for not finding the form.

          Please help! Where do I get an ID-10T form?

          I'm afraid you're experiencing a PEBKAC error. PEBKAC = Problem Exists Between Keyboard and Chair

    • by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @10:48PM (#55552097) Homepage

      Anonymity is a goal, it is not something you can declare.

      Just like a secret is not a thing that you told people not to tell anybody; that's only an attempt at secrecy. If it is actually secret depends on if they actually tell anybody.

      So for example a legally-protected Trade Secret, you have to keep it secret. It only protects you if somebody violates the law (including civil law, such as a contract) in disclosing it. But if you forget to make somebody sign an NDA and they tell everybody, guess what? It stopped being a secret as soon as you told them!

      A lot of people believe, "If I can't see them, they can't see me" and so when they go online, they think they're anonymous; after all, they can't see any of the people with access to their activities!

      If you don't want your publisher to be exposed to lawsuits intending to unmask your identity, don't tell your publisher your identity! In this case, that would mean both lying about your name, and also using a VPN.

      Personally, if I say your business sucks online and you want to sue me over it, I wouldn't want to hide behind anonymity, I'd want to roast you in the media for it really hard. People don't like it when businesses do that, it is very bad PR!

    • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

      "anonymous comments can no longer be considered truly anonymous"

      This was always the case online.

      Do you wish to be able to tell nasty lies about people with impunity, possibly damaging their reputation and sales?

    • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

      anonymous comments can no longer be considered truly anonymous. Got it.

      You know what's remarkably interesting about this? Assuming that the person isn't using a proxy, at best, you could trace the IP address back to a particular residence but the thing is, there is no way to correlate that information with a specific person. Is it one of the people who live at said address? Not necessarily. It could have been someone who came over and jumped in the guest WIFI. Worse, what if the person who posted that was at Starbucks? It just isn't feasible.

      So AC rest easy. Just post

    • Um. No. The 1st Amendment does not protect all speech. It never has. Libel has always been a noted exception to 1st Amendment protections.
    • Kangaroo Kourts sure do hate free speech.

  • Think about it. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @08:09PM (#55551447)

    Suppose you have someone who starts making up negative things about you and posting them on a website. This happens *all the time* IRL.

    A small business can lose massive amounts of money because an employee's ex-boyfriend leaves lies online about the business, for example. That's not protected speech under the First Amendment--it may even be a violation of a restraining order. This can lead to people losing their jobs, to businesses shutting down, to additional stress on victims of domestic violence, and to customers being helped by people who are less good at the job, for example.

    That's an extreme example but not a very unusual one.

    Reviewers who leave their opinions and factual statements about their experience with a business need to be protected under the First Amendment. But someone who just checks the anonymous box to make up lies deserves to be unmasked.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by ClickOnThis ( 137803 )

      The First Amendment protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other.

      If you say something about me I don't like, I can sue you. Of course, whether I win is another matter.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Somewhat incorrect. The First Amendment is why lawsuits for defamation, libel, slander, etc. are difficult to win even if the statements made were false. Of course, that also means that you have a lot of latitude to respond in kind and give as good as you got.
        • by mark-t ( 151149 )

          The first amendment protects a person's right to express what they wish, but it does not protect them from the consequences that might arise from having otherwise harmed others through such expression.

          The biggest reason that it so hard to win a lawsuit for defamation or slander is not because of the first amendment, or even because it might be hard to prove that it was anything more than an opinion, but to also prove that the person did not actually ever believe whatever they were saying to be true.

          • Actually, it does protect you from the consequences. Or rather, can limit them. Because saying something is quite easy, even in totalitarian regimes.

            Old Soviet joke: Is there freedom of speech in Russia? Yes, in principle, but there may not be much freedom after speech.

            In other words, the 1st does in fact protect you from certain consequences. Because countries can (and some do) create laws that make certain speech illegal and hence saying certain things that are protected by the 1st in the US do have conse

          • That would be a strange interpretation of having the right on free speech. In that case, china could say to someone criticizing the regime: "Well, you DO have free speech, but we put you in jail for it." (aka, that are the consequences)

            It doesn't make sense, does it? If there is no protection from the consequences of free speech, and one is shot dead - legally - after when one said something (against the regime, for instance), it would still be free speech, following your reasoning. The whole point of calli

          • by sjames ( 1099 )

            It's almost never possible to prove they didn't believe what they said. However, you can also win if you can show a reckless disregard for the truth. In other words, they can't just repeat gossip that you kick puppies and prevail in court unkes they have some reason to believe it's true other than "because the town's biggest liar said so".

      • The First Amendment protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other. If you say something about me I don't like, I can sue you. Of course, whether I win is another matter.

        You should read the Supreme Court's opinion in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. [google.com]. In summary, it says that to comply with the 1A, States cannot impose strict liability on libel/defamation lawsuits.

        In fact, the very first sentence of the opinion is about the interaction between the 1A and defamation.

        This Court has struggled for nearly a decade to define the proper accommodation between the law of defamation and the freedoms of speech and press protected by the First Amendment. With this decision we return to that effort.

        TLDR of the opinion: States can have libel laws, but to comply with the 1A, they have to structured so the plaintiff proves at least negligence in addition to the falsehood. The Court decided in other places that there

      • The 1st Amendment also does not protect anyone from libel or slander.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    According to TFA:

    The online review said the tax preparer had prepared a sloppy return for double the money he initially quoted.

    Seriously? "Sloppy" is already an opinion, so that's going to get removed from the claim. Now we're just left with he-said-vs-she-said for the quoted price. Good luck proving that the reviewer didn't believe the original quote. If he stands up on court and says "Yes, I asked about X, and he said 'about $Y', but then he charged me $2Y dollars." then the tax preparer immediately loses his case, and he's going to get counter-sued for a lot more than $2Y (think: court costs + tort claim).

    • by mark-t ( 151149 )

      This is why it's far better, especially when leaving a poor review online, to actually only state the facts as they happened which drew you to come to such a negative perception about them, leaving aside any personal feelings about them, and allowing the reader of the review to draw their own conclusions from the description of your negative encounter. Terms like "sloppy" or "terrible" can be left out entirely, as one describes exactly *why* one might make such a conclusion about the company without once

      • This is why it's far better, especially when leaving a poor review online, to actually only state the facts as they happened which drew you to come to such a negative perception about them, leaving aside any personal feelings about them,

        No, you are just wrong. You are entitled to your opinion, and if all you post is opinion with no alleged facts, then you are protected. This user's information is being subpoena'd because they made comments of a factual nature which the dentist is claiming to be false. They did not get in trouble for opinion words, they got in trouble for fact words, and your comment bears no resemblance to reality nor relevance to this case.

        • by mark-t ( 151149 )

          Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but even expression something that is just an opinion can get you into a lot of hot water if your expression comes across as being willfully spiteful simply because of your own personal dissatisfaction with the service, and if they have a good enough lawyer, that hot water can still easily be enough to drown in. Also, you had better have explicitly stated that everything was just in your own opinion, or else regardless of your intent, it can still be taken as

          • Also, you had better have explicitly stated that everything was just in your own opinion, or else regardless of your intent, it can still be taken as defamatory.

            What you're failing to realize is that facts can be proven or dis-proven and the courts care about facts. And if your facts are dis-proven then that goes towards credibility. If you said: "I didn't like the accountant; he was sloppy." That's an opinion that every court would throw out in a case against you. In this case the reviewer makes the claim that the final bill was double the original quote. That can be proven or dis-proven. If it turns out that the original quote and the bill were not that much diff

            • by mark-t ( 151149 )

              If what you do is simply state a factual accounting of a negative experience that you had, it is impossible to disprove the accounting because by definition, the account is factual.

              If I truthfully say that such-and-such a company refused to offer any sort of refund on an appliance that was well within its warranty period, but did not actually work as it should have*, for example, I can do that without worrying in the slightest about any possible negative repercussions on account of so-called defamatory r

              • If what you do is simply state a factual accounting of a negative experience that you had, it is impossible to disprove the accounting because by definition, the account is factual.

                That is bullshit and you know it. The reviewer made a claim; the bill was double the original estimate. You can't say a "negative experience" somehow negates factually what the bill was. A court does not deal with feelings when it comes to facts.

                f I truthfully say that such-and-such a company refused to offer any sort of refund on an appliance that was well within its warranty period, but did not actually work as it should have*, for example, I can do that without worrying in the slightest about any possible negative repercussions on account of so-called defamatory remarks because the only way that they can allege that the statements were false is to either assert that never offered any customer satisfaction warranty in the first place (which is easy to show), or that they actually *did* offer a refund when asked about it (which is also easy to prove because there would be a financial record of the transaction).

                All of that is irrelevant to the discussion and case at hand and again, just bullshit.

                *This happened to me, actually. My wife and I bought a convection oven a few years ago...

                Again, irrelevant to the case at hand. A reviewer made statements which the accountant claims is defamatory: that is the crux of the suit. The statements contain a number of facts

                • by mark-t ( 151149 )

                  Of course if you say something like "I wasn't happy", you're fine... that's clearly an expression of your own personal feelings, which are entirely protected... not because it is simply your own opinion, but because it is true (or presumed to be true, as you are the most knowledgeable person about your own feelings).

                  In fact, the only way that opinions are actually protected in any way from being defamatory is under the category of being a "fair comment", which itself may be an opinion, but one which is i

                  • Of course if you say something like "I wasn't happy", you're fine... that's clearly an expression of your own personal feelings, which are entirely protected... not because it is simply your own opinion, but because it is true (or presumed to be true, as you are the most knowledgeable person about your own feelings).

                    And that is not what happened in this case. The reviewer stated facts that could be challenged.

                    lIn fact, the only way that opinions are actually protected in any way from being defamatory is under the category of being a "fair comment", which itself may be an opinion, but one which is itself formed entirely based on accurate facts, and do not allege dishonorable motives or intentions against the person about whom the statements were made. If the outward appearance exists that the comment was made out of malice (in particular to the judge), regardless of how much you might try and disguise it as just your own opinion, then trying to use that defence will not pass, unless the other party has a real shitty lawyer.

                    A) You have already presumed that the facts were indeed accurate. The accountant gets to challenge such facts. B) Motives and intentions are not an element in determining the truthfulness of facts or defamation (which the lawsuit is about). Motives and intentions are separate and not necessary to this defamation [findlaw.com] lawsuit. The accountant has to show 5 elements to win:

                    1. Someone made a statement
                    2. that statement was publ
                    • by mark-t ( 151149 )

                      You might want to review the laws governing defamation in the USA. Intent, insomuch as it can be inferred based on real-world evidence, such as what was said, how it was said, etc, very much pays a role. your safest course of action is to describe, accurately and irrefutably, exactly what happened to create the negative impression, withut presenting any sentiment such as incompetent, unprofessional, dishonest, etc. if you want to say they are dishonest, for example, you describe what they did, exactly,

                    • You might want to review the laws governing defamation in the USA. Intent, insomuch as it can be inferred based on real-world evidence, such as what was said, how it was said, etc, very much pays a role.

                      Please present case law where motives and intent being a part of an ordinary defamation suit. Again, actual malice is only required for public officials not for ordinary people. Intent does not have a role

                      if you want to say they are dishonest, for example, you describe what they did, exactly, to create that impression, and leave all expression of your on sentiment out of it, to avoid any outward appearance of malice, which is what will get you into trouble even if your accounting of facts is entirely truthful. If you think they were rude, you recount what exchange occurred to create that impression. Without any outward negative terms used to describe them, directly, they have no basis for a malicious motive, and cannot possibly show how a truthful account was not at least accurate from what you knew at the time that you said those things.

                      This again relies on your false presumption that malice is a legal standard to be met in defamation. As I've stated before, it is not. This law firm explains the role of actual malice [kellywarnerlaw.com] in defamation. They make the clear distinction if the plaintiff is a public official or not and how the malice standard hin

                • by mark-t ( 151149 )
                  Oh.... and if you have a record of both financial transactions, you can also say "he double charged me" without any worries either.
                  • Oh.... and if you have a record of both financial transactions, you can also say "he double charged me" without any worries either.

                    Er what? In this case the claim is that the accountant's final bill was for double what the original estimate was. The claim is not that accountant erroneously charged the client twice for the same bill.

                    According to some sites this is the review in question:

                    Too bad there is no zero star option! I made the mistake of using them and had an absolute nightmare. Bill was way more than their quote; return was so sloppy I had another firm redo it and my return more than doubled. If you dare to complain get ready to be screamed at, verbally harassed and threatened with legal action. I chalked it up as a very expensive lesson, hope this spares someone else the same.

                    Reading this story [gizmodo.com], it appears this is a common thing that happens with quotes and estimates. The tax accountant gave an estimate of $200 based on the understanding that the tax preparation was a simple return. The actual return out more complicated so t

                    • by mark-t ( 151149 )
                      Yes... I can see how that remark would have been defamatory.

                      It was fine for him to say that the bill was way more than their quote, because he can probably evidentially substantiate that (or if he cannot, but it is true, for example via a verbal quote only, the company will not be able to disprove it) but where he crossed the line into defamatory was when he called their work "sloppy" without substantiating it with actual facts (how well another company might do the same job is irrelevant... and his choi

                    • And I've said facts can be the downfall of defendant. From a distance this case mirrors many that I've seen. Now I'm speculating to what I think happened based on what I've seen: Client and professional agree for work to be done. There might have been a misunderstanding about what the original quote included or did not include. Most of the time the client asks the professional to do more work than the original quote and is surprised when the bill is higher because of the request(s). The client and professio
                    • by mark-t ( 151149 )
                      Please note, I said historically accurate facts. What was said, what was done, etc, not "how" things were said or done.
    • This is what I think the review in question was:

      Too bad there is no zero star option! I made the mistake of using them and had an absolute nightmare. Bill was way more than their quote; return was so sloppy I had another firm redo it and my return more than doubled. If you dare to complain get ready to be screamed at, verbally harassed and threatened with legal action. I chalked it up as a very expensive lesson, hope this spares someone else the same.

      Now we're just left with he-said-vs-she-said for the quoted price. Good luck proving that the reviewer didn't believe the original quote.

      No one has to prove the "belief" of the reviewer. The accountant merely has to show that the reviewer was presented with a quote. It would be better for accountant if the reviewer signed the quote therefore acknowledging that the reviewer agreed with the quote.

      "Yes, I asked about X, and he said 'about $Y', but then he charged me $2Y dollars." then the tax preparer immediately loses his case,

      In what scenario of "he said, she said" would one party immediately lose a case after making a claim? The reviewer can claim his side of the story and the accountant can claim his side. Both have an oppo

  • by datavirtue ( 1104259 ) on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @08:21PM (#55551487)

    What do they want? Free speech or anonymity? Free speech can exist in either case but shit falls out when people know who you are after saying something in public. Perhaps we are talking about amendment 1.5...the one that guarantees us anonymity?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ClickOnThis ( 137803 )

      The First Amendment protects your right to express an opinion. But IMHO, it does not protect your ability to express that opinion anonymously.

      IANAL, and YMMV. Perhaps the courts find legal reasons to conceal some parts of a person's identity in certain situations (e.g., to keep them from harm) but a person accused, slandered, or libeled must be provided the ability to confront the witness against them.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."

        • "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."

          Bold, noble words, and I agree with them.

          Nevertheless, the shield of anonymity can and should be penetrable under some situations. Just sayin'

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Freedom of speech is not the freedom to defame. We have a system for handling defamation, and it seems to be working here.

      • Pretty good try, but you conflated accusing somebody of libel with confronting a witness against you.

        In the right to confront a witness, that is dealing with the rights of the person accused of libel to confront the person accusing them! It is about legal rights in court, it is not a right to confront people generally who purportedly said things about you.

    • by bws111 ( 1216812 )

      The intent of the amendment is to restrict the power of the government. That is why it says 'Congress shall make no law...' and not 'You can say whatever you want and nobody can do anything about it'.

      The amendment does not shield you from any negative repercussions of your speech, except for repercussions imposed by the government.

  • It's chilly in here.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Defamation is not a protected right, and never was.

  • by X!0mbarg ( 470366 ) on Tuesday November 14, 2017 @10:15PM (#55551949)

    Just because you are allowed to say it, does not mean you can hide behind anonymity to protect your sorry self from the backlash of what you said.

    Sure, you have the right to you opinion. Just claim it as yours, and yours, and face the response. If you have somehow broken the law in the expression, then accept it!

    Don't be a coward.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Don't be a coward.

      But... I am A. Coward, you insensitive clod!

    • Anonymity serves a very important purpose. Without it, a vocal majority can easily pretend that "everyone" agrees with their position and an opposing position does not exist. You can have that in totalitarian regimes all the time. If all you hear all the time is how great The Party is (with everyone saying as much as "but..." disappearing), you can easily get the impression that "everyone" but you thinks that this is the case. This is what props up those regimes.

      Anonymity allows you to actually speak out ag

    • The court ruled that accountant had made enough of case that the review was defamatory and not merely expressing opinion.
  • What are the courts going to do if they find a name called Seimore Butz pointing to an obvious burner email registered to some no-name email provider?

    Do they really think the person who did this did so using their real name and personal email?

    Trolling 101, use burner emails!

  • Somebody that fills their basement with Taxis?

  • It is stupid to say "constitution guarantees only the free speech, there is no right to anonymity". There are many instances it is very difficult or dangerous to espouse unpopular opinions without anonymity.

    At the same time, people's right to confront and cross examine their accusers, to defend themselves from unfair allegations and actions based on ulterior motives with anonymous accusers.

    How to resolve the conflict?

    Do it case by case. Do not talk in generalities. Go to the court, and show that "this an

  • Once Identified, the victim can turn around and show proof of his comments and smack down this asshole...

    • Re:Hopefully (Score:4, Informative)

      by Bruinwar ( 1034968 ) <bruinwarNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @07:44AM (#55553413)

      After some digging to find the actual review, it seemed fairly tame to me. The reviewer should have a copy of the tax-return that was "sloppy" & a copy of the one they had completed by another firm, maybe it will prove the review to be accurate.

      The review:

      Too bad there is no zero star option! I made the mistake of using them and had an absolute nightmare. Bill was way more than their quote; return was so sloppy I had another firm redo it and my return more than doubled. If you dare to complain get ready to be screamed at, verbally harassed and threatened with legal action. I chalked it up as a very expensive lesson, hope this spares someone else the same.

      • They're suing over THAT?

        Good god, imagine what they'd do if someone told a "You mama so..."-joke aimed at them...

      • Right there in the review is the proof: "If you dare to complain get ready to be screamed at, verbally harassed and threatened with legal action." HAHAHA

      • After some digging to find the actual review, it seemed fairly tame to me

        I guess it's tame by Internet standards and your standards but would you use an accountant that the reviewer described. The problem for the reviewer is that it doesn't just have an opinion but also also verifiable facts.

        Bill was way more than their quote; return was so sloppy I had another firm redo it and my return more than doubled.

        So here the reviewer doesn't say outright that the accountant was incompetent but he/she makes claims that can be verified.

        1)What was the bill and what was the estimate? I've heard this complaint before with services in particular. A client doesn't like the service that he or she got which

        • That last "claim" isn't a claim. They're saying that if you do X, prepare for Y. They aren't saying that if you do X then Y is going to happen. That doesn't sound actionable. The other claim that you left out though is that the return more than doubled, that is also a factual statement which can be verified.

          If the bill was "way more" than the quote, depending on how the judge wants to see that, if another firm redid the return, and if the return more than doubled, then the accountant should lose the cas

          • The claim by the accountant could be that such interactions were lies: For example the accountant never talked to the client the times and places the client describes so there's no possible way that he/she screamed at the client. As for verbally harassment and legal action, that also could be lies too. That depends on what the accountant is pursuing .
            • I don't even think that's actionable though, I don't think the person is necessarily making a claim that they were screamed at and threatened with a lawsuit. They're just saying that other people should prepare for it.

              • I'm entirely speculating on what happened but in the many cases of these disputes like this I've seen: Client and professional agree on a quote for work. Client makes requests that increase the amount of work and is surprised the bill is higher in the end. Client and professional have a dispute about the bill which gets heated and the professional threatens legal action to get paid. Client pays the bill. The now unhappy client (under the assumed guise of anonymity) posts an negative review but changes key f

        • After some digging to find the actual review, it seemed fairly tame to me

          I guess it's tame by Internet standards and your standards but would you use an accountant that the reviewer described.

          /p>

          Would I use the professional services of some who got a bad review? Depends on all the reviews. There are always bad reviews on everything. If I avoided everything with a bad review I couldn't buy a motherboard. Or a laptop. I would read more than one review before deciding. Actually that particular review looks a little emotional & shrill. I may not give it much weight if there were a lot of positive reviews.

          Seriously, if that review is slanderous then many (most?) negative reviews are.

          • I may not give it much weight if there were a lot of positive reviews.

            But the question is not whether someone merely got a bad review; the problem is whether the review was defamatory; whether or not the review as true. For example this story [irelandbeforeyoudie.com] of a bad hotel review. The reviewer claims that the basic gist of their complaint was that "Emma lied" to them by billing them at a rate they should not have paid. The hotel responded to the reviewer's claim by pointing out that the hotel realized by the next morning the price was wrong and changed their bill before they checked out so t

    • >Once Identified, the victim can turn around and show proof of his comments and smack down this asshole...

      If he has backing documentation (which, based on his complaint, he should), then yes. I would expect you could nail the guy for malicious prosecution. If he can't prove it (or worse, turns out to be a competitor), then it's time to pay up for committing libel.

    • by Megol ( 3135005 )

      So you know that it isn't the anonymous person that is the asshole and should be smacked down?

      People post false reviews all the time and that influences public perception of the reviewed company/product (negative or positive).

      • Sorry, I'll take the line of faith on the reviewer until proven otherwise, especially since another user found what may be the review in question and it's incredibly mild by miles

  • If Yelp can be forced to reveal the review, then it ain't really anonymous ..

    'Real parties in interest, Gregory M. Montagna and Montagna & Associates [cloudfront.net], INC.'

"How many teamsters does it take to screw in a light bulb?" "FIFTEEN!! YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?"

Working...