Search Results Management, or Threat to Free Speech?

Scales of justice

The fate of a court ruling that orders a business review site to take down a contested review is now in the hands of the California Supreme Court. The panel’s ruling could have far-reaching implications for search results management and free speech on the Internet.

The plaintiff in the case is the Hassell Law Group, a personal injury firm in the Bay Area. Hassell sued a former client over what the firm said were false and defamatory reviews the former client posted on the user-driven review site. Hassell won the first round, but when the former client did not respond, a San Francisco judge ordered the review site to delete those reviews.

The platform was not named in the original suit, and petitioned the state Supreme Court for review last July. “We look forward to making our full arguments to the court and explaining how the lower court’s decision is ripe for abuse, contradicts longstanding legal principles, and restricts the ability of websites to provide a balanced spectrum of views online,” a lawyer said.

Search Results Management or Online Censorship?

“There were a lot of people who were unhappy about this opinion,” said Eric Goldman, in reference to the original ruling, handed down two years ago. Goldman is co-director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law. He says the ruling is a serious threat to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects Internet Service Providers from responsibility for the content posted by their users.

Internet heavyweights like Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft are lined up in support of the review site. In a joint communication, they told California’s high court that the original opinion “radically departs from a large, unanimous and settled body of federal and state court precedent” and could open the door to the suppression of free speech on the Internet.

Dawn Hassell, the Managing Attorney for the Hassell Law Group, calls that nonsense. This is not a matter of free speech or censorship, she says, but of reputation management. “We have an impeccable reputation,” she said of her firm. “We have a right to protect it.”

False Claims?

Hassell filed the original suit in 2013, accusing a former client of defaming her on the platform. The former client, Hassell alleged, falsely posted that the firm did not communicate with her. But it isn’t even clear whether the client, a woman named Ava Bird, posted the reviews in question. That reviewer posted under the name of Birdzeye. “Bird = Birdzeye,” wrote a skeptical Eric Goldman, adding sarcastically, “Get it?”

Nevertheless, the Hassell Law Group won the suit. San Francisco Superior Court Judge Donald Sullivan awarded them half a million dollars in damages, and ordered Ava Bird to remove the negative comments. Bird never responded and the Birdzeye post is still online. And so Hassell sought a court order to force the review site to remove the reviews.

CDA Section 230

The review platform says the court order is in violation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 is meant to protect Internet companies from laws that could hold them responsible for posts made by others. The platform argues that if Hassell wins, and they are forced to remove the reviews, consumers will be the real losers, because they’ll no longer get a full range of consumer opinions about local businesses. Any business that doesn’t like negative reviews could sue the person who posted it, and then get a court order forcing the Internet company involved to take it down.

Eric Goldman called the original ruling one of the worst of its type. “I can’t stress enough how terrible this opinion is,” he wrote on his blog, “and how much danger it poses to Section 230…this case opens up holes that everyone – users and non-users alike – can abuse.”

Goldman and other legal observers expect the review platform to prevail. “It should be a no-brainer for (the review platform) to win,” said Daphne Keller, a former attorney for Google and now a Stanford Law School professor. Legal precedents, she explained, favor them.

But Dawn Hassell says concerns about Section 230 are a lot of hot air. She filed her lawsuit, she said, because the review defamed her, and all she wants is to have false information taken down. “You can give critical reviews about people on the Internet,” she said. “It doesn’t mean it’s going to be defamation. [But] you can’t write untruthful content to hurt somebody.”

Protect Your Online Reputation

Fake reviews have long been a problem on the site in question, and on similar consumer review websites. Even when they aren’t defamatory, negative reviews can damage your business. For professional help in protecting the online reputation of your company, contact InternetReputation.com, a leader in Search Results Management, for a free consultation.

And check back to this blog for developments in the lawsuit filed by the Hassell Law Group.


You might also like

a cup of coffee next to a news paper.

All You Need to Know About Removing Negative Information from the Internet

Read More

April 14, 2022 admin

A person holding a magnet in front of a group of wooden figures.

SearchPeopleFree Opt-Out: Take Control of Your Data

Read More

February 12, 2024 Valeria G

A google search button with an arrow pointing to it.

How Many Times Has My Name Been Googled?

Read More

February 9, 2024 Valeria G

A shield with a check mark and a padlock.

Radaris Opt-Out: 5 Ways to Protect Your Data

Read More

February 2, 2024 Valeria G

Looking for a Free Analysis?

We help you take control of your Online Reputation

TOP