Yelp Challenge to Court Order to Scrub 'Defamatory' Review Misplaced, Says Hassell's Lawyer
An attorney for Dawn Hassell's law firm, which sued a former client for a "defamatory" review posted on Yelp, said Yelp's challenge to a California court order to remove the comment doesn't stand on solid ground. "Contrary to what appears…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
to be a chorus of misinformed voices, this case is not a First Amendment case and does not threaten the structure or purpose of the Communications Decency Act," emailed Duckworth Peters attorney Monique Olivier Wednesday, referring to Hassell v. Bird. "Instead, it presents a narrow issue: what remedy does a party have to stop the republication of statements that have been adjudicated by a court of law -- after review of an evidentiary record -- to be false and defamatory. The First Amendment does not protect lies, whether in a print publication or an anonymous internet bulletin board. No constitutional interest is advanced by such a notion." Olivier represents Hassell, who sued Ava Bird in 2013 for posting what Hassell said is a defamatory review. Yelp wasn't party to the suit but Hassell, who won the case by default judgment, asked a state court to enter an order to have both Bird and Yelp remove the content. Yelp challenged the order but the California Court of Appeal last year upheld it. The company appealed to the California Supreme Court. In recent days, major civil society, media and tech organizations rallied around Yelp, filing amici briefs (see 1704180017) saying the company is protected by the First Amendment and from liability through Section 230 of CDA. They argued Yelp also wasn't given due process rights since it wasn't party to the lawsuit.