Review Site Can't Be Ordered to Remove Posts, California Justices Rule

Review Site Can't Be Ordered to Remove Posts, California Justices Rule

SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court yesterday reversed an appellate court ruling that upheld an order that required Yelp to remove a negative review of a business.

State justices held in their decision that federal immunity under Section 230 applies to a website that is a repository of views posted by third parties.

The case has been closely watched because removal orders such as the one obtained against Yelp could be used to silence online speech and undermine the viability of a platform.

Industry attorney Corey D. Silverstein told XBIZ that the decision is a “much needed win for Section 230, which has been under a tremendous amount of attack as of late.”

“Good for Yelp for having the guts to make its own decision when it ignored a judgment from the trial court that was riddled with irregularities,” Silverstein said. “Yelp took a chance in ignoring the trial court and ultimately won. Unfortunately, most ISPs would have probably gone along with the trial court’s original judgment.”

The ruling comes in a case where a woman, Ava Bird, posted a one-star review of the Hassell Law Group on Yelp, expressing her displeasure with its representation in her personal injury action, advising, “[T]o save your case, steer clear of this law firm!”

The San Francisco law firm and its owner, attorney Dawn Hassell, sued Bird, claiming the review was libelous. That lawsuit resulted in a default judgment.

A San Francisco Superior Court judge awarded Hassell and her firm damages and ordered Bird to remove the “steer clear” review, which she has not done.

The judgment also required Yelp to remove the offending review.

Yelp, which was not a party to the lawsuit, was served with the judgment. It moved to set aside the default, claiming in part that it violated both due process and Section 230.

The San Francisco judge denied Yelp’s motion, and a state court of appeal affirmed on several bases.

California justices granted review solely on the due process and Section 230 issues.

By requiring Yelp to delete the offending review, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye explained in the ruling, Yelp was being treated as the publisher of the content in violation of the statute.

“The question here is whether a different result should obtain because plaintiffs made the tactical decision not to name Yelp as a defendant,” Cantil-Sakauye wrote. “Put another way, we must decide whether plaintiffs’ litigation strategy allows them to accomplish indirectly what Congress has clearly forbidden them to achieve directly. We believe the answer is no.”

Silverstein noted that the California Supreme Court got this decision "100 percent correct" and that the ruling showed why Section 230 is important for free-speech liberties.

“In this case had the plaintiff named Yelp as a defendant from the beginning of the lawsuit, Yelp would have surely sought dismissal on Section 230 grounds and would most likely have prevailed,” Silverstein said. “I suspect that plaintiff/their counsel recognized that they had little to no chance in prevailing against Yelp and so they strategically proceeded against the named defendant, who incidentally put up no fight and lost by default.

“Could you imagine an internet where review sites, blogs, and web hosts could be held liable for content posted by third parties?” Silverstein asked.

“This case should be viewed as a reminder to everyone about the importance of Section 230 and why government at all levels must be challenged when it attempts to shrink the breadth of Section 230 protection.”

Related:  

Copyright © 2025 Adnet Media. All Rights Reserved. XBIZ is a trademark of Adnet Media.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.

More News

UK Lawmaker Calls for Appointment of 'Porn Minister'

Baroness Gabrielle Bertin, the Conservative member of Parliament who recently convened a new anti-pornography task force, is calling for the appointment of a “minister for porn,” according to British news outlet The Guardian.

FSC Toasts Jeffrey Douglas for 30 Years of Service

n the very same evening when the adult industry was hit hard by the Supreme Court ruling supporting Texas’ controversial age verification law, HB 1181, members of the Free Speech Coalition board, staff and supporters gathered to celebrate Jeffrey Douglas’ 30 years as board chair — a fitting reflection of his reputation as an eternal optimist.

Hookup Hotshot Adds TobyDick.com

Hookup Hotshot (HUHS) has added U.K. paysite TobyDick.com to its network.

TTS Opens UK Testing Location

Talent Testing Service (TTS) has opened a new U.K. location in Ware, Hertfordshire.

FSC: Age-Verification Laws Go Into Effect South Dakota, Georgia, Wyoming on July 1

The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) has published a statement regarding new age verification laws set to go into effect tomorrow in South Dakota, Georgia, and Wyoming.

Leana Lovings, Shay Sights Front 'Substance' Parody From Brazzers

Leana Lovings stars with Shay Sights in the latest release from Brazzers, a parody of "The Substance.”

FSC Responds to Supreme Court Decision on Texas AV Law

The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) has released a statement responding to last week's Supreme Court decision on FSC v. Paxton, the Texas age verification law.

Sex Work CEO Debuts Upgraded 'GPTease' AI Assistant

Sex Work CEO has introduced the new Canvas in-chat editing feature to its AI-powered, NSFW text generator, GPTease.

Little Puck Stars in Latest Episode of 'The Bottom Floor' From Adult Time

Little Puck stars in the second episode of Adult Time series “The Bottom Floor,” titled “The Second Coming.”

Haley Spades Stars in Latest From Immoral

Haley Spades stars with Charlie Dean, Matt Bird, and Dean Van Damme in a new three-part release from Immoral Productions, directed by "Porno Dan" Leal.

Show More