![]() Removing the profiles didn’t create any false impression because ” the perception that HomeAdvisor and Angie’s List had deemed PCS unqualified to be on their websites is not wrong, or even misleading.”Ĭase citation: Precision Contracting Solutions, LP v. Indeed, the court says that “emoval of PCS’s profiles due to the District’s complaint was well-justified.”įalse Light. Furthermore, to the extent that the review sites were responding to the AG litigation, any customer disruption was incidental. Even if the review sites knew that online reviews were important to the plaintiff, they still lack the requisite intent to disrupt the plaintiff’s business relationships. The court graciously calls the plaintiff’s argument–that “HomeAdvisor’s and Angie’s List’s removal of a profile PCS used to drum up business amounts to tortious interference”–a “novel” one. Still, this opinion provides perhaps the most extensive judicial discussion of the CRFA to date.įor more on what the CRFA says and doesn’t say, see my primer. Yelp ruling, another case that tried to weaponize the CRFA against a review site (like this opinion, the court simply held that the CRFA lacks a private right of action). I believe that honor goes to the uncited Quigley v. This isn’t the first court opinion interpreting the CRFA. Burgess: “the Act ‘doesn’t interfere with the Web site operators’ ability to manage the contacts and reviews on their own Web sites’ as ‘easonable management of online reviews is necessary to ensure that they convey useful information as opposed to irrelevant or offensive content.'” The court cites the legislative history statement of Rep. Second, by its express terms (the definition of “covered communications”), the CRFA only protects reviewers, not reviewed businesses. First, the court says that only the FTC can enforce the CRFA there isn’t any private right of action. ![]() Not surprisingly, the court quickly dismisses it. This misunderstanding of the CRFA is so unexpected and preposterous, I don’t even know where to start. The plaintiff asserted the CRFA as a sword against the consumer review sites, arguing that the CRFA restricts the ability of HomeAdvisor and Angie’s List to remove consumers’ reviews about the plaintiff. ![]() The plaintiff sued them for the removal.Ĭonsumer Review Fairness Act. ![]() Soon after the AG’s action, both review sites removed the plaintiff’s profiles and associated reviews. In July 2019, the DC AG’s office sued the plaintiff for a variety of business practices. It had also advertised on HomeAdvisor, where it had many consumer reviews. It had business profiles on both review sites. The defendants are consumer review sites Angie’s List and HomeAdvisor. This case is an interesting, but equally unmeritorious, variation of the many lawsuits seeking to impose “must-carry” obligations on UGC sites.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |