Search results
The crux of Yelp’s remaining arguments center around the First Amendment, due process, and the Communications Decency Act. As of this writing, the defamatory reviews remain in Hassell’s Yelp profile, perpetually causing her harm unless the California Supreme Court upholds the lower courts’ rulings. First Amendment
15 cze 2021 · The new act would protect consumers by banning gag clauses -- statements in consumer-form contracts that limit free speech -- which used to prevent consumers from writing negative online reviews. Consumers can now feel confident and protected posting honest online reviews.
17 sie 2016 · But under a law recently passed in California, these types of clauses are now illegal. AB 2365, popularly referred to as the “Yelp Bill,” prohibits companies from using non-disparagement clauses in contracts for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services.
Dubbed the “Yelp Bill,” California Assembly Bill 2365 prohibits businesses from enforcing non-disparagement clauses in their consumer contracts to prevent consumers from publicly sharing their experiences with
3 lip 2018 · California’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of Yelp in the defamation case Hassell v. Bird, declaring that the platform couldn’t be forced to take down falsely negative reviews.
10 mar 2020 · For many years, plaintiffs and their attorneys have wielded the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA” or the “Act”) as a powerful weapon against companies for allegedly misleading consumers about goods and services sold in the marketplace.
3 gru 2018 · On July 2, 2018, in Hassell v. Bird (2018) 5 Cal.5th 522, the California Supreme Court held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 prohibits courts from ordering Yelp to remove defamatory consumer reviews posted by an attorney’s former client.
