Hassell v. Bird was a case heard within the California court system related to a court-ordered removal of a defamatory user review of a law firm from the Yelp website. The case, first heard in the California Court of Appeals, First District, Division Four, unanimously ruled in favor of the law firm, ordering Yelp to remove the review in 2016. Yelp refused to remove the review and appealed the decision. In July 2018, the California Supreme Court reversed the order in a closely divided 4-3 decision, stating that Yelp's position fell within Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as a publisher of user material, and was not required to comply with the trial court's removal order. However, the part of the trial court's decision that ordered the reviewer to remove the defamatory review and pay a monetary judgement were left intact. The Supreme Court of the United States denied to hear the appeal, leaving the California Supreme Court's decision.
Quick Facts Hassell v. Bird, Argued Sept. 21, 2016 ...
Hassell v. Bird |
---|
|
|
Full case name | Dawn Hassell and Hassell Law Group vs. Ava Bird |
---|
Citation(s) | 247 Cal.App.4th 1336 |
---|
|
Prior history | Superior Court of San Francisco City & County, No. CGC-13-530525, Donald J. Sullivan, Judge |
---|
Subsequent history | Time for Granting or Denying Review Extended Hassell v. Bird, 2016 Cal. LEXIS 10330 (Cal., Sept. 14, 2016)
Review granted by Hassell v. Bird, 208 Cal. Rptr. 3d 284, 381 P.3d 231, 2016 Cal. LEXIS 7914 (Cal., 2016)
Request granted Hassell v. Bird, 2016 Cal. LEXIS 8407 (Cal., Oct. 12, 2016)
Request granted Hassell v. Bird; Yelp, Inc., 2016 Cal. LEXIS 10250 (Cal., Dec. 5, 2016)
Request granted Hassell v. Ava Bird/Yelp, 2017 Cal. LEXIS 1418 (Cal., Feb. 14, 2017) |
---|
|
1. In a defamation case arising from the publication of an online review of a lawyer, due process did not bar a removal order, despite the lack of notice and hearing to the nonparty website where the review was posted, in part because the order treated the website as the administrator of a forum used to publish defamatory reviews, not as a publisher.
2. The order to remove three statements was not a prior restraint, but the order to remove subsequent comments was an overbroad restraint on speech
3. The Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C.S. § 230, did not bar the trial court from issuing the removal order because the order did not impose any liability on the website.
4. For purposes of standing to appeal, the site was aggrieved by the removal order because the order directly affected the operation of its business and potentially carried some pecuniary consequence. |
|
Chief Justice | Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye |
---|
|
Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C § 230 |
Close