Yelp Loses Challenge to Removal Order
- Yelp was a non-party to the litigation;
- Yelp was immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act; and
- arguing that the court permitted substitute service on Bird was improper.
it is well established that ‘injunctions are not effective against the world at large. On the other hand, the law recognizes that enjoined parties ‘may not nullify an injunctive decree by carrying out prohibited acts with or through nonparties to the original proceeding. Thus, an injunction can properly run to classes of persons with or through whom the enjoined party may act.
sanctioning Yelp for violating a court order would not implicate section 230 at all; it would not impose liability on Yelp as a publisher or distributor of third party content.
undermines the free speech and due process rights of consumer reviewers and the online platforms that host their content. It gives those who dislike certain speech — here, a lawyer who was upset at reviews from her clients — the ability to require their removal while denying the website hosting that speech the ability to defend its editorial rights to publish the speech or rebut the claims.