Yelp Inc. v. Superior Court
G054358
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 13, 2017Background
- Montagna (plaintiff) sued Sandra Nunis and unnamed Does for trade libel based on an anonymous Yelp review by “Alex M.” criticizing Montagna’s tax-preparation work and alleging overcharging, sloppy work that required another firm to redo the return (doubling the refund), and that complainants would be screamed at and threatened with legal action.
- Montagna served a subpoena on Yelp seeking records identifying Alex M.; Yelp refused, invoking the reviewer’s First Amendment/anonymity rights.
- Trial court granted Montagna’s motion to compel Yelp to produce identifying records, ruled Yelp lacked standing to assert the reviewer’s First Amendment rights, and later imposed monetary sanctions on Yelp for refusing to comply.
- Yelp petitioned for writ of mandate and appealed the sanctions order; appellate court consolidated the writ and appeal, granted a stay, and accepted amici supporting Yelp.
- The Court of Appeal held Yelp does have standing to assert the anonymous reviewer’s First Amendment/privacy interests, but affirmed the order compelling disclosure because Montagna made a prima facie showing the review was defamatory; it reversed the sanctions order as Yelp’s position was substantially justified given evolving law.
Issues
| Issue | Montagna's Argument | Yelp's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Does Yelp have standing to assert an anonymous reviewer’s First Amendment right to remain anonymous against a subpoena? | Yelp lacks standing; only the speaker can assert the right. | Yelp argued it does have standing because it hosts reviews, promises pseudonymity, and has a pecuniary and reputational interest in protecting anonymity. | Yelp has standing: a website host that publishes anonymous user content has a sufficiently close, aligned interest to assert users’ anonymity rights. |
| 2) Must plaintiff make a prima facie showing of defamation before a host must disclose an anonymous commenter’s identity? | Plaintiff must show the review is defamatory (provably false factual assertions). | Yelp argued the review was nonactionable opinion and not provably false. | Plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of defamation; here Montagna met that showing. |
| 3) Were the statements in Alex M.’s review actionable (fact vs. opinion)? | The review implied provably false factual assertions (unjustified price hike, negligent work requiring another firm that doubled the refund, being screamed at/threatened). | Yelp maintained statements were opinions, predictions, or not provably false. | Court found statements could be reasonably interpreted as implying provably false facts and thus could support defamation; viewed in context, they were actionable for prima facie purposes. |
| 4) Were monetary sanctions proper against Yelp for resisting the subpoena? | Montagna sought sanctions for Yelp’s refusal. | Yelp argued its opposition was substantially justified given unsettled and evolving authority. | Sanctions reversed: appellate court found Yelp’s resistance substantially justified because the governing law was unsettled and trial court erred on standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Doe, 138 Cal.App.4th 872 (discusses third-party standing limits in discovery contexts)
- Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.App.5th 623 (website host has standing to assert anonymous poster’s First Amendment rights)
- ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Does 1-7, 13 Cal.App.5th 603 (prima facie defamation showing required to unmask anonymous online speakers; notice procedure)
- Krinsky v. Doe 6, 159 Cal.App.4th 1154 (standard for prima facie showing to obtain identity of anonymous internet commenter)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531 (broad right to discovery; limits on requiring "compelling need" for disclosure)
- Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp., 97 Cal.App.4th 798 (test for whether statements imply provably false factual assertions)
- Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal.App.4th 1354 (contextual analysis can render strongly worded consumer reviews actionable by implying specific false factual assertions)
- GetFugu, Inc. v. Patton Boggs LLP, 220 Cal.App.4th 141 (opinion may be actionable if it implies false assertions of fact)