Yelp Inc. v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.
17 Cal. App. 5th 1
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Montagna sued Sandra Nunis and Doe defendants for trade libel after an anonymous Yelp review by "Alex M." criticized Montagna’s tax-preparation work and alleged overbilling, negligence, a redo by another firm that doubled a refund, and verbal harassment/threats.
- Montagna subpoenaed Yelp for records identifying Alex M.; Yelp objected on First Amendment/privacy grounds and refused to produce the documents.
- The trial court granted Montagna’s motion to compel, finding Yelp lacked standing to assert the reviewer’s First Amendment rights and that Montagna made a prima facie showing of defamation; the court also later imposed $4,962.59 in sanctions against Yelp for noncompliance.
- Yelp petitioned for writ of mandate and appealed the sanctions; the appellate court consolidated the matters and stayed the production order.
- The Court of Appeal held Yelp did have standing to assert its users’ anonymity rights but nonetheless affirmed the compelled disclosure because Montagna made a prima facie showing of defamatory statements; the sanctions order was reversed as Yelp’s position was substantially justified given evolving law.
Issues
| Issue | Montagna's Argument | Yelp's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yelp has standing to assert the anonymous reviewer’s First Amendment/right to anonymity in opposing a subpoena | Montagna argued Yelp lacked third-party standing and should not invoke reviewers’ rights | Yelp argued it has a close, pecuniary and contractual relationship with users and a strong interest in protecting anonymity | Court held Yelp has standing as a website host to assert users’ anonymity rights (aligns with Glassdoor and ISP-styled precedent) |
| Whether Montagna made a prima facie showing of defamation sufficient to compel Yelp to disclose the reviewer’s identity | Montagna argued the review implied provably false factual assertions (unjustified overcharge, negligence causing refund to double, harassment/threats) and supported discovery | Yelp argued the statements were protected opinion or unverifiable prediction and that plaintiff had not shown falsity without knowing reviewer identity | Court held the review contained implied and explicit factual claims that could be proven false; prima facie showing met and disclosure order proper under ZL Technologies and related authority |
| Whether the trial court properly imposed monetary sanctions on Yelp for opposing the subpoena | Montagna sought sanctions for Yelp’s refusal to comply | Yelp argued its opposition was substantially justified due to unsettled, evolving law and conflicting authority | Court reversed sanctions, finding Yelp’s position was substantially justified given the evolving precedent and the trial court’s error on standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Doe, 138 Cal.App.4th 872 (discusses third‑party standing limits for non‑publisher objectors)
- Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.App.5th 623 (holds website host has standing to assert anonymous posters’ First Amendment rights)
- ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Does 1-7, 13 Cal.App.5th 603 (establishes prima facie defamation test and notice/production procedure for unmasking anonymous online speakers)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531 (emphasizes broad discovery rights; rejects always‑require ‘‘compelling need’’ rule for disclosure)
- Krinsky v. Doe 6, 159 Cal.App.4th 1154 (adopts standard for prima facie showing in anonymous‑speaker discovery)
- Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal.App.4th 1354 (Yelp‑review context; factual‑implication doctrine applied to online negative reviews)