Hacker News Reader

Comment by nerdponx | Hacker News Reader

But according to Kraemer Manes’ filings in the Wolfe case, business cannot be held responsible for what other people say about them online. The law firm argued in its reply brief seeking dismissal that Wolfe’s theory would open a Pandora’s box of liability for any business that failed to police online reviews for accuracy.

That's preposterous. People (for the most part) don't just sit around writing fake reviews for companies they have no dealings with. If fake reviews about an organization exist, they were commissioned by the organization or its associates. I guess you could try to get a competitor in trouble by creating obviously fake reviews and hoping said competitor gets taken to court over them; but that seems like a lot of trouble, high risk, and not something worth worrying about.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of this case.

View on HN

>> That's preposterous. People (for the most part) don't just sit around writing fake reviews for companies they have no dealings with.

Try being a defense attorney. Try defending murderers and rapists all day. There are always more people angry at you than happy. And those that are happy with your work, the murders and rapists you help, generally keep very quiet. Those that aren't in prison are not going to be bragging online. What you will get are angry relatives and victims lashing out at anyone connected with the defense.

I used to teach a class with a public defender. He was afraid to walk alone to his car at night. It wasn't his clients. They were generally all in jail. He was afraid of the mothers of his clients' victims.

We're talking about fake glowing reviews. Who has incentive to write these?

If the firm is going to be liable for policing the fake positive reviews, anyone with an ax to grind.

Let me fix that for you. "If the firm is going to be for writing and soliciting fake positive reviews...."

Sandworm is responding to the statement that:

> People (for the most part) don't just sit around writing fake reviews for companies they have no dealings with.

And

> If fake reviews about an organization exist, they were commissioned by the organization or its associates.

That is, to a proposed standard where the mere existence of the reviews causes you legal problems as the solicitation part is presumed.

> That's preposterous. People (for the most part) don't just sit around writing fake reviews for companies they have no dealings with.

I have several anecdotes from small business owners who'd tell you otherwise.

You would be surprised as it does happen. The far more common is the reviews where what happened and what is claimed to have happen in the review have a such a tenuous connection that it would be more acccurate to call them a total work of fiction.

The suit argues that the law firm paid people to write the reviews.

Actually there is an entire black hat industry dedicated to leaving fake reviews to drown competitors.

The problem here is that reading fake reviews on its own would not cause an injury. If the law firm had won the case, the woman would not have suffered any harm. Harm could only arise due to the reviews being inaccurate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com