A Florida lawyer unhappy with poor reviews posted in an online attorney review site is threatening legal action to shutter the LawyerRatingz.com site.
In response to the threatened legal action, the Electronic Frontier Foundation asked a federal judge Thursday to declare the website immune from any threatened legal action on the matter. The EFF contends that, even if third-party comments about attorneys are defamatory, federal law immunizes the Sunnyvale-based website from being sued for the speech of its users.
The legal flap began last year, when a representative of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, lawyer Adrian Philip Thomas demanded that his poor reviews be removed from the site. The representative said the anonymous reviews, which among other things gave him “bad” marks in knowledge, communication, tenacity, work quality and value, have led to a loss of business. Another said Thomas’ firm “accomplished nothing” and “DO NOT HIRE THIS LAW FIRM!” However, not all reviews of Thomas were negative.
A proposed lawsuit by Thomas forwarded to the review site, which sports some 42,000 lawyer ratings, sought to shutter the entire site, or, at the very least, have his reviews removed.
The EFF, in a complaint filed in San Francisco federal court, said LawyerRatingz.com is protected by the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which says “interactive computer services” cannot be “treated as the publisher or speaker of any information” provided by a third party.
“Mr. Thomas’s claims are meritless and run afoul of bedrock legal principles protecting website operators,” EFF senior staff attorney Matt Zimmerman said in a statement. “Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act categorically protects providers of ‘interactive computer services’ from suits such as this one seeking to make them responsible for the speech of their users. Without such protections, valuable sites like LawyerRatingz.com — or Facebook or Yelp or individual blogs that rely upon user comments — simply could not exist.”
Thomas did not immediately respond for comment.
The CDA does not, however, immunize the reviewers from a potential defamation suit. Theoretically, Thomas could try to sue the individuals who posted on the site. Generally, websites are not ordered to turn over users’ identifying information until after it has been proven that the statements are, indeed, defamatory.
Photo: s_falkow/Flickr
David Kravets is a senior staff writer for Wired.com and founder of the fake news site TheYellowDailyNews.com. He's a dad of two boys and has been a reporter since the manual typewriter days.Follow @dmkravets and @ThreatLevel on Twitter.
The UK and Japan have urged the U.S. to rewrite its so-called “Volcker rule”, claiming that trading restrictions on U.S. banks could hit the international sovereign debt market at a delicate moment in the global recovery.George Osborne, the British chancellor, has joined forces with Jun Azumi, his Japanese counterpart, in warning in a column in today’s Financial Times that the U.S. banking reforms could make it “more difficult, costlier and riskier for countries to issue and distribute debt”, at a time when many eurozone countries are already under strain.The article is the highest profile expression of international concern about the impact of the U.S. reforms, coming from the finance ministers of two countries regarded as among Washington’s greatest economic allies.The Volcker rule imposes new curbs on U.S. banks that restrict their ability to trade with their own capital, starting in July 2012, imposing what many bankers believe would be a restriction in liquidity from equities to corporate bonds.The rule — named after Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve chairman — is intended to prevent risky activity by U.S. banks, but the reforms include a carve-out to allow them to buy U.S. government securities but not other sovereigns.Mr Osborne has raised his concern about the “unintended consequences” of the reforms privately with Tim Geithner, U.S. Treasury secretary. But today’s article, published ahead of a G20 finance ministers’ meeting in Mexico, raises the stakes.UK Treasury insiders believe that a final consultation on the Volcker rule will address the issue, not least because U.S. regulators will not want to make reforms which could potentially destabilize fragile bond markets.“The rule could also disincentivize foreign firms from transacting with their U.S. counterparties, reducing market liquidity, potentially increasing price volatility regarding financial transactions such as foreign exchange swaps,” Mr Osborne and Mr Azumi write.Mr Volcker has defended proposed trading rules, claiming earlier this year that it would not disrupt international bond markets. “There will be plenty of proprietary trading in securities without the half dozen or so American banks participating in it,” he said last month.Canada has also warned the U.S. government over the rule, amid fears that big banks like Goldman Sachs [GS Loading... () 
] could be deterred from trading non-U.S. bonds.Meanwhile the two finance ministers lay down their terms for making new contributions to the International Monetary Fund ![[cnbc explains]](/CNBCexplainsicon1.gif){kind=small}
, which wants more firepower to deal with potential economic crises in the eurozone.Mr Osborne and Mr Azumi say any new IMF funding should be drawn from a wide range of countries and should not be a substitute for further steps by the eurozone members to support their own currency. The issue will be discussed at this week’s talks in Mexico.