<b><i>Online Extra:</b></i> Yelp Fends Off Suit Seeking Pay for Posters

Seeborg concluded it's reasonable to infer that reviewers don't perform any services for Yelp. At most, he wrote, they could be considered volunteers.

Yelp prevailed on motions to dismiss and to strike the suit under California's anti-SLAPP law. The company's lawyers also defeated motions for sanctions and for preliminary certification as a collective action. Seeborg granted plaintiffs leave to amend, though he wrote “it appears dubious that plaintiffs will be able to allege in good faith facts sufficient to show any type of employment relationship.”

Florida attorney Daniel Bernath, representing plaintiffs, had'claimed'Yelp profited on the work of unpaid writers and compared the company to a “21st century galley slave ship.”

Yelp, represented by its senior litigation director, Aaron Schur, and Pasadena solo Adrianos Facchetti, said in a statement the company was “happy to see common sense prevail in this case.”

Yelp users post on the website “because they want to spread the word about great local businesses in their neighborhood,” a representative wrote, “not because they expect payment.”

In an e-mail, Bernath blamed the outcome on home-field advantage. In May, Yelp won a bid to transfer the case from Los Angeles federal court to San Francisco, where the company is headquartered.

'

'

Marisa Kendall'writes for'The Recorder, an ALM sibling of Internet Law & Strategy. She can be reached at'[email protected].

'

Lawyers for Yelp Inc. scored a victory in August over plaintiffs who had demanded to be paid for reviews they posted to Yelp's website.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California ruled people who review businesses on Yelp cannot be classified as Yelp's employees and therefore are not entitled to compensation.

“Plaintiffs use the term 'hired' to refer to a process by which any member of the public can sign up for an account on the Yelp website and submit reviews,” Seeborg wrote, “and the term 'fired' to refer to having their accounts involuntarily closed, presumably for conduct that Yelp contends breached its terms of service agreement.”

Seeborg concluded it's reasonable to infer that reviewers don't perform any services for Yelp. At most, he wrote, they could be considered volunteers.

Yelp prevailed on motions to dismiss and to strike the suit under California's anti-SLAPP law. The company's lawyers also defeated motions for sanctions and for preliminary certification as a collective action. Seeborg granted plaintiffs leave to amend, though he wrote “it appears dubious that plaintiffs will be able to allege in good faith facts sufficient to show any type of employment relationship.”

Florida attorney Daniel Bernath, representing plaintiffs, had'claimed'Yelp profited on the work of unpaid writers and compared the company to a “21st century galley slave ship.”

Yelp, represented by its senior litigation director, Aaron Schur, and Pasadena solo Adrianos Facchetti, said in a statement the company was “happy to see common sense prevail in this case.”

Yelp users post on the website “because they want to spread the word about great local businesses in their neighborhood,” a representative wrote, “not because they expect payment.”

In an e-mail, Bernath blamed the outcome on home-field advantage. In May, Yelp won a bid to transfer the case from Los Angeles federal court to San Francisco, where the company is headquartered.

'

'

Marisa Kendall'writes for'The Recorder, an ALM sibling of Internet Law & Strategy. She can be reached at'[email protected].

'