Yelp_Estimate_tool

Summary: A Texas decide has dismissed a $1 million lawsuit filed towards a pair for posting a nasty Yelp evaluate. 

After six months of intense authorized drama, the canine days between a Texas pet sitter and a Yelp reviewer are coming to an finish.

In October of 2015, Robert and Michelle Duchouquette employed Prestigious Pets of Dallas to observe their canine and fish whereas they have been away on trip. When the Plano couple returned, they have been sad with the pet sitter’s service in order that they wrote a nasty assessment on Yelp. Instead of responding to the evaluate on the web page like most companies, the corporate escalated and ultimately filed a $1 million lawsuit.

Before submitting the lawsuit, the corporate despatched a stop-and-desist discover to the couple asking them to take away their evaluation. When the Duchouquettes didn’t comply, the corporate filed a lawsuit for $6,700, stating that the couple was in violation of the non-disparagement clause that was part of the client settlement.

After the Yelp-related lawsuit went viral for its extremity, the pet sitter refiled their grievance, asking for a whopping $1 million in damages.

Attorney Paul Alan Levy took on the case for the couple. He requested that it be dismissed and categorised as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), a time period used to explain lawsuits with the intention to silence defendants’ proper to free speech.

Consumerist said that non-disparagement clauses are unlawful in California and are being mentioned in Congress to probably outlaw nationwide. “Non-disparagement clauses are questionably legal conditions inserted into contracts and agreements that try to prohibit consumers from freely expressing their opinion on a transaction,” Consumerist wrote.

A Texas decide heard each side of the case in July and made his ruling this week. He dismissed the lawsuit, and based on the Texas anti-SLAPP regulation, the couple can now recuperate courtroom prices and lawyer charges, Consumerist reported.

“Not only did the company lose business when customers were disgusted over the non-disparagement lawsuit, it now is responsible to pay attorney fees and sanctions,” Levy stated.

In response to this lawsuit and different comparable ones, Yelp has issued a press release to its customers that “questionable legal threats” are sometimes empty and/or meritless. The web site has additionally began to flag companies that they consider are SLAPP-pleased.

What do you consider this case? Let us know within the feedback under.

Source: Consumerist

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

 



Source link