Yelp user faces lawsuit over negative review
Christopher Norberg, defendant in a lawsuit accusing him of libel for a negative review he posted on Yelp.
(Credit: Christopher Norberg)San Franciscan Christopher Norberg went to a chiropractor after being injured in a car accident in 2006. After a disagreement with the chiropractor over billing, he posted a negative review of the business on Yelp suggesting that the doctor was dishonest. Now he is facing a defamation lawsuit that could chill self-expression on the popular gripe Web site.
"If Christopher loses then anyone on Yelp who writes a negative review better be careful," said Michael Blacksburg, an attorney representing Norberg. "This strikes at the heart of Yelp's business model and other Web sites that provide a bulletin board for people to state what they think of businesses in their community."
"This is clearly Christopher Norberg's version of conversations with the doctor relating to a billing dispute and his opinion of how the doctor was behaving," Blacksburg said on Tuesday. "This is clear opinion that falls squarely within constitutionally protected speech."
Eric Nordskog, the attorney for chiropractor Steven Biegel, said the case comes down to whether Norberg's comments are considered statements of fact or opinions.
"Dr. Biegel has no problem with people expressing their views and opinions about his service," Nordskog said. "But there is a line where if someone, even on Yelp or on the Internet, publishes a false statement of fact as opposed to an opinion, then that person can and should be held responsible for their words."
Norberg, a 26-year-old custom-furniture builder, was advised not to discuss the case publicly, but has a Web site with related information. Biegel did not return a call seeking comment.
The two sides are scheduled to sit down for court-required mediation on Friday, but Norberg said he isn't optimistic that the case will be resolved then. A March 2 trial date is on the San Francisco Superior Court calendar.
The lawsuit, filed February 25, 2008, alleges that Biegel has suffered loss of reputation and business as a result of the review and seeks punitive damages. According to the lawsuit, the review allegedly contained false statements and inaccuracies that suggested Biegel was dishonest and accused him of fraudulent billing practices.
Billing dispute at center
Norberg was treated twice by Biegel before a friend of his told him he had had billing problems with Biegel's office, he wrote in his review. Norberg, who said he did not have medical insurance, was not asked to pay for the visits because Biegel's office said it would try to bill his auto insurance company instead, the review said. Even though the insurance company refused to pay, Norberg did not initially receive a bill from Biegel, he said.
In the meantime, Norberg began getting treatment from another chiropractor who suggested he sue the driver of the car that hit him, Norberg's review said. Norberg eventually settled the case, the review said.
After learning that Biegel's bill to the auto insurer was $550 instead of $125, which was the amount quoted for two visits, Norberg called Biegel, his Yelp review said. Norberg said that Biegel demanded he pay $550 during that phone call, but then said he would waive the fee entirely, according to the review. Biegel later called Norberg and explained that his office bills insurers at a higher rate than patients who pay for service directly because of the higher office costs in dealing with the paperwork and delays in receiving payment, court documents said.
Biegel's office then made a call to Norberg's auto insurance company and learned about the settlement and then called Norberg and demanded he pay $125, the lawyers said. Norberg paid the bill and posted a review of Biegel with a one-star rating on Yelp on November 16, 2007.
"I didn't feel comfortable with their tactics," Norberg wrote in his review after earlier writing that the office had been aggressive in trying to get him to come back for treatment before the billing dispute. Biegel "couldn't give me a straight answer as to why the jump in price...He called me back to cover his ass...(and says) he runs a business and would stick it to insurance companies," the review said.
"I don't think good business means charging people whatever you feel like hoping they'll pay without a fuss. Especially considering that I found a much better, honest chiropractor," Norberg wrote at the end of his review.
In a letter sent to Norberg dated December 7, 2007, Biegel asked Norberg to remove the review, saying it "unjustly characterizes me as unethical and dishonest" and attributed the dispute to a misunderstanding of his office procedures.
"I did not do anything unethical or illegal in our entire dealings," Biegel wrote. "It has never been my policy or intention to take advantage of an individual or insurance company."
On January 8, Norberg got a letter from Biegel's lawyer threatening him with a lawsuit over the review and two days later Norberg removed the review and rating from the site. The following month, Biegel sued.
Biegel, who was a "sponsored" advertiser on Yelp and encouraged customers to write reviews on the site, received about as many referrals per month from Yelp while the review was up as before, but fewer after the lawsuit was filed, Blacksburg said, citing Yelp documents.
A Yelp spokeswoman said she did not know of any other cases in which a business sued a Yelp user over a negative review.
"We won't comment on specific litigation, but in general, lawsuits like this are pretty uncommon," Yelp spokeswoman Stephanie Ichinose wrote in an e-mail.
"Most businesses engage constructively with customers who haven't had a good experience," she wrote. "When that doesn't work, they recognize that they can't always make one hundred percent of their customers happy one hundred percent of the time, and don't risk the huge expense and potential negative publicity that comes with suing one of their customers."
Accusing a business owner of unethical conduct would constitute defamation unless it is true, said Aaron Morris, an Internet defamation attorney in Santa Ana, Calif. However, if the defendant can successfully prove that posting the statement was a matter of public good then the plaintiff would have to show malice and that the defendant knew the statement was false or had reason to believe it was false, he added.
"You can have something that would normally constitute defamation but if it's a matter of public interest it is entitled to protected status," Morris said. "Some courts will say that if you are posting it in a forum where people would be interested, they are going to Yelp specifically to find out about the doctor...then it enjoys a heightened level of privilege."
Not much legal precedent has been set on Internet defamation involving consumer review Web sites. Two similar cases decided in August in California had conflicting outcomes. In European Spa v. Kerber, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that negative reviews of a spa posted on Yelp and Yahoo did not meet the public interest element to merit special status in a defamation lawsuit, Morris wrote in an entry on his blog. In a separate case, Kim v. IAC/InterActive Corp., the Second District Court of Appeal granted an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion filed by someone who had posted a negative review of a dentist on Citysearch.
"If enough of the cases come back where individual posters are being sued, that could chill the desire of people to go on and post their opinion," Morris said. "But all they have to do to protect themselves is to make sure there is some truth to what they are saying."
Updated 1:40 a.m. PST Jan. 7 with background on other cases.
Elinor Mills covers Internet security and privacy. She joined CNET News in 2005 after working as a foreign correspondent for Reuters in Portugal and writing for The Industry Standard, the IDG News Service, and the Associated Press. E-mail Elinor. 
I wonder what would happen if some hypothetical person left a 5-star rating but less-than-stellar review. I also wonder if some other hypothetical person left a 1-star rating but an absolutely glowing review.
Another point, if people can't lie, how can they defend themselves against the opposing lies? The truth is such a relative term that it loses meaning over time.
I think doctor and insurance companies are big cheater in america and milking money from people.. now this chiropractor should go to hell..
A lot of yelpers think its cool to write with profanity and to malign a business by making up all sorts of crazy stuff, sometimes they have never actually been to the place they are writing about, they act like they are an expert or a critic and the yelp moderators egg them on, asking them to write more and encouraging them by forming groups and cliques of people who band together to potentially hurt businesses or promote them if they belong to their friends. On yelp you are guilty until proven innocent because if someone writes a bad review there is not much you can do about it, the business owners are not given a format to respond, and all too often the yelper will continue to write more stupid updates if they are contacted by the business owner, who tried to start a reasonable dialog as to their rant. More often the yelper is embarrased and annoyed that someone actually tried to make amends so they rant some more. In the old days, usually if you were unhappy, you told the business owner and they in turn might correct the situation and then everyone would be happy. These days, people don't really think about that, they just want some revenge and yelp seems to become the tool for those people.
What about the people who are written about? How would you like to see bad things written about yourself, until you have had it happen to you, I don't think anyone can just. Sure if you have a lot of good reviews, they say a few bad ones don't matter but they do to the person's who's livelyhood is affected. Those people have feelings, to see your name and your business written about and have your name maligned is just horrible, its upsetting and painful. I know because its happened to me and it was all those things and for awhile I think the bad reviews did hurt my business but luckily the bad reviews were so crazy that people actually told me that they just couldn't believe that after reading some more positive ones and good people really want to help.
Hey, I am all about free speech, but I also think some people don't think about their actions and have any ethics when they write these reviews or other things on the internet. I don't think the owners of yelp think about ethics, its all about making money and to them even bad press makes money.
That statement is complete b.s.. How about people that make untruthful comments on Cnet?
"How would you like to see bad things written about yourself, ..."
How about you say what you like and I say what I like. If you don't like what I say about YOU, you don't read it?!? You can literally pick a random 100 blogs or websites that say something bad about a person and/or a company. What right is it for any one person or company to go on a rampage to sue people who say bad things about the company or person? Can people not lie or have an opinion when they felt they are cheated?!?
Free speech is starting to be flushed down the drain.
At least if I wrote something bad they'd have a good guess at my first name :)
So does this n00b go by "Christopher Norberg" when using yelp?
freedom of speech doesnt mean u can just run off and defame others at will. as far as i see it, the chiropractor was trying to accomodate this guy. citing extra handling costs for payment by the insurance company sounds reasonable to me - instead of simply receiving the cash from this guy the chiropractor's office would have to correspond with his insurers and possibly not get paid out immediately.
fair is fair.
The guy could have written about his experience in other sites not only Yelp.
If you don't like someone so much, I believe you have the right to say anything you like about him/her. That's free speech. Defame is one. Libel is two. Slander is three. That's protected under free speech.
BUT there isn't any country or state in the world that has free speech. That's the problem with people. They don't understand free speech. When asked about it, they use what the laws of their land to use it to judge.
As far as I'm concerned, suing your customer is stupid. It will come back to haunt you and indeed, this is the case.
As internet becomes more and more of something you can just 'get on', the idea of an IP address tracking you down, 'enemy of the state' / '24' / 'CSI' style, becomes more and more silly.
"Biegel, who was a "sponsored" advertiser on Yelp and encouraged customers to write reviews on the site, received about as many referrals per month from Yelp while the review was up as before, but fewer after the lawsuit was filed, Blacksburg said, citing Yelp documents."
1) Is the average consumer aware of Chiropractic billing practices?
2) What is this Chiropractor's listed/advertised billing practices?
3) Was the consumer aware of the billing practices?
4) Was the consumer's opinion malicious?
5) What is the overall Yelp reputation of the chiropractor, and can one bad review significantly alter that? (if he is a good chiropractor, he should have multiple positive reviews)
All medical providers have billing policies when it comes to self pay patients. Since a Chiropractor is usually not a Medicare/Medicaid provider, there are few rules to billing insurance companies. This is why very few health insurance policies even cover Chiropractic care, plus the insurance companies do not want to negotiate contracts on a case by case basis.
I agree that on the face value of the billing practice does seem excessive. In my knowledge of billing practices, a mark up of 440% of fees is excessive. It does not cost this chiropractor that much more for his office staff if he is billing an insurance company versus an individual. Also, most chiropractors do engage in some sort of selling to increase the probability of getting a higher reimbursement, ie convincing the patient to give them accident information in order to bill the insurance company.
If the average consumer is not aware of these billing issues, it does seem plausible that the consumer would say this is unethical and could easily post that as a justified opinion. My personal opinion falls with the consumer. If a business owner is shady in dealing with me, I have no problems in sharing that with other consumers. Why patronize businesses that are not fully upfront and honest? Don't reward this chiropractor by giving him a favorable verdict.
I think we should sue the chiropractor for denying a citizen their right to free speech. You want your customers to not complain and do the right thing by you, do the same to others. Businesses need to learn they have to act ethically otherwise consumers will share to many others now how they were treated and what they thought through all this marvelous technology.
I've seen this happen on review sites all the time. You can definitely tell when a post is written by a disgruntled employee, a disgruntled patron, and a restaurant that truly deserves a bad rating.
However, that being said, listing the complaints about the billing dispute seems to be something that I would have gone to my local news channel troubleshooter than venting on a Yelp post.
My view has evolved since my initial post last night. Just goes to show that maybe before writing a review, one should wait at least 24 hours.
How can a fact be false? If a statement is untrue, it's not a fact it's a lie.
- by commsoft January 7, 2009 12:08 PM PST
- Good luck to anyone else trying to use this chiropractor and get reimbursed - the insurers are now tipped off that the guy may be charging more than 4 times what he charges other people to insurance companies. (What's funny is, if the guy had merely charged $200 instead of over $500, it might simply have been let go and no big deal, but $550 on a $125 bill seems over the line if this is true.)
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (51 Comments)