Battles over online anonymity aren’t new, and we’ve made a lot of progress clarifying the legal rules.  Usually, when a plaintiff sues an unknown defendant (called a “Doe”), the court requires the plaintiff to show that its case has some merit before issuing a subpoena to identify the defendant (sometimes called an “unmasking subpoena”).  This judicial review balances the plaintiffs’ rights to pursue unknown defendants against the potentially significant consequences of unmasking, including the possibility that unmasked defendants will be punished outside the courtroom (such as an employer firing a critical employee).  However, judicial review can mean that sometimes plaintiffs get stuck in court, as illustrated by a recent landlord/tenant dispute over a negative Yelp review.

What Happened?

The landlord, Brompton, sought a subpoena (pursuant toIllinois Supreme Court Rule 224) from Yelp ($YELP) to identify user “Diana Z.,” who wrote a critical review of the landlord’s former management company, Beal Properties.  (Diana Z. doesn’t appear to be the only Yelper unhappy with Beal–you’ll need asbestos glasses to read its Yelp reviews).  Diana Z.’s Yelp posting concludes sarcastically:

my interaction with Beal has made me a better person in the following ways:
I actually enjoy talking with my HR department.
I look forward to moving to a worse neighborhood….
Contracting herpes doesn’t seem as horrible.

Related Posts