When Policing Social Media Becomes a 'Hassell': Hassell v. Bird Case Note

Abstract

Yelp got caught in the middle of a years-long legal dispute when a dissatisfied former client of a California law firm left angry reviews on the firm's Yelp page. The law firm sued the woman for defamation and won via default judgment when she didn't show up to court. When the woman was non-responsive to a court order to take down the posts, the superior court tried to order Yelp to do it for her.

Yelp refused to remove the content and cited Communications Decency Act section 230, the federal statute that generally shields social media sites from "liability" for user-uploaded content. But does simply asking Yelp to take down content constitute the type of "liability" that CDA 230 is meant to prevent? The ensuing litigation and appeals from 2013-2018 tested the contours of CDA 230, culminating in a split 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court.

This Case Note overviews the lawsuit as it progressed through the state courts, starting at the superior court and ending at the California Supreme Court. All along, the justices weighed the competing interests of removing truly harmful content and protecting the public's general freedom from censorship. Then, this Note evaluates these concepts as applied to this case and future cases.

Keywords: CDA 230, Communications Decency Act, Communications Decency Act 230, Hasell, Hassell v. Bird, California Western, California Western Law Review

JEL Classification: K20