The only time (as far as I am aware) that a similar lawsuit was successful was when AOL had to pay out $15 million to their moderators.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_Community_Leader_Program" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_Community_Leader_Program</a><p>Some key reasons they were able to win were:<p><pre><code> 1) they had training
2) they had supervisors
3) they had to file reports and meet goals
</code></pre>
If they were operating autonomously, or even given some incentives (at the time they were given free AOL which was not a flat rate, so it had significant value), then the risk is low, but some of the things AOL did in running this program put them at risk.<p>Even with the very specific things AOL did that bit them later, the lawsuit still dragged on for a long time.<p>Yelp is unlikely to be at any risk at all here unless they were treating these reviewers like employees. Just contributing content is definitely not enough to put them at risk, and if the people are bitter about their contributions they have the right to remove them (I think).
The precedent of such a suit would be staggering; I can't count on two hands the number of major Internet companies that derive the vast-majority of their content from user-generated content.<p>Kinda weird to be fiercely on the side of a company I dislike, but I hope Yelp doesn't have to spend too much money on pointless legal fees here.
"...textbook example of a frivolous lawsuit" - Yelp<p>Agreed.<p>But let's just say, they win. Would this force sites like Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook to go the YouTube route and pay the really popular ones?<p>--well anyone can make money on YouTube, but unless your popular, your not going to make anything significant--<p>People already do this with sponsored tweets and pics, but it's not Twitter that's actually paying them.<p>I wonder why YouTube decided it's a good idea (obviously it was/is).
This suit has no merit. If it did, then every FB, Twitter, Google, Amazon, etc. user would have to start getting paid at sign up. It doesn't make sense. The point of rating/reviewing a service/product is that you want to share the ups and downs with other people, so they make an educated selection. I personally enjoy reading reviews of restaurants and always give a place a chance if there are few unfavorable reviews. I also like writing my own reviews and even though I might have once thought that I should be paid (like a good wine connoisseur) I know that that I would've never reviews anything from the start, if getting paid was the goal.<p>This blog post reminded my of that one commercial (has anyone see it?), which I find very annoying, about joining someone's list. Perhaps these Yelp users should pay to review as they don't quite deserve the Yelper title.
You might say this is frivolous lawsuit, and I'd agree. The plaintiffs have zero chance of winning, there is no coercion, there is no semblance of employment.<p>But.<p>Take a moment to think. What is the value of a website like this, without the user-generated content? A Yelp with no reviews, no photos, etc. is just a phonebook. Alternatively, a restaurant review with no platform, no audience is just a journal entry. It's symbiotic.<p>Maybe that's obvious. Ok, so. Yelp gets paid. Why don't the reviewers get paid? Too easy to game? Too impractical? Because people will do it for free anyway?<p>Musicians and exhibitionists will do it for free, too. That doesn't mean they are creating no value. It would be good if Yelp reviewers could be paid. It would be good if it were possible to pay people for the value they create voluntarily.
I wish the US legal system would make changes to discourage these types of frivolous lawsuits. It seems like many suits are intended to force the defendant to settle even though the suit itself has no merit.<p>I wonder if the # of frivolous lawsuits would go decline if the suing party were forced to pay the defendant's legal fees if the suing party lost.
An aside, according to the lawsuit:
Writers can receive "Elite" status and are given titles such Duke, Duchess, Baron, or Baroness, the complaint states."<p>Really? Oh man, what people will do for "achievements"! Personally, I think the lawsuit is bogus.
so if this lawsuit were to win, would this be the beginning of the end for user generated content sites?<p>Not that I think they'll win. Its a bit of a stretch to call these reviewers employees unless there is something missing from the article (I've never heard of Yelp before so I don't know much about them).
They probably Googled for lawyer and picked the one with the most 5* reviews that he had paid for.<p>Or they met some drunk guy in a bar who said he was a lawyer is the other option.<p>Bet the Judge will go into his chambers after this one and have a very good laugh.
i will risk my karma here and say that if all sites were required to pay for user's contribution, that would force sites to charge visitors for using sites, and this might in turn would stop this crazy ads mania and convert sites to subscription-only.