https://unichrone.com/pt/courses/it-security-governance/cissp-certification-training/lisbon

As for the legal analysis and whether this is more proof that courts are getting tired of Section 230, I remain cautiously optimistic. In my view, the lesson here is very clear — the CDA remains important, but it still has limits that shouldn’t be pushed to extremes. One limit is that website owners cannot make false statements about their own operations; i.e., claiming to be neutral when they’re not. This should be a no-brainer.

Another limit is that website owners (probably) can’t actively pressure companies into joining a paid program….and note the key word is “actively”. Can a website owner apply passive pressure by refusing to help a non-paying individual/company? Legally yes (morally, uhh….). But the line is arguably crossed when the website owner takes active steps to unnaturally increase pressure such as by filtering/blocking positive reviews (recall that 230(c)(2) contains a good faith requirement when content is removed/blocked) or by doing other things that create new harm beyond that caused by the original bad reviews themselves. I know Yelp has beaten claims of this sort, but seriously — if a website owner removes good reviews and replaces them with bad ones just to pressure a company into paying them, that really stinks. Maybe it’s time to create a new rule that says websites need to certify (and disclose) how they rank/organize reviews, and whether they accept money to alter the order of reviews.

Anyway, if ConsumerAffairs was doing bad things like this to increase sales, then I have no problem with this ruling…..as long as it’s understood as a narrow result limited to the bad facts alleged in the case.

“Carman acquired ConsumerAffairs in 2010, at which time he modified its business model in order to earn increased revenue by inducing manufacturers and providers whose products and services were reviewed on the ConsumerAffairs website to pay fees to become accredited members entitled to preferential treatment in the display and use of consumer ratings.”

Ten years ago, I represented Justin Leonard and his infomercialscams.com web site (for example, http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2007/12/the-hazards-of.html) — it was a genuine review site that included his informed reporting, which is what Consumer Affairs used to be, albeit on a somewhat larger scale. Some of the businesses it was trying to extort took the newly owned operation down.

But Leonard decided to get out of that business; he sold the site to folks who turned out to be scammers. Sad to see what this publication has apparently become.

I say apparently because this is just a preliminary judicial take based on the recond created in response to an anti-SLAPP motion. The merits are yet to be litigated.