News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Richmond Italian restaurant waging war on Yelp. Parent comment

Re:Richmond Italian restaurant waging war on Yelp by mnw21cam on Thursday September 18, 2014 @09:29AM (#8335053)
It's interesting that Yelp refer to their terms of service in their letter to the restaurant. Since this is all being done behind the restaurant's back, and they will not have signed up to any terms of service, that is completely irrelevant. Yelp has no legal contract with the restaurant.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Richmond Italian restaurant waging war on Yelp by mkopinsky on Thursday September 18, 2014 @04:51PM (#8337561)
Yelp is pointing out to the restaurant that they're asking customers to violate the customers' TOS with Yelp. Nowhere is it insinuated that they themselves have an agreement with yelp.

It is not being done behind the restaurant's back. The restaurant is paying the customers (in free pizza) to leave the feedback.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Richmond Italian restaurant waging war on Yelp by sjwright on Thursday September 18, 2014 @08:53PM (#8338491)
It's not the restaurant's responsibility to enforce Yelp's terms of service.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Richmond Italian restaurant waging war on Yelp by harshreality on Thursday September 18, 2014 @09:43AM (#8335122)
Tortious interference with the contract Yelp has with its users (if Yelp's sign-up clickthrough agreement is enforceable).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Richmond Italian restaurant waging war on Yelp by Retric on Thursday September 18, 2014 @11:01AM (#8335559)
FYI: Tortuous interference is causing harm by unlawful means. Otherwise things like a union protest would be illegal.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Richmond Italian restaurant waging war on Yelp by tsaoutourpants on Thursday September 18, 2014 @02:29PM (#8336816)
Not quite, actually. The elements of tortious interference vary by state but are roughly:

1) The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties. 2) Knowledge of that relationship by a third party. 3) Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship. 4) Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach. 5) The contractual relationship is breached. 6) Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.

Yelp may have a case for tortious interference against the restaurant if they are paying customers to break their Yelp terms. Yelp still sucks.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Richmond Italian restaurant waging war on Yelp by Retric on Thursday September 18, 2014 @03:47PM (#8337213)
Your missing a major caveat. Completion is still encouraged so for example poaching employees is still generally legal. As long as you don't use "improper means or methods".

http://www.troutmansanders.com/files/upload/Tortious_Interfe...

I would agree in this case Yelp would probably not be laughed out of court. However, that's a fairly low bar and IANAL.

[ Parent | on HN ]