Archives 2013

A class action lawsuit filed in California seeks to get Yelpers paid for reviews. The lawsuit claims that Yelp runs a cult like environment and instead of paying the reviewers, it offers them badges,  titles such as “Elite”, praise,  free liquor and food, and free promotional Yelp attire, such as red panties with ‘Make Me Yelp!’

We spoke to one of the plaintiffs, Lilly Jueng, who is an Elite reviewer. She claimed that Yelp was very restrictive of what she was able to post and cancelled her account when they were not happy with a review that she left.  “Reviewers should be able to post any review they want on any public company without restrictions,” said Jueng.

The plaintiffs also claim that yelp often hosted parties for Elite reviewers and the Yelpers were expected to leave positive reviews for the restaurant hosting the event.

We also spoke to Daniel Bernath, one of the lead attorneys on the case. He stated: “A worker is not permitted to waive their rights to wages under the federal Fair Standards Labor Act.” Mr. Bernath feels that they have real good chance of winning the case based on current labor laws. He stated that it does not matter that some people may think this lawsuit is ridiculous, because the laws are build in a way that supports their claims. “The trial court judge will read the complaint and will apply the law. It is a settled law and we are confident that our clients will get paid for their labors.”

Our CEO, Pierre Zarokian, has written a more detailed article for  Search Engine Watch .

McMillan Law Group in San Diego has been sued for posting fake reviews on Yelp. McMillan apparently posted several reviews from the same IP address in their office. To their defense they claim that they had invited their clients to a party at their office and asked them to leave reviews from their computers. One of their clients has publicly confirmed this.

McMillan also claims that the lawsuit has no merit and it was done as a retaliation because Yelp lost a small claims case against them over an advertising dispute.

This is not the first time Yelp is suing over fake reviews. Several months ago a company called “Buy Yelp Reviews” was sued as well, which seems to have shut down now.

Read the full story by our CEO Pierre Zarokian on Search Engine Watch.

Our CEO Pierre Zarokian has written a new article about Bing’s alleged change of heart on removing court-ordered defamatory content from its search engine. Has Bing truly changed its policy?

If your online reputation has been tainted, you know how devastating it can be to have defamatory content about you or your company featured on the web for everyone to see. Major search engines such as Google and Yahoo are usually fair about the issue. If they receive an order from the court to remove defamatory content, they usually comply by removing it from their search indexes. And up until recently that was also the case with Bing. However, leading attorney who specialize in internet defamation law are claiming that Bing has changed its policy and no longer honors court orders.

Published in SearchEngineWatch.com, the article features interviews with leading reputation management attorneys, a spokesperson from Bing, and final words on the matter by reputation management guru Pierre Zarokian. Read the full article here.

Recently Yelp held a town hall meeting and invited a few business owners to attend so they can discuss their programs and answer any questions about Yelp Advertising services. However, the meeting backfired and turned out to be a complaint forum from pissed up businesses.  The audience got aggressive with their questions and complaints on how their legit reviews get filtered. However, Yelp only wanted to discuss the benefits of their advertising services.

LA Times was there to cover the story. Read more details here.

TheDirty has lost a lawsuit against Sarah Jones who claimed damaging posts were posted on thedirty.com about her that destroyed her reputation. This is a major victory for the reputation management industry as the judge has allowed the case to go through, while thedirty had claimed immunity due to the Communication Decency Act (CDA) which protects public forums from any liability when 3rd party content is posted.  Due to the owner Nik Richie making edits to posts, the judge did not accept the CDA as a defense.  Sarah Jones had previously admitted to having sex with a minor and got 5 years probation. However, the specific damaging post on The  Dirty was prior to that incident and stated that Sarah Jones as a cheerleader for the Bangles had sex with every member of a football team. The jury awarded $388K to Sarah Jones, but collection might be a problem as Nik has stated that he is $1 million in debt and that he would never pay a penny to Jones.  The Dirty plans to appeal the case.

Our CEO Pierre Zarokian has published two articles on Search Engine Watch and Examiner about this subject:

If you are looking to completely remove posts from Pissed Consumer, this may not be easy. PissedConsumer will not remove any negative reviews unless they get a court order to do so. This means that first you need to figure out who posted the review, then sue them and if you actually win, you can request the court to order a removal. This could be a very costly method, specially if you do not know who the posted is. In which case, you would need to file a “John Doe” lawsuit and then subpena the Pissed Consumer records to get the name, IP address and email address of the poster.  If they posted from an anonymous name and email, then you need to subpena the ISP provider to get the identification of the person owning the IP address at the time of the post.

The problem is that the ISP may not have any records and even then if the person posted the review from an anonymous IP, such as from a coffee shop then you are out of luck. By the time you are done, even if successful, this could cost you upwards of $20K to $30K.

So what other options do you have? 
There are 2 remaining options:
1) Try to find the original poster and try to resolve the situation or pay them to remove the listing. Although, we are not sure if Pissed Consumer would agree, as some sites such as Ripoff Report and TheDirty will not even remove reviews even if the original poster requests it.

2) You can hire a reputation management firm like us to help you remove them. We might be able to remove the listing from Google completely or push it down to second or third page of Google so it is not visible, but we would not be able to remove it from PissedConsumer. We have some unique ways of removing things quickly and we offer 100% money back guarantee with most our services. For details, contact us by calling the number on right or filling our contact form.

Read more about our PissedConsumer Post Removal Services.

RipOff Report is now offering for $89 per month a ongoing service of giving businesses 14 days to resolve complaints before a negative review is posted. Experts say that it may help boost rankings in Google and Bing.

Ripoff Report creates millions of dollars every year by charging implicated companies a flat cost based upon the number of problems have actually been made against them. Business are charged anywhere from $5,500 to even more than $100,000 to have their reports removed, however they only receive inspections rather than removal as advertised to them. If grievances have been dealt with according to the inspection, the website will permit a brand-new heading to be published above the initial post. However the initial complaint will never be eliminated touts owner Ed Magedson, proudly.

The questionable aspect of Ripoff report is that it does not right incorrect details without charge. Some implicate this to be extortion, however after numerous legal procedures, judicial bodies have stated that although they disapprove of the company practices that Magedson uses, because the postings are made by third parties, it can’t be labeled extortion.

Ever since L.A. County began to require public publishing of restaurant grades, the playing field has been incredibly leveled. A-rated restaurants as well as those with C’s had to bear all to public scrutiny, affecting business practices in the food industry greatly. Studies by Stanford and the University of Maryland calculated that customers rewarded eateries with 5% more revenue after the shift in practice, and those who failed to deliver a healthy environment dropped earnings by more than 20%. This kind of immediate response to consumer demand is what pushed New York City to do the same thing in 2010, although studies didn’t produce the same results.

Experts say that online reviews including Google and Yelp allow us to make informed choices before we eat at a restaurant. We no longer rely on health inspectors for information when quick access to fellow impartial foodies is all we need to determine where we want to eat. We can now easily hop on the internet and decide within a few seconds whether or not we want to eat at a particular place. We know that other customers are going to be honest about their experiences so we can trust them.

Other counties are starting to follow suit, as San Francisco has been publishing health inspections online since 2007. Apps like ABCEats in New York City make information instantly public. But government organizations are already using bad reviews to actually find unsanitary conditions before even entering the facility, giving restaurants less time to prepare for inspection. While researchers are developing algorithms to find subtle hints of fake reviews, reputation management may be needed for those who have been wrongly attacked.

If you have bad reviews on Yelp and need help with Yelp Review Removals or increasing your positive reviews, please visit our Yelp Review Removal page.

If you’ve ever suffered from nude or sexually suggestive photos of you posted online from an ex, you know how mortifying and out of control the whole situation can feel. Posting pictures of former partners online anywhere from sexually suggestive to explicit is considered “revenge porn” in the law making system.

Revenge Porn is highly damaging not only to an individual’s reputation, but their emotional well-being and confidence as well. Photographs meant to be something private and special are perverted and used as hateful backlash in the event of an altercation between two individuals. Lawmakers in California are appalled at this hateful behavior of posting private pictures of people online without their consent.

Once it hits the internet it becomes like a virus, and it can never go away. That is why revenge porn is so damaging. The bill presented by California State Senator Anthony Cannella has written a bill that makes revenge porn a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine and possibly a month in jail. The bill is a reaction against the tragedy of Audrie Pott’s suicide after a sexual assault by three peers at a party. Graphic photos were circulated around the school, and feeling like her life was completely ruined, took her life soon after.

Victims of revenge porn know that a bill from Sacramento is a small reprehension against their aggressors. They are left with their lives turned upside down with no hope of reconciliation. They feel their lives are forever tarnished, and that they will never fully recover from the trauma acted against them. Many websites like “Is Anyone Up” provides links to social media profiles opening the way for relentless harassment.

Extortion claims are acted on behalf of revenge porn websites for requiring a payment to take the photos down. Sometimes the best protection these people can turn to is simply burying of their pornographic links in Google Search Engines, but removing them completely is hard work. Hopefully the law will discourage future revenge porn due to criminal repercussions that may be associated with it.

If you need revenge porn removal service contact us.

Yelp is under attack again, and it’s the same old story. The social review site was recently featured in the Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times regarding a claim that it manipulates reviews and ratings to favor advertisers or punish non-advertisers.

In an effort to clear Yelp’s reputation, Vince Sollitto, Yelp’s vice president of communications and public affairs, wrote in a company blog post, “ Let me be clear: This claim is not – and has never been – true.”

However, many business owners continue to say otherwise. The problem? Good reviews are often filtered while negative reviews are posted in plain sight for the online world to see. The Los Angeles Times reported that many business owners are upset, concerned, or just plain confused about Yelp’s review filter. According to companies that have filed lawsuits against Yelp, sales agents have offered to fix the issue as long as they paid for advertising on the site.

Nevertheless, Yelp continues to deny these claims. According to the blog, there are three reasons why this claim is not true: 1) Independent research by Harvard Business School and Yale professors has not found a connection between advertising and Yelp’s filter system. 2) The courts continue to dismiss the claims. 3) A Google search reveals that a simple Google search reveals that there are plenty of non-advertisers with four and five-star ratings.

While Yelp has received a lot of criticism for its filters, it has also been a blessing to many businesses. A Harvard Business School study conducted in 2011 on the impact of consumer reviews on the restaurant industry found that a “one-star increase in Yelp rating leads to a 5-9 percent increase in revenue.” The study also found that customers prefer ratings with a higher number of reviews and whether the reviews are written by “elite” reviewers.

If you need help with Yelp reputation management, please visit our Yelp Review Removal page.