IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA ____________________________________

RECORD NO. 140242 ____________________________________

YELP, INC., Non-Party Respondent-Appellant,

v. HADEED CARPET CLEANING,

Plaintiff-Appellee. ______________________________________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT-APPELLANT YELP, INC.

MATTHEW J. ERAUSQUIN,

ANDREW CROCKER

VSB#65434

(Pro Hac Vice Pending)

Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C. Electronic Frontier Foundation

1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600

815 Eddy Street

Alexandria, VA 22314

San Francisco, CA 94109

Tel: 703-273-7770

Tel: 415-463-9333

Fax: 888-892-3512

Fax: 415-436-9993

matt@

andrew@

Counsel for Amicus Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation July 30, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE................................... 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................... 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................ 2

STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................ 2

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR....................................................................... 2

ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 2

I. ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS ARE REGULARLY SUBJECTED TO HARASSING TACTICS INTENDED TO CHILL THEIR SPEECH ................................................................................. 4

II. ONLINE ANONYMOUS SPEECH, INCLUDING REVIEWS AND CRITICISM OF BUSINESSES, IS ENTITLED TO FULL FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION............................................................ 7

A. Anonymous Online Speech Is Protected by the First Amendment ............................................................................... 7

B. Reviews and Criticism of Businesses Are a Highly Valuable Component of Online Discourse and Are Not Commercial Speech .................................................................................... 10

III. IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE HADEED TO MAKE A SUFFICIENT EVIDENTIARY SHOWING DEMONSTRATING A COMPELLING NEED BEFORE ALLOWING UNMASKING OF ANONYMOUS SPEAKERS ...................................................................................... 14

A. Anonymous Speakers Enjoy a Qualified Privilege under the First Amendment ..................................................................... 14

i

B. The First Amendment Requires That a Defamation Plaintiff Must Make a Prima Facie Showing with Specific Evidence Supporting Its Claim ................................................................ 16

C. Because Virginia Code ? 8.01-407.1 As Construed by the Court of Appeals Fails to Require a Prima Facie Showing with Specific Evidence Supporting the Plaintiff's Claim, It Does Not Satisfy the First Amendment ................................... 20

IV. SUBPOENA JURISDICTION OVER YELP IN VIRGINIA WAS NOT PROPER .................................................................................. 22 A. Historically, State Sovereignty Has Limited Subpoena Power over Foreign Non-parties, Even When a Court May Have Personal Jurisdiction and the Non-party Has Been Correctly Served ..................................................................................... 22 B. The Appropriate Means to Resolve Subpoena Power Over Yelp Is To Go Through the California Courts .......................... 25

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 27

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) ......................................................................... 10

AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-1058, 752 F.3d 990 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ............................................................ 7

Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) ............................................................... 7

Bellis v. Commonwealth, 402 S.E.2d 211 (1991) ..................................................................... 24

Best Western Int'l v Doe, No. CV-06-1537-PHX-DGC, 2006 WL 2091695 (D. Ariz. Jul. 25, 2006) ...................................................................... 17

Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (1983) ........................................................................... 12

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485 (1984) ......................................................................... 14

Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999) ..................................................................... 8, 14

Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980) ......................................................................... 12

Colorado Mills, LLC v. SunOpta Grains and Foods Inc., 269 P.3d. 731 (Colo. 2012) .............................................................. 23

Craft v. Chopra, 907 P.2d 1109 (Okla. 1995) ............................................................. 23

Dendrite Int'l v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. App. Div. 2001)........................................... passim

iii

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download