Yelp Sued for Extortion—Again

A year ago, we first covered the extortion rumblings against local review site Yelp. Business owners claimed that Yelp offered to remove negative reviews—for a price. Yelp disputed the allegations, but did add a feature for business owners to respond to negative reviews last April.

But apparently the other practices haven’t ceased, according to two suits recently filed against Yelp. Last week, a class action suit was filed in a Los Angeles federal court, and this week another suit alleging extortion by the site was filed in California as well.

The first suit,Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital Inc. v. Yelp Inc., alleges “the company’s employees call businesses demanding monthly payments in the guise of advertising contracts, in exchange for removing or modifying negative reviews.” The second suit, D’Ames Day Spa v. Yelp, makes a similar accusation, stating that Yelp removed 13 of 14 positive reviews because the spa wouldn’t buy advertising on the site.

Yelp has responded to the allegations in a blog post, “Different Day, Different Lawyer, Same Meritless Claim: A Classic Race to the Courthouse.” Yelp points to a paragraph from the suit where the spa owner says she encouraged customers to leave reviews on the site. Said Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman:

As we have explained in the past, solicited reviews, more so than naturally occurring ones, are more likely to be detected by Yelp’s review filter, which we employ to protect consumers from shill reviews and businesses from malicious reviews from competitors.

Stoppelman says they’re taking both cases seriously—but they’re both without merit and Yelp is confident they’ll prevail.

What do you think? Is Yelp extorting SMBs, or is it the other way around?

Turkey Suing Google for $47M in Back Taxes

Dear World:

Google is advertising in your countries.

Duh.

Turkey has recently determined that Google owes them $47M US (71M Turkish lira) in back taxes on advertising sold in Turkey. The government maintains that because Google sells advertising in Turkey and maintains an office and registered subsidiary in the country.

Google, on the other hand, points out that “it runs its ad network operations from Ireland and thus is not obliged to pay taxes in Turkey merely because it owns a subsidiary there.” The suit recognizes that bills and checks (or should I say cheques?) for such advertising are addressed from/to the company’s European headquarters in Dublin.

Says TechCrunch:

In a statement, Google said it is acting in accordance with the tax laws of every country in which it operates, including Turkish laws, and that its negotiations with the government on this issue are ongoing. . . .

We’ve also been in touch with a Turkish lawyer, who tells us the government is making a valid claim, pointing out that Google has set up a full-fledged company called Google Reklamcılık ve Pazarlama Ltd. Şti. (which means Google Advertising and Marketing Ltd.) in Turkey rather than what he refers to as a ‘liaison’ branch. Had it done the latter, says the lawyer, the company would have had to pay very little or no taxes at all.

Personally, I’m a little skeptical of the Turkish government’s claim, mostly because if Google has really been taxable all this time (and since Google is the #1 online and search ad company in Turkey), they (the government or Google) would have figured this out a lot sooner. Did the Turkish government just figure out they could tax Google? Or is this, as TechCrunch points out, just a bargaining tactic tor force Google’s negotiations to go faster?

(Note: the Turkish government says they’ve determined this after a year of investigating. Again, a year? It doesn’t take a year to figure out that someone should be paying you taxes, especially not if a Turkish lawyer can figure it out in one email. If they really wanted the taxes, they could have indicated that Google should be paying taxes at the beginning of the investigation instead of stalling a year while Google racked up more income that they could penalize. I think being dishonest like that should be reason enough to lose the suit.)

Here’s what I think: if you really want to tax Google, countries of the world, then do it—but pass a new law that they can’t get out of. Don’t try to cobble together a legal argument, backform your present laws that may or may not fit the situation, or stall an entire year to try to squeeze more out of them. Because, after all, taxing Internet companies for selling stuff in your jurisdiction has worked really well in New York, North Carolina, etc.

What do you think? Will Turkey get their cash, will the case get thrown out, or are they really just hoping for Google to settle for any amount? Will this make Google reluctant to operate in that country in the future?