Frank F. Matthews wrote:
> They aren't obliged but it helps if the public gets the information that
> their site is useless. One of the things I like about TripAdvisor
> (among its faults) is that they include a number of negative reviews.
> It does help their credibility. They may still be managing the data but
> it does look better.
>From a liability perspective, I would think you would not want to
manage data beyond that in the guidelines. Let's assume, for a moment,
that numerous negative reviews come in about a particularly hotel
primarily ascribing safety issues. A couple of "plant" reviews come
in talking about how safe and clean the hotel is. The advisory
service, contrary to their guidelines, only posts the "good" reviews.
Relying upon the reputation of the advisory service, I decide to book a
room at the hotel. I am badly injured and the injury can be traced
directly to the safety concerns in the numerous reviews which were not
put up.
Certainly I can go after the hotel. What about the on line site?
Perhaps. They purportedly held themselves out as providing opinions
and reviews from other travellers (as long as those reviews met their
stated guidelines). The "negative" reviews met the stated guidelines,
but were not published becuase they did not meet unstated guidelines
(and because it was in the financial benefit of the site to not publish
them). The site made a "decision" to not publish and thereby assumed a
duty. I reasonably relied upon them. And I was damaged. I think
that they open themselves up for liability.
In contrast, if they only apply the guidelines that they have stated
they apply, then they didn't engage in additional conduct which assumed
a duty to me.
|