Avvo Wins First Amendment Defense in Lawyer-Ranking Suit

by Greg Beck

A while back I wrote about a lawsuit by Seattle attorneys against the website Avvo.com, which provides rankings of lawyers. This week the Western District of Washington solidly rejected all plaintiffs' claims and granted Avvo's motion to dismiss the case.

While expressing skepticism about the usefulness of lawyer rankings, the court held the ratings to be protected opinion under the First Amendment. As the court noted, it is obvious to any reasonable reader that Avvo's numerical ranking of lawyers is subjective and does not convey any facts capable of being proved true or false. That decision is good news for any websites or other media that provide reviews. A review of a product, service, lawyer, or anything else is inherently subjective, and the targets of unfavorable reviews shouldn't be able to recover damages any time they disagree with a reviewer's opinion.

The court also held that the website was not subject to Washington's Consumer Protection Act because providing an information clearinghouse about lawyers to the public is not "trade or commerce" as used in the Act. Like many other plaintiffs in Internet cases, the plaintiffs here made the mistake of claiming that placing advertising on the website made the site "commercial." But if communications became commercial whenever accompanied by advertising, even the New York Times would have to be regarded as commercial speech. Courts are wise to recognize that speakers sometimes like to be compensated for their time, and supporting communications with advertising does not change the nature of the underlying speech.

Lawyer ratings will never be perfect, but consumers generally benefit from access to more information about the products and services they use. This decision is therefore a victory for consumers.

Comments

[Eric Turkewitz]

I think you can call it a victory for the First Amendment, not a victory for consumers. For consumers, it it is neither a win or a loss if, as the judge said, the rankings are "ludicrous."

[Greg]

Eric, I'm not sure the ratings really are "ludicrous." I don't pretend to understand the details of the system, but the ratings seem to at least take into account some factors that are relevant to consumer choice. But even if Avvo's ratings were totally useless, I still see the decision as a victory for consumers because of the larger holding that ratings are protected opinion. I tend to think consumers will benefit from more information, taking subjective ratings as one source of information but ultimately making their own decisions. I also think ratings are particularly useful in the lawyer context, where consumers often have very little access to information outside of the yellow pages.