Monday, July 27, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Barring User From Criticizing Seller Not Actionable Per Se
Justices Say There’s No Liability Under ‘Yelp Law’ Absent Threat of Consequences if Term Is Violated
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district has held that a violation of what is known as the “Yelp Law,” barring terms of a transaction that prohibit derisive comments about the provider of goods or services, does not give rise to a cause of action unless accompanied by a threat of consequences for any such bad-mouthing.
Thursday’s unpublished opinion by Justice Audra Mori of Div. Four affirms a judgment of dismissal by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl following her sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. Kuhl interpreted Civil Code §1670.8 which provides, in part:
“(a) (1) A contract or proposed contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services may not include a provision waiving the consumer’s right to make any statement regarding the seller or lessor or its employees or agents, or concerning the goods or services.
“(2) It shall be unlawful to threaten or to seek to enforce a provision made unlawful under this section, or to otherwise penalize a consumer for making any statement protected under this section.
“(b) Any waiver of the provisions of this section is contrary to public policy, and is void and unenforceable.
“(c) Any person who violates this section shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for the first violation, and five thousand dollars ($5,000) for the second and for each subsequent violation, to be assessed and collected in a civil action brought by the consumer, by the Attorney General, or by the district attorney or city attorney of the county or city in which the violation occurred. When collected, the civil penalty shall be payable, as appropriate, to the consumer or to the general fund of whichever governmental entity brought the action to assess the civil penalty.”
Suit Against GoDaddy.com
Four persons sued GoDaddy.com, LLC and two related entities based on a violation of §1670.8(a)(1). GoDaddy operates an online store that sells domain names.
Its terms of service forbade purchasers from “making any statement that ‘contains false or deceptive language or unsubstantiated or comparative claims regarding GoDaddy or GoDaddy’s Services’ ” and also barred posting “any ‘content” on GoDaddy’s website “that could result in damage to GoDaddy’s business, operations, reputation or shareholders.’ ”
Kuhl ruled that there’s no liability under the first paragraph of the statute unless there is also a breach of the second paragraph. Mori agreed.
No Clear Signal
She observed “that the text of the statute fails to provide a clear and unmistakable intent to allow a private right of action for violations of subdivision (a)(1),” going on to say:
“Plaintiffs have not shown that section 1670.8’s text clearly and unmistakably creates a private right of action whenever a waiver described in subdivision (a)(1) is included in a contract. The differences between the two subdivisions permit a reasonable inference that the Legislature intended for subdivision (a)(1) to operate as a shield and for subdivision (a)(2) to provide the consumer with a sword when a seller threatens or takes action to enforce a waiver to stifle consumer speech.”
She declared:
““[P]laintiffs in this case have not shown there is a private right of action under section 1670.8 for solely including language proscribed by subdivision (a)(1) in a contract within the law’s scope. Plaintiffs did not allege that defendants engaged in conduct prohibited by subdivision (a)(2) and do not contend they could amend their complaint to do so. The trial court properly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.”
The case is Moss v. GoDaddy.com, B346188.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company