In-House Counsel Guidebook: How to Handle Internet Defamation and Online Reputation Attacks August 2014 | Page 15

13
users to report these reviews and Yelp will consider investigating
and taking the appropriate action. Yelp also prohibits a reviewer
from publishing an individual’s name or other private information
“unless you’re referring to service providers who are commonly
identified by their full names.” We have been successful in citing
these provisions to convince Yelp to remove certain harmful content.
Wikipedia, meanwhile, has its own deletion procedures to address
bad content, including pages solely intended to disparage their
subjects. For instance, certain “so obviously inappropriate” content
is automatically subject to deletion, whereas other situations require
proposing deletion or there being a discussion amongst editors.
Additionally, when an article or page conflicts with Wikipedia’s
policies (such as an article about an executive failing to meet its
“Biographies of living persons” standards) an attorney can submit
a letter to Wikipedia editors detailing why the article should be
removed.
Contacting other media: Another strategy that a company can
pursue involves contacting newspapers and other news outlets,
and, similarly, asking them to remove damaging material. While
each news outlet’s policy will vary, we have found that many news
organizations will remove outdated information. For example, if a
business is charged with a crime or has had a lawsuit filed against
it, and that information is published, and then some time after the
charge or lawsuit is dropped or resolved favorably for the business,
that business can ask the news outlet to remove the outdated articles.
This works in a surprising number of cases. In light of the recent
European ruling that allows individuals and businesses to petition

defamationremovalattorneys.com