This week, Judge Lasnik of the Western District of Washington ruled in favor of Avvo’s online rankings in a 10-page order upholding the right of attorneys and consumers to both create and contribute to user-generated attorney ratings.
“To the extent that their lawsuit has focused a spotlight on how ludicrous the rating of attorneys (and judges) has become, more power to them. To the extent that they seek to prevent the dissemination of opinions regarding attorneys and judges, however, the First Amendment precludes their cause of action,” Lasnik wrote.
Avvo provides a system where every lawyer is ranked according to information provided by the lawyer, public records (such as disciplinary actions), endorsements from colleagues, and feedback from current and past clients. Avvo then ranks each lawyer from 1 to 10 using a proprietary system that applies different weights to these data.
For example, I am rated “Good” with a score of 6.5, while Seattle Trademark Lawyer, David Atkins (one of my favorite bloggers) scores a “superb” rating of 9.6. I’ve got some catching up to do.
While this case is more about free expression than copyright, it does highlight some of the trickier concepts in the evolving area of user-generated content. Avvo–while actively soliciting content from its users–claims copyright in all materials on its site. Arguably, there are multiple authors, each having some interest in the content to which they contributed. Also, to the extent that Avvo is reposting public records, it cannot claim copyright in these materials.
Unfortunately, none of these important issues were evaluated by the Cour. The case focused on consumer protection and whether Avvo had the right to make such user-generated content available in the first place. The plaintiffs may still appeal the decision, but here’s hoping they’ll leave the court to resolving more important disputes.