Late last month a Virginia court lifted an injunction against a Fairfax woman who had been ordered to remove parts of negative Yelp reviews of a D.C. contractor pending a trial over her claims. Public Citizen, who along with the ACLU came forward to help defend the woman, explained:

Jane Perez had been ordered to remove parts of a negative review she made about a contractor named Christopher Dietz. She also was barred from repeating those claims in other reviews. Public Citizen argued that the contractor could get damages if, after a full trial, a jury agrees that Perez made false claims about him that meet the standard for libel. Because such a process has not occurred, forcing Perez to remove her comments amounted to censorship.

“The decision confirms the importance of not shutting down public discussion on the Internet just because someone doesn’t like what’s being talked about,” said Paul Alan Levy, an attorney for Public Citizen. “Review sites like Yelp are vehicles for the free flow of ideas by helping consumers make informed decisions on how to spend their hard-earned dollars.”

In a brief December 28 ruling, the Virginia Supreme Court stated that the injunction levied against Perez “was not justified and that respondents have an adequate remedy at law,” which means that Dietz will be able to collect damages after a trial if he can prove that what Perez wrote about him on Yelp was false. In her Yelp reviews of Dietz’s work, Perez said he had damaged her home, submitted invoices for work he did not do and stolen jewelry from her home. In his lawsuit, Dietz claimed the reviews cost him $300,000 worth of business.