Reply to thread

I think the article nails it when it states that they don't really think the Judge was technologically savvy enough to actually understand what was going on and what the actual sentence was. It's not the reviewers fault that they rank higher than the restaurant, it's the restaurants own fault for not owning page 1. Unless the reviewer blatantly lies, the review should stay. I really think it just came down to the Judge understanding Google, SEO and ranks.