Civil and Human Rights

Businesses That Ban Bad Reviews, Congress is Coming for You

California’s recently passed law forbidding anti-disparagement clauses in a business’ terms of sale, could soon get a national review, as Congress looks to take up a similar measure.

 

BY JEREMY QUITTNER

 

On Tuesday, lawmakers introduced a bill that would make it illegal for companies to penalize customers who post negative reviews online. 

 

The Consumer Review Freedom Act, introduced in the House by California Democrats Eric Swalwell and Brad Sherman, follows legislation signed by Governor Jerry Brown in California last week which bans so-called anti-disparagement clauses.

 

The legislation is a response to businesses that seek to prevent people from leaving negative feedback on sites like Yelp and TripAdvisor, which allow anyone to publicly proclaim their opinions about a company’s products and services. Some businesses have sought to do some damage control by inserting anti-disparagement clauses deep within the legalese of their customer agreements, laying out penalties for public airing of grievances.

 

Here’s the skinny: anti-disparagement clauses are a bad idea, and they’re probably unenforceable. In California they are now illegal, and that may soon be the national standard. 

 

Not fans of fine print, most consumers are unaware that they have essentially waived their rights to free speech related to the company, and that’s led to a number of significant lawsuits over the past few years. More than a few companies have attempted to collect damages from vocal customers. 

 

In one particularly well-known case, called Palmer v. Kleargear, a U.S. District Court Judge in Utah ruled against Kleargear, an online retailer, which had tried to slap a customer with a $3,500 fee when his wife posted complaints about the company’s customer service online. The customer assumed the fee was frivolous and didn’t pay it, and Kleargear eventually reported him to a credit agency, which damaged his credit. The judge ruled against the company and ordered it to pay $300,000 in damages.  

 

California’s law imposes a fine of up to $10,000 on businesses that seek to squash bad consumer reviews by inserting such clauses into contacts and requiring customers to sign them.  

 

Nineteen other states have what’s known as anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation laws on their books, according to the Digital Media Law Project. While most of these laws don’t appear to be nearly as comprehensive as California’s law, federal legislation could be. Swalwell and Sherman’s bill would definitively make anti-disparagement clauses unenforceable, but would reportedly allow them between businesses and their employees. 

 

And some legal experts applauded the prospect of consumer protections.

 

“California’s new law is an important recognition that corporations should not be allowed to use the law’s coercive power to suppress valuable speech about how businesses serve consumers,” says David Gans, civil rights director for the Constitutional Accountability Center. And “our legal system should not permit corporations to retaliate against speech that criticizes their performance.”

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
January 13, 2025

CAC RELEASE: At Stanley Oral Argument, Questioning Focuses on Narrow Ground for Resolving Employment Discrimination Case in Favor of a Retiree with a Disability

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Stanley v....
Civil and Human Rights
December 30, 2024

Top Contributor Essays of 2024

The Regulatory Review
The Regulatory Review is pleased to revisit our top regulatory essays of 2024, each authored by...
Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2024

Podcast (We the People): Can Tennessee Ban Medical Transitions for Transgender Minors?

National Constitution Center
A Tennessee law prohibits transgender minors from receiving gender transition surgery and hormone therapy. Professor Kurt...
Civil and Human Rights
December 4, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court Should Not Turn Equal Protection Clause on its Head in Case about Medical Care for Transgender Adolescents

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in United States...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District

In Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether lost educational opportunities are compensable under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Stanley v. City of Sanford

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment.