Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

It Will Soon Be Illegal To Punish Customers Who Criticize Businesses Online (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the let-em-have-it dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Congress has passed a law protecting the right of U.S. consumers to post negative online reviews without fear of retaliation from companies. The bipartisan Consumer Review Fairness Act was passed by unanimous consent in the U.S. Senate yesterday, a Senate Commerce Committee announcement said. The bill, introduced in 2014, was already approved by the House of Representatives and now awaits President Obama's signature. The Consumer Review Fairness Act -- full text available here -- voids any provision in a form contract that prohibits or restricts customers from posting reviews about the goods, services, or conduct of the company providing the product or service. It also voids provisions that impose penalties or fees on customers for posting online reviews as well as those that require customers to give up the intellectual property rights related to such reviews. The legislation empowers the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the new law and impose penalties when necessary. The bill also protects reviews that aren't available via the Internet.

100 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Well, I agree with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ..of course, it won't extend to protecting citizens who criticize the government (watch lists, nofly lists, harassment).

    1. Re:Well, I agree with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What about punishing customers after they are criticized online?

      Anyhow, it's a good first step to stopping corporations from being able to arbitrarily punish their customers.

    2. Re:Well, I agree with this by Geekenstein · · Score: 4, Funny

      ..of course, it won't extend to protecting citizens who criticize the government (watch lists, nofly lists, harassment).

      That law went into effect on December 15, 1791, along with 9 other good ones. You should read up on it sometime.

    3. Re:Well, I agree with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That law went into effect on December 15, 1791, along with 9 other good ones.

      And those 10 have been getting chipped away at, with increasing frequency. As Snowden remarked today, "the FBI is now openly issuing the general warrants that, in 1760, led John Adams to first dream of independence."

    4. Re:Well, I agree with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The legislation empowers the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the new law

      After President Drumpf takes office the FTC will be eliminated as part of his promise to eliminate job-killing regulations.

    5. Re:Well, I agree with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the FBI is now openly issuing the general warrants

      No kidding. Today there's a new Tor 0-day and its code looks a lot like the FBI's 2013 mass exploit "NIT" (Network Investigative Technique) against Tor.

    6. Re:Well, I agree with this by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2, Informative

      And those 10 have been getting chipped away at, with increasing frequency. As Snowden remarked today, "the FBI is now openly issuing the general warrants that, in 1760, led John Adams to first dream of independence."

      Really? Seems to me that their scope has been improved in a really big way. Namely, they all originally only applied at the federal level. Your state at the time was still able to have an official religion, was allowed to censor speech, you had no right to privacy, protection from warrant-less searches and seizures, and basically everything else.

    7. Re:Well, I agree with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You think you have protection from warrantless searches and seizures today? You think you have a right to privacy today? As for religion, some of the several States have done everything short of codifying one into law; good luck getting any contracts with the Beehive State if you aren't either Mormon or referred by one...

    8. Re:Well, I agree with this by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      You think you have protection from warrantless searches and seizures today? You think you have a right to privacy today?

      While it is somewhat debatable, overall I'd say yes on both counts, even compared to most other first world countries. Most of Europe, for example, requires your internet providers to log most of the stuff you do, which also extends to VPN providers. Countries in Europe that do not do this are a minority.

    9. Re:Well, I agree with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And those 10 have been getting chipped away at, with increasing frequency.

      I seemed to have missed the increasing frequency of soldier quartering.

    10. Re:Well, I agree with this by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, it did take time for the bill of rights to be considered applicable to the various states as well. For all the people out there who go on and on about how the US is the greatest country ever and that the constitution was divinely inspired are overlooking all the major flaws in the constitution.

      Your rights aren't guaranteed, meaning they can be abridged or ignored by the government and there's nothing you can really do about it as an individual. You have to rise up as a group to prevent this erosion, by voting for people who uphold rights, to protest when violations occur, and to push back when needed. Instead the population is more passive now, we've been told that we should be scared of terrorists so we've become willing to lose our rights and freedoms as long as the government promises to get rid of the bogeymen. After all, everyone is a big fan of rights for him or herself but it's rarer to be a fan of rights for people you don't like.

      The bill of rights are something of an anomaly, because the American colonies were not supporters of rights for individuals. The rights snuck their way in because the people who approved them for the most part thought that they wouldn't apply to other people, like slaves, or women, or foreigners, or other political parties, etc. Even the founding fathers and the earliest congresses were busy violating rights when they could.

    11. Re:Well, I agree with this by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      The US does not have an official right to privacy. It wants to snoop on your ISP also and the hurdle to implementing this is not the constitution but rather the unwillingness of congress to grant this power to the executive all at once. Overall I'd say some European countries actually give more rights than Americans, just a slightly different set.

    12. Re:Well, I agree with this by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      It's practically our duty to criticize the government and dog its every step with scrutiny.

    13. Re:Well, I agree with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "you had no right to privacy, protection from warrant-less searches and seizures"

      Funny that you should say that when several counties in California are in deep water due to warrant-less searches, illegally-broad wire taps, and more.

    14. Re:Well, I agree with this by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, when they were written, the only 'people' they applied to were white and male. Over time we've been expanding the scope of who are considered people as well. Hell Romani-Americans didn't even get to vote until 1992 (fixing that may, in fact, be the single best thing Bill Clinton did as president).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    15. Re:Well, I agree with this by dcavanaugh · · Score: 2

      "The US does not have an official right to privacy."

      Yes, it does, also known as the 4th amendment.

      "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

      The right to privacy in a public forum (or on a public network) is debatable, and the conduct of the US government is as the 4th amendment never existed. But it exists, at least on paper.

    16. Re:Well, I agree with this by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Right to privacy usually extends beyond that. The right to be secure in your houses, papers, and effects may or may not apply to spying on someone in thse street. "Unreasonable" is also a very fluid word that changes meaning depending upon the current mood in the country (ie, fear of terrorism may mean the public thinks it is reasonable to search phone records). Also the 4th amendment is a restriction to the government, but is not generally taken to prevent others from doing the spying, such as by newspapers, employers, ISPs, corporations.

  2. Could that apply to GAG orders on settlements? by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 2

    Because I think those provisions stand in the way of warning others of a crappy company.

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
    1. Re:Could that apply to GAG orders on settlements? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      It's only supposed to apply to form contacts a settlement would not fall under than.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    2. Re: Could that apply to GAG orders on settlements? by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      The question that floats to the top in my mind is: Would it apply to your Oracle use agreement?

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    3. Re: Could that apply to GAG orders on settlements? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      oracle came to my mind, also. you could be sued if you published benchmarks that included their sw and did not 'ask them, first' or some such BS.

      I'd like to see this law tested against someone big like oracle, in fact.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:Could that apply to GAG orders on settlements? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Guess what? You don't *HAVE* to agree to a settlement if you don't like the terms.

  3. Great... by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now here is my review of Slashdot.org:

    A+++. Would read again

    1. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is clearly a fraudulent review. A real review would give it an A++++++.

    2. Re:Great... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      And now downmodding you would be illegal!

      (And before anyone explains the law doesn't work like that, take a breath and relax)

  4. Congress has passed a law... by Freischutz · · Score: 2

    Congress has passed a law protecting the right of U.S. consumers to post negative online reviews without fear of retaliation from companies

    Congress managed to agree about something? Will wonders ever cease?

    1. Re:Congress has passed a law... by D00MSlayer · · Score: 2

      but you fail to recall the powers of the filibuster that the minority party still holds in the senate, and seeing as the republicans don't have a supermajority, the filibuster is still available.

    2. Re:Congress has passed a law... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Not for appropriations bills, they cannot be filibustered but only require majority votes... Which is how Obama Care came into being... You can do a lot in an appropriation bill... (And Undo a lot if you catch my drift.)

      Then there is the whole Bully Pulpit of the president where you can hold the opposing party's feet to the fire for saying "no" in the Senate and the eventual pillaging in the press which is possible for all those Senators that face re-election in 2 years... That Filibuster thing isn't nearly as strong as one would like to think... But hey, it IS still part of the Senate rules, for now, assuming nobody pulls out the nuclear option and changes it like we've been slowly inching closer and closer to. After all, the party NOT in power has eliminated the filibuster for a number of Senate actions already, what's a few more?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Congress has passed a law... by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Too bad the Democrats put the nuclear option into the rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      It has to suck to be them. Particularly one of the 52 D senators that voted to change the rule. We should send them all nice 'thank you' notes, perhaps with a pacifier.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Congress has passed a law... by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      If the Republicans want to rubber stamp a clown cabinet, so be it. Should be a fun four years.

    5. Re:Congress has passed a law... by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Too bad the Democrats put the nuclear option into the rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      It has to suck to be them. Particularly one of the 52 D senators that voted to change the rule. We should send them all nice 'thank you' notes, perhaps with a pacifier.

      So what? There's no system of government that can withstand absolutely terrible politicians.

      If the GOP hadn't decided on a policy of blanket obstructionism then Democrats wouldn't have needed to axe the filibuster.

      And if the GOP had nominated a sane and competent Presidential candidate there wouldn't be a need for a filibuster now.

      If you want to protect your country then stop trying to craft rules that will stop authoritarians and start focusing on not electing them.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:Congress has passed a law... by butchersong · · Score: 1

      I just hope they can pass more to protect us from all the other mean things about this world.

    7. Re:Congress has passed a law... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      If the Republicans want to rubber stamp a clown cabinet, so be it. Should be a fun four years.

      Cabinet is just some of the President's direct reports. No big deal. He can just wait until the next Senate recess and make recess appointments. Meanwhile, he can talk to anybody he wants WITHOUT a confirmation, and if congress leaves open a cabinet post with special powers, he can just wield them directly, himself, until it's filled. That means he can either rubber-stamp the UNofficial advisor's advice, or substitute his own decisions. That's more power for him than even having the Senate confirm a puppet (who might turn out to be Pinnochio and go his own way on something).

      What IS a big deal is appointment of federal judges, federal appellate judges, and Supreme Court justices. The Ds applied the "nuclear option" to the first two, so expect the Rs to follow suit - and extend it to the third if the Ds get in the way.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    8. Re:Congress has passed a law... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      No, we just got a majority is all. Current politics means there are two and only two positions on every issue, and legislators usually vote in lock step with their party overlords. 50%+1 is all you need. Thus one side wins or the other side wins, always, since a tie means that the side opposed is the winner. If congress did not pass this law then perhaps you could say tthat congress managed to agree to not pass the law?

    9. Re:Congress has passed a law... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It has to suck to be them. Particularly one of the 52 D senators that voted to change the rule. We should send them all nice 'thank you' notes, perhaps with a pacifier.

      Durwut? It was pitifully, painfully obvious that the nanosecond that Dems complained "but but but you need 60 votes!" under a GOP White House and Senate, that the filibuster would be repealed.

    10. Re:Congress has passed a law... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      They can agree on anything now, it means nothing. The president elect and house leaders have both vowed to overturn every law signed by Obama within the first few months of Trump taking office.

    11. Re:Congress has passed a law... by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      No, we just got a majority is all. Current politics means there are two and only two positions on every issue, and legislators usually vote in lock step with their party overlords. 50%+1 is all you need. Thus one side wins or the other side wins, always, since a tie means that the side opposed is the winner. If congress did not pass this law then perhaps you could say tthat congress managed to agree to not pass the law?

      Your representative democracy is badly broken. Same goes for the entire electoral process.

    12. Re:Congress has passed a law... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      This law especially goes against Trump's wishes. He wants to increase laws that protect businesses and individuals from criticism- not give individuals MORE rights to criticize.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    13. Re:Congress has passed a law... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The Ds repealed the filibuster dimwit.

      They also nominated the worst candidate for president in the history of the USA.

      They made their bed, now they can enjoy the ride.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:Congress has passed a law... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      That is an interesting theory, because the last time we had an economic meltdown, Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    15. Re:Congress has passed a law... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      And if the GOP had nominated a sane and competent Presidential candidate there wouldn't be a need for a filibuster now.

      The exact same can be said of the Democrats. They had a great candidate running, but the Party, in league with the media, sabotaged his campaign so they could coronate their warmonger queen instead.

      If you want to protect your country then stop trying to craft rules that will stop authoritarians and start focusing on not electing them.

      That's some serious hypocrisy there, coming from someone apparently supporting the Democrats and Hillary. It's hard to not elect these people when the elections are rigged and there's massive election fraud going on in the primaries.

    16. Re:Congress has passed a law... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The Rs don't need to touch the rules now. Just leave them as they are.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    17. Re:Congress has passed a law... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The Ds repealed the filibuster dimwit.

      After the GOP threatened to do so under Bush, despite Bush getting every single thing he wanted (save Clinton's SS privatization and Justice Meyers). And only for non-SCOTUS judicial nominations - dimmerwit.

      So WYP, DrunkWumpus? What does that do to change the point that Republicans would jettison the filibuster the nanosecond the Dems insisted they have 60 votes to name a post office?

  5. Re:And of course, illegal to criticize the POTUS.. by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is there to criticize? He just named a former Goldman Sachs guy the next Treasury Secretary. Truly a man of the common people. He is gonna bring all your jobs back I am sure...

  6. Oracle Benchmarks? by Luthair · · Score: 1

    Doesn't Oracle have some clause about not being able to post benchmarks of their database? Would this apply here since its arguably a review?

    1. Re:Oracle Benchmarks? by tranquilidad · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting question, the bill only applies to "form contracts" that can't be negotiated. Would this bill apply when there's a non-negotiable clause in an otherwise negotiable contract?

    2. Re:Oracle Benchmarks? by roninmagus · · Score: 1

      The law allows for certain restrictions on speech, including:

      (1) trade secrets or commercial or financial information;

      I assume this will allow Oracle to ban you from pushing benchmarks, or allow google ads to prevent you from disclosing your income.

    3. Re:Oracle Benchmarks? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Most laws like this don't apply to corporations / businesses as customers. I don't see any reason Joe Sixpack couldn't post a benchmark or a review. But I doubt that the protection extends to business to business contracts which I would assume is basically 100% of oracles market.

    4. Re:Oracle Benchmarks? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I won't prevent people from saying ... "We ran our benchmark test against several database engines, and Oracle performed the worst (trust us) . Unfortunately we are unable to post their results, but here is how everyone else did ..."

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Oracle Benchmarks? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      I won't prevent people from saying ... "We ran our benchmark test against several database engines, and Oracle performed the worst (trust us) . Unfortunately we are unable to post their results, but here is how everyone else did ..."

      And post a table of results leaving the row on which the Oracle name/data would be blank. Pretty sure they can't keep you from simply implying things... :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  7. Will it stand? by roninmagus · · Score: 1

    I think it's probably a good thing too, but will it stand the test of judicial review?

    If I am a business and I want to put a non-disparagement clause or review gag order into my contracts, I don't see why I can't. Nobody is forced to do business with me, and they entered knowingly (presumably) into the agreement.

    1. Re:Will it stand? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Interesting view point but a long way away from the rest of the world. Potentially yours is a more common viewpoint in the US but at least in Aus there are many many many clauses which are not permitted when dealing with joe public individual. These rules are not in place when it is a business to business contract though.

    2. Re:Will it stand? by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "If I am a business and I want to put a non-disparagement clause or review gag order into my contracts, I don't see why I can't."

      Because:
      a) you are allowed to be impersonated as a business under the understandment that you'll abide to the laws of the land.
      b) business are ultimately allow to do their stuff for as long as it fits the common benefit.
      c) the legislator understands there's a strong assymetry of power between the business and the individual and so chooses to protect the individual under the light of a) and b) above.

      "Nobody is forced to do business with me, and they entered knowingly (presumably) into the agreement."

      By making your contract a single non-negotiable entity, you are open to a) the contract to be understood in the most favourable way for the party that didn't have a saying on its redaction and b) for parts of it to be nevertheless considered void and null without this meaning, on its sole support, for the rest of the contract the rest of the contract not being enforceable.

    3. Re:Will it stand? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I think it's probably a good thing too, but will it stand the test of judicial review?

      If I am a business and I want to put a non-disparagement clause or review gag order into my contracts, I don't see why I can't. Nobody is forced to do business with me, and they entered knowingly (presumably) into the agreement.

      First amendment guarantees the right to free speech.
      At best you can sue a person for the direct damage they caused if their statements were false. Most likely you'd only be able to nullify the contract.

      You do not have the right to stop another person from speaking. Neither does the government, even though they often do.

    4. Re:Will it stand? by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      Not a lawyer, but I was trained in First Amendment law as part of my degree. The First Amendment does not apply to individuals or businesses limiting other individuals or businesses. First Amendment doesn't enter into this discussion. Contracts aren't speech. They're agreements between people, and the government does limit what types of things you can compel another person to do in a contract. Frequently, Congress has acted to limit asymetries of power... notice that this bill affects FORM CONTRACTS only ... that means the ones that are created for mass signatures... if you want to have a personalized contract -- one where you sign and then a company rep personally countersigns -- then I think this doesn't apply. But for that last bit, you would need to check with a lawyer.

    5. Re:Will it stand? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Contract law isn't absolute. the idea that it is is one of those oversimplifications that we're taught when we first learn about these things.

      This sort of clause was already probably unenforceable. The law makes this explicit. Unfair contracts have been a problem for some time and the law makes sure that such contracts are void. This is how contract law works. This is how any law works!

    6. Re:Will it stand? by houghi · · Score: 2

      FYI this goes for working contracts as well. I will sign almost anything, because I can not sign away basic rights.All I have to say when it goes to court :"But I was afraid that if I did not sign it, I would not get the job." End of discussion.
      This goes for working extra hours, working as a fake independent and other things.

      I know several people who had independent contracts, but where seen after 10 years as employees and the company had to pay all the extras that come with an amployee. This includes 13th month, paid holidays, bonusses that other empleyees got as well as the taxes on top of the payment.

      I live in Belgium, so YMMV and talk to a lawer specialized in the matter first or your union.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    7. Re:Will it stand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...understandment ?

    8. Re:Will it stand? by laughingcoyote · · Score: 1

      The reason contracts have any meaning whatsoever is because the law stands behind them. If someone breaks a contract, you can count on being able to take them to court and get the situation remedied.

      There are plenty of things you cannot put in a contract and expect a court to enforce. Some because they're unconscionable or illegal to start with (such as murder for hire), and some that lawmakers have explicitly passed laws against.

      Since it's the law that backs a contract, I certainly don't see why the law can't say "If a contract says X, Y, or Z, we will not enforce that portion of it." That puts you on clear notice that such a provision is not enforceable by the normal means.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  8. it's a honeypot trap by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    yeah, sure....post away....anything, really. we'd like to see what you have to say.

  9. Re:Fuck Slashdot!!! by Fwipp · · Score: 1

    Actually, this law ensures that you'll be able to complain about Slashdot over and over again, for as long as you like.

  10. Will the law also make it illegal by presidenteloco · · Score: 3, Interesting

    to say "OMG The best movie I've seen this year!" etc. without disclosing you're being paid to post?

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  11. There's one reason you can't by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > If I am a business and I want to put a non-disparagement clause or review gag order into my contracts, I don't see why I can't.

    There is one reason you can't - it's illegal, under this law.
    The Constitution vests the power to make law in the Congress. The courts don't have any right or power to strike down laws based on "I don't like it".

    First, you'd have to make a case that you have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to have and enforce such a clause. Is that in the 43rd amendment, because I don't see it. Secondly, you'd have to show that your (non-existent) Constitutional right to punish customers outweighs the legitimate interests of this law (freedom of speech doesn't mean you can yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatern)

    1. Re:There's one reason you can't by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      If you negotiate the contract, then he can. Contracts that have no negotiations (take or leave it) cannot have such a clause

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:There's one reason you can't by onepoint · · Score: 1

      >>>The Constitution vests the power to make law in the Congress. The courts don't have any right or power to strike down laws based on "I don't like it".

      Wait Wait Wait. Unless I have forgotten my school house rock ....
      Congress creates the law.
      Judges will rule it's legality, if it's brought to court.

      given enough time, the bad laws are fixed and good laws stay

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    3. Re:There's one reason you can't by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Well there is a "common law" argument here too. Not all (in fact very little) of contract law actually is derived from Constitutional rights. Most of it comes from English "common law" which we inherited from being a colony.

      Where I believe that the Federal law in this case would trump common law and pre-empt contracts as you state, the real issue, and question here, is about if the Federal government has the authority to do this given that pesky 10th amendment we so often ignore. On that argument, before the right court, I'm not sure the law would be enforceable or should be upheld. I think the STATES can do this individually, but I'm not sure it's the place for the Fed to do this.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  12. Trump Steaks - 1 Star - Do not recommend! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I really tried to enjoy the meal at the Taj Mahal as a whole but the meat tasted like ASS. The service wasn't so great either but this was expected with the ongoing strike and picketers outside. To be honest the picketing and ruckus outside helped take my mind off the Trump Steak tasting like ASS. Will not eat here again! 1 out of 5 stars. (would have been zero stars if it was an option)

    1. Re:Trump Steaks - 1 Star - Do not recommend! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      the meat tasted like ASS.

      How is that a problem? Everyone knows eating ass is 6.5 out of 10. (Originally rated at 6, but upgraded to 6.5 after some further thought on the matter.)
      Just Bing for the official eating ass review. (Yes, it's SFW.)

  13. Is Ars now slashdot? by blahbooboo · · Score: 1

    Just curious, is Slashdot now owned by Ars Technica? I already read Ars, so coming to slashdot is getting redundant with all the Ars Technical articles to which they point...

  14. Defamation law still applies by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 4, Informative

    Reading between the lines, defamation law still applies. It is only extra clauses in the sales contract banning/punishing bad reviews which are now not allowed.

    If I write that I bought a new Rolls Royce, but when it arrived it was made of cardboard, and when I sat in it it collapsed and then caught fire, I can still be sued for libel, and if RR can show I was lying, I'll lose. Conversely if RR habitually sues people who post honest opinions which criticize them, then they're open to a SLAPP countersuit. This looks like a good balance to me.

    Note, I am not a lawyer, and have no information beyond reading TFA. Corrections and elaborations from actual lawyers are welcome.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:Defamation law still applies by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Agreed, balance is good. A company could still suffer losses due to some clueless dolt with a chip on his shoulder, or maybe more likely, an astro-turfer for a competitor, trying to damage the company's standing to improve it's own, relatively.
      Likewise, the consumer always needs protection from any company with an army of lawyers.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  15. Next step... by alexo · · Score: 1

    Next step: void binding arbitration clauses.

    1. Re:Next step... by onepoint · · Score: 2

      disclosure : I am a licenced sales associate for real estate

      I do not accept a listing contract ( contract to market and sell the property ) without the arbitration clause signed.

      Why? it's amazingly simple. Sellers lie. Lie all the time.
      by the time the seller's disclosure is fully filled out, the house is not the same house.

      "we spent 100K on the kitchen", when I add up the totals it comes to 43K
      "roof leak, never" ... well Michael we had it fixed 4 years ago ...

      I had a guy cancel a contract when we did the disclosure, he expected me to not disclose the sinkhole
      repair ( sinkhole drops land value by 30% automatically and home value by 8% ).

      I am not going to get into a lawsuit because of your lies.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    2. Re:Next step... by alexo · · Score: 1

      I doubt that the contracts you work with are non-negotiable form contracts, so your personal experience is irrelevant to this discussion.

      Binding arbitration clauses remove the customer's right to file a lawsuit. Instead, the case is referred to an "impartial arbiter" who decides in favour of the company 99% of the times, because they are the ones that pay him.

    3. Re:Next step... by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      At what point does arbitration enter into a situation like that? And why couldn't it be settled through the courts instead of mandating the arbitration clause? I'm honestly curious how this would work.

    4. Re:Next step... by onepoint · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are right. My contracts are give and take, not fixed.

      >>Binding arbitration clauses remove the customer's right to file a lawsuit.

      Yes, I work amazingly hard, I don't want to be wiped out due to some bullshit
      lawsuit because the owners want an $ 11,000 magazine cover marketing spend
      on a house that is worth 200K.

      Seen it happen, and a realtor had to give up his 5000 in commissions as a settlement to end it.
      Won't happen to me. I do less business than others, I try my best to give top quality service,
      and don't want problems ever.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    5. Re:Next step... by onepoint · · Score: 1

      In the example of the sinkhole; if I did not disclose to the public that I know it ( which I did once he filled out the disclosure ) I'm guilty of fraud and maybe more. if the owner never disclosed it, and I went on to market the property and discovered ( a known problem that was not disclosed ) the sinkhole after and inspection, I can take the owner to arb and demand that he pay my marketing cost and/or cancel the listing.

      that's why I don't do anything without a listing contract and a sellers disclosure.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    6. Re:Next step... by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      Ok, that makes sense... but why do you need the arb clause instead of just going to small claims court or civil court? I understand wanting the arb clause, but mandating it when someone else doesn't want to give up their rights to court review is something that I generally oppose in other contexts, so I'm curious why it matters so much in your context.

    7. Re:Next step... by onepoint · · Score: 1

      b is cheap and to the point, Also it's easy to set up an appointment. call the local arb association and you can get 3 qualified to pick from. Court would be the next step, to collect.

      Also, you have to look at it from my point... every seller wants more, every buyer wants it cheaper. both sides after 3 or 4 days get buyer's/seller's remorse. it's a fucking nightmare sometimes, I've seen fights break out at the closing table over 1 fucking key IE: it was a medco key, cost $25. and the seller wanted the buyer to pay for the second copy, and that's when I pulled out the listing contract and said " no, it's 2 main keys, you signed here remember ", and at the closing table is where people will try to screw you over ( both the seller and buyer ) that's why I never schedule both parties at the same time.

      Also, do you want to take your client to public court, great reputation to have. No, Arb is always private and usually never even get's that far, good people realise the error and fix the problem.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    8. Re: Next step... by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      Thank you!

  16. ... only until January 20 by Joosy · · Score: 1

    Only until January 20. After that companies will be permitted to waterboard vocally unhappy customers.

    --
    I'm sick and tired of these hip, "ironic" sigs. This is an actual, honest-to-goodness no-nonsense sig!
  17. Love the 10th, but right in the title of the bill by raymorris · · Score: 1

    The 10th amendment is sure the first thing to look at with any federal legislation, I'm with you there. Well actually you look at Article I, Section 8, which lists what the federal government is allowed to do.

    In this case, the title of the bill is:

    To prohibit the use of certain clauses in form contracts that restrict the ability of a consumer to communicate regarding the goods or services offered in INTERSTATE COMMERCE that were the subject of the contract, and for other purposes.

    Article I, Section 8 does of course grant the Congress power to regulate interstate commerce. The funny thing is, though Congress wrote "interstate commerce" in the *title* of the bill, they seem to have forgotten to put it anywhere else in the bill. We could assume any competent court would apply this only in interstate commerce cases - not only does the title of the bill state the intent of Congress, but as you mentioned they have no standing to regulate INTRAstate commerce.

  18. Will that void hold in a arbitration court? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Will that void hold in a arbitration court? or can that be used to fight it out in a real court? Used if they try to go to debt collection to get the back any fine, penalties, forced arbitration fees?

  19. Lol, not for long by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

    "Congress has passed a law protecting the right of U.S. consumers to post negative online reviews without fear of retaliation from companies."

    Never fear, Citizen! Mein Fuhrer Trump will soon overturn this anti-corporate, abusive law!

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Lol, not for long by pellik · · Score: 1

      What about the rights of the corporation to protect their brand?

    2. Re:Lol, not for long by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      What about the rights of the corporation to protect their brand?

      What about the rights of the people to speak their mind?

      Should we all shut our mouths and bow down to our corporate masters to make sure we don't offend their delicate sensibilities?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  20. Assuming the judge can read at 5th grade level by raymorris · · Score: 1

    In the case of federal legislation, the only "legality" for a court to review is whether Congress has the Constitutional authority to make the law. The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. There's no Constitutional question here, nothing for the court to decide.

    1. Re:Assuming the judge can read at 5th grade level by onepoint · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the information and update

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
  21. Re:what about those "no benchmark" licenses? by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that such clauses are no longer binding. A slow benchmark is a negative review, and taking away the software if you publish would be a form of retaliation.

  22. Re:Law vs enforcement by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    You seem to think that laws magically enforce themselves.

  23. The catch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What is the catch? What is it?
    Congress does *NOT* do something like this without completely screwing us in some fashion.

    What else did they slip in there?

  24. Protects businesses as well as customers by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    How often have companies actually implemented this clause and come out well from it? The result of punishing someone for a bad review is a billion people with no link to the company posting bad reviews.

  25. Well... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Long overdue.

  26. Until by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    someone posts a negative review of anything with "Trump" plastered on it. Then it will not just be illegal to post negative reviews, you will probably end up on the wrong end of a board with your head covered in a wet rag.

  27. There goes slander law... by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    What's left of it.

  28. It's legal yet? by fbobraga · · Score: 1

    ah, it's about the U.S, not the rest of the world...

    * I kind of understand better the anonymity problem in the U.S. now!

  29. Re:Love the 10th, but right in the title of the bi by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    but as you mentioned they have no standing to regulate INTRAstate commerce

    How I wish that were true. Unfortunately the courts have long held the belief that the interstate commerce clause means that the federal government can not only regulate interstate commerce but also things that have an effect on interstate commerce. Because of this the feds can regulate all commerce such as raising food for my own consumption on my own land that never enters the commercial market.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  30. Re:How is this not basically communism? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    The weird thing is the Republicans are in favor of this.

  31. Confused at first by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    but the way this article talks it sounds like good things...*re-reads headline* oh its not about being legal to punch people for bad reviews. that makes more sense.

  32. Re:May not be illegal, but will any post neg revie by Dagger2 · · Score: 1

    No. If the product was bad then that'd be worthy of a 1-star product review, but if you bought 6 of something and only one showed up, that doesn't justify a 1-star review of the product. It would justify a 1-star review of the seller if they don't fix it, but the seller and the product are different things.

    (I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with rejecting the review though, because product reviews are sometimes the only way to give feedback about a specific seller.)