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

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.

Comments

Well, I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Well, I agree with this

[Geekenstein]

..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.

Re:Well, I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:Well, I agree with this

[ArmoredDragon]

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.

Re:Well, I agree with this

[ArmoredDragon]

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.

Re:Well, I agree with this

[Darinbob]

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.

Re:Well, I agree with this

[Darinbob]

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.

Re:Well, I agree with this

[Darinbob]

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

Re:Well, I agree with this

[dcavanaugh]

"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.

Re:Well, I agree with this

[Darinbob]

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.

Could that apply to GAG orders on settlements?

[Timmy D Programmer]

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

Great...

[110010001000]

Now here is my review of Slashdot.org:

A+++. Would read again

Congress has passed a law...

[Freischutz]

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?

Re:Congress has passed a law...

[D00MSlayer]

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.

Re:Congress has passed a law...

[HornWumpus]

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.

Re:Congress has passed a law...

[quantaman]

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.

Re:Congress has passed a law...

[Attila Dimedici]

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

Re:Congress has passed a law...

[Grishnakh]

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.

Re:And of course, illegal to criticize the POTUS..

[110010001000]

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...

Will the law also make it illegal

[presidenteloco]

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

There's one reason you can't

[raymorris]

> 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)

Re:Will it stand?

[turbidostato]

"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.

Defamation law still applies

[Michael Woodhams]

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.

Re:Oracle Benchmarks?

[fahrbot-bot]

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... :-)

Re:Next step...

[onepoint]

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.

Lol, not for long

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"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!

Re:Will it stand?

[houghi]

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.