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.

7 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 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.

    2. 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."

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

    Now here is my review of Slashdot.org:

    A+++. Would read again

  3. 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...

  4. 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.

  5. 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.