Slashdot Mirror
Businesses May No Longer Sue Customers Over Negative Reviews (thenextweb.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Next Web: A few months I wrote about the Consumer Review Fairness Act. In a nutshell, this offers legal protections to consumers who leave negative reviews on sites like Yelp and TripAdvisor. You can now call out the restaurant who gave you food poisoning, or a bed-bug infested hotel without the risk of being dragged into a civil court. The long-overdue bill explicitly bans non-disparagement clauses in contracts between businesses and patrons. Over the years, there's been a rash of people getting sued after speaking their mind online. Today, President Obama signed off on the Consumer Review Fairness Act. It's now law. As great as this is for consumers, it's even better for the likes of TripAdvisor and Yelp, whose business model relies on people being able to speak their minds.
Shouldn't Freedom of speech have a higher priority than a vague "we have the right to make money"?
. As great as this is for consumers, it's even better for the likes of TripAdvisor and Yelp, whose business model relies on people being able to speak their minds.
Yelp is a glorified e-racketeer that collects extortion fees from small businesses the world over. Please spare me the "people being ale to speak their minds" BS.
What if the customer is lying? Like suppose they falsely claim food poisoning in retaliation for poor service. Could the business then sue them for unwarranted slander?
Shouldn't Freedom of speech have a higher priority than a vague "we have the right to make money"?
When can we appeal to freedom of speech, and when can we not?
If the business is Twitter or Facebook, they can ban users for whatever obscure and selectively enforced rules they want. We can't appeal to free speech in those cases because they're both private businesses.
But posting a negative review would seem to be free speech and should be protected over the wishes of the business involved.
So which is it?
Should government force businesses to protect free speech or not?
(Of note: We expect businesses to be agnostic over hiring women and blacks, because not doing so would be a violation of their civil rights. We don't allow businesses to turn over subscriber information to the government without a warrant, because that would also be a violation of rights. Why is free speech any different?)
According to the press coverage, yes, it explicitly invalidates such clauses. However, you should get legal advice from a lawyer, not from the internet.
However, you should get legal advice from a lawyer, not from the internet.
You must be new. People get everything from the Internet now - dates, porn, news, fake news, etc...
Hell, people even try to get medical advice - on 4chan.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I would venture to guess that part of the "settlement" means it is a legally binding clause of the actual settlement, which is not an actual contract. In other words, he was compensated for his silence.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
just kidding:)
Does this mean we will now see actual honest reviews for Apple products?
It has broad bi-partisan support, and basically passed both houses of congress and both major parties without any objections on a voice vote. The constitutionality is completely for the bill, i.e. freedom of speech. There is no way a challenge would go anywhere. IANAL.
Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
I read the text of that bill, since it's short, and there's no restriction on paying people to leave positive or negative reviews. Sounds like something could be done where an expensive service is coupled with a large bounty (paid to customers only) for positive reviews. Of course, the IRS would want their cut of the additional customer income.
However, you should get legal advice from a lawyer, not from the internet.
You must be new. People get everything from the Internet now - dates, porn, news, fake news, etc...
herpes, gout, butt hurt...
But he didn't ask about whether it affects terms of a settlement, he asked if it affects a contract.
And asking the wrong question and getting an answer not actually related to his situation is why he should get legal advice from a lawyer, not from the internet.
Mr Obama, tear down this wall! Once pot is legal across 50 states, Trump will face an enormous backlash trying to change that.
The summary leaves out several very important limits on this new law:
1. It does not apply to business that don't sell directly in interstate commerce. (This is narrower than the usual "affecting commerce" language Congress likes to use.) So your local lawn-care service for example may be exempt.
2. It only applies to businesses that use "form" contracts.
3. It only applies to those "form" contracts if the customer does not have a meaningful opportunity to negotiate.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
The law doesn't say you cannot be sued. The law makes certain contractual terms void.
The possibility still exists that you could be sued.
Your chance of victory may be higher and your cost of winning that suit might be lower than otherwise.
In a nut shell? What's in a nutshell? Do I need a cracker? Do we have a squirrel infestation? The expression bugs me.
What? What's that "factually correct" you're talking about?
Now lemme get back to invent... researching news articles.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When you've already signed a settlement agreement, and want to violate it, it's not a trivial matter. That's why he should get legal advice from a lawyer, not the internet.
When you have signed a settlement agreement and don't want to live up to it, it's not a simple matter.
And the internet cannot, ever, under any circumstances, be trusted to give useful legal advice. You, for instance, are a perfect example of why he should get legal advice from a lawyer, not from the internet.
Aw jeez Donald, don't you have a business to bankrupt? Here's a clue, you can't have it both ways. You can't in one breath say
and than in the next breath say
Because action "A" is directly contradicting claim "B".
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Dates? Every time I try to meet a woman from the internet it turns out to be a man and/or an FBI agent...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Dates? Every time I try to meet a woman from the internet it turns out to be a man and/or an FBI agent...
Well... If you're looking to date a man and/or FBI agent you're all set!
Maybe the Internet is trying to tell you something. :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .