Your right to leave bad reviews is being debated in Congress

[Suzanimal]

These days, buying a product, booking a hotel or requesting a service online typically involve a bit of research — you read what others have to say about whatever it is you're about to spend money on.

"After reading all the reviews, I know I'm making the right choice," said Dawn R. in an Angie's List commercial.

If you see loads of bad reviews, chances are you're not going to spend your money on that product or service. And that's why some companies have taken to introducing nondisparagement clauses, essentially forcing customers into agreeing to not leave bad reviews or they'll face consequences.

"This is unfair and the solution here is a federal law to make sure that individual consumers can express themselves online, and also to make sure that other consumers can benefit from online reviews," said Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz in a KUTV interview.

Schatz along with a number of other lawmakers have introduced a bill to Congress called the Consumer Review Freedom Act that renders any nondisparagement clause void in consumer review cases.

Unsurprisingly, Yelp — a consumer review site — spoke out in support of the bill, "We at Yelp applaud the Senate ... for their dedication to this issue and look forward to a long future where people can share their firsthand experiences with local businesses without facing the threat of fine or unfair retribution."

The Consumer Review Freedom Act has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. According to Washington Business Journal, the bill has support from both parties and will likely be approved by the committee.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/national/your-right-leave-bad-reviews-being-debated-congres/npJFr/

[tod evans]

This country is sending young people overseas to engage in war, the national debt has so many 0's following it I can't keep up and the idiots elected to represent the citizenry are debating on whether or not it's okay to complain online..........

[phill4paul]

This country is sending young people overseas to engage in war, the national debt has so many 0's following it I can't keep up and the idiots elected to represent the citizenry are debating on whether or not it's okay to complain online..........

Muh Prioritays!

[osan]

You know you are experiencing the end of days when this becomes newsworthy. The other clue is the further erosion of freedom. If you don't like the non-disparagement clause, don't contract with the vendor; you don't need The Man holding his sword over the heads of businesses in order to absolve you of your responsibilities as a party to a contract. It's pretty simple. Or do so and when they screw you, write an appropriate review anyway. I don't think there is an equity court in the land that would jury you into reparations. Perhaps I give too much credit.

And the amusement deepens as the culture descends into ever deeper insanity.

The civil war that stands to erupt out of all of this when the 3% finally decide they've had enough should prove most entertaining, especially when it dawns upon the usurpers, liberals, and other corrupt idiots that there are no ROEs. Sanitary, it shall not be.

[A Son of Liberty]

You know you are experiencing the end of days when this becomes newsworthy. The other clue is the further erosion of freedom. If you don't like the non-disparagement clause, don't contract with the vendor; you don't need The Man holding his sword over the heads of businesses in order to absolve you of your responsibilities as a party to a contract. It's pretty simple. Or do so and when they screw you, write an appropriate review anyway. I don't think there is an equity court in the land that would jury you into reparations. Perhaps I give too much credit.

And the amusement deepens as the culture descends into ever deeper insanity.

The civil war that stands to erupt out of all of this when the 3% finally decide they've had enough should prove most entertaining, especially when it dawns upon the usurpers, liberals, and other corrupt idiots that there are no ROEs. Sanitary, it shall not be.

If there are 9 million people in this country who give an actual fuck, I'll eat my hat.

[A Son of Liberty]

This country is sending young people overseas to engage in war, the national debt has so many 0's following it I can't keep up and the idiots elected to represent the citizenry are debating on whether or not it's okay to complain online..........

Would that they were spending their time on even less consequential things.

[Brian4Liberty]

Freedom of speech is already guaranteed by the highest law of the land. Truth has always been a defense against accusations of slander, libel or fraud.

[Sola_Fide]

This has to be debated?

[Ronin Truth]

No freedom of speech issues involved anywhere in that one. :p :rolleyes:

[Ronin Truth]

Wait till they get a load of my reviews of the CONgress. :p

[P3ter_Griffin]

I would say that what is being debated is a companies right to form a contract with a voluntary patron. But if you put "" around 'right' in the OP title I think it'd be just as accurate.

[Brian4Liberty]

I would say that what is being debated is a companies right to form a contract with a voluntary patron. But if you put "" around 'right' in the OP title I think it'd be just as accurate.

It's hard to call a contract "voluntary" when it is entirely written by one party, with the other party being completely unaware of the content of the hidden, TPP sized contract.

4615

[Dr.3D]

If only positive reviews are allowed, then there is no use in calling them reviews. They should then just be called endorsements.

[P3ter_Griffin]

It's hard to call a contract "voluntary" when it is entirely written by one party, with the other party being completely unaware of the content of the hidden, TPP sized contract.

4615

What is 'hidden'? If it is available to the patron and they choose not to read it, I'd say they still voluntarily entered into a contract. If it is completely absent that's another story.

The government would be much better to say 'we will not enforce these contracts' rather than 'you cannot create these contracts'. If they cannot use the government to defend their contracts they will be responsible for doing it themselves. And shady contracts such as this will, I believe, lend much support for the 'defendant' (voluntary patron). I.E. more men with guns will show up to defend the 'defendant' and thus will invalidate the contract without the need for a central authority.

[Dr. Dog]

This is a horrible law that I hope never passes. A company has every right to force you to sign a contract agreeing not to disparage their products. If you don't like the terms of the sale, no one is forcing you to buy the product.

[Brian4Liberty]

What is 'hidden'? If it is available to the patron and they choose not to read it, I'd say they still voluntarily entered into a contract. If it is completely absent that's another story.


A lot of the businesses that complain are restaurants and fast food. Are they going to start having people sign a contract before purchase?

[Dr. Dog]

A lot of the businesses that complain are restaurants and fast food. Are they going to start having people sign a contract before purchase?
If that's what they want to do they have ever right to do that. Congress has no right to infringe on their right to make contracts.

[RJB]

When I read reviews, I can usually tell what is a genuine bad review vs a troll review. People with a half a brain don't need input from congress. Unfortunately the people with less than a half a brain are the ones who elected these congress men.

[VIDEODROME]

I guess everyone can chose to sleep in their car instead of signing one of these contracts as part of an agreement to stay at a hotel. It's a free country.

[Dr. Dog]

I guess everyone can chose to sleep in their car instead of signing one of these contracts as part of an agreement to stay at a hotel. It's a free country.
If hotels want you to sign one as a condition to staying there that is their right. Congress has no right to interfere with their right to make contracts. If you don't like it, don't stay at that hotel.

[luctor-et-emergo]

This is a horrible law that I hope never passes. A company has every right to force you to sign a contract agreeing not to disparage their products. If you don't like the terms of the sale, no one is forcing you to buy the product.

I guess that does not include factual evidence based commentary such as critical comments on faulty products.

I don't really see the point to it either. Banning people from speaking negatively about your products isn't a real good way of doing business. In most areas this will severely backfire. And I must say I'm glad about that.

[Dr. Dog]

I guess that does not include factual evidence based commentary such as critical comments on faulty products.

I don't really see the point to it either. Banning people from speaking negatively about your products isn't a real good way of doing business. In most areas this will severely backfire. And I must say I'm glad about that.
Yes, it likely will backfire. But that's the free market working.

[luctor-et-emergo]

If hotels want you to sign one as a condition to staying there that is their right. Congress has no right to interfere with their right to make contracts. If you don't like it, don't stay at that hotel.

Sure, just as long as they stick to their part of the contract.. Good service and all.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Yes, it likely will backfire. But that's the free market working.

Then we are in agreement.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Honestly this should be left up to the consumer. To figure out that the company is blocking bad reviews using the legal system.

Unfortunately, this would require an intelligent populace, which is something we don't have. Everyone will fall for the trick like lemmings tumbling over a cliff

[VIDEODROME]

Honestly this should be left up to the consumer. To figure out that the company is blocking bad reviews using the legal system.

Unfortunately, this would require an intelligent populace, which is something we don't have. Everyone will fall for the trick like lemmings tumbling over a cliff

How about a compromise between all involved? This is based on the idea that Hotels or other services do not want Troll Reviews. Normal consumers want the same thing to read quality thoughtful reviews and not rants from customers that are being dicks. Services like Yelp would like to be the one stop shop for such quality reviews that we can look for instead of skimming through bullshit reviews.

Would it be possible to arrive at a regulated review system?

Suppose I stay at a Super 8 Hotel just for a random example and I'm not happy. I got to Super 8's website and click on a feedback link which refers me to a 3rd party like Yelp. I can leave a review on one simple condition that I include the Room number and date that I stayed there. This is so that the Hotel could see the post, review what happened, and leave their own post as a response.

This is just a quick example, but I think it's possible to find solutions that help both sides and possibly even improve the review process. I think the customer should be able to leave negative reviews and yet the business should be able to challenge those reviews or include their side of the story.

[P3ter_Griffin]

A lot of the businesses that complain are restaurants and fast food. Are they going to start having people sign a contract before purchase?

I don't think a signature is needed. A simple note on the wall (or maybe inscribed on the urinal cakes) noting what costumers agree to when they choose to frequent that establishment should suffice as a contract.

[P3ter_Griffin]

How about a compromise between all involved? This is based on the idea that Hotels or other services do not want Troll Reviews. Normal consumers want the same thing to read quality thoughtful reviews and not rants from customers that are being dicks. Services like Yelp would like to be the one stop shop for such quality reviews that we can look for instead of skimming through bullshit reviews.

Would it be possible to arrive at a regulated review system?

Suppose I stay at a Super 8 Hotel just for a random example and I'm not happy. I got to Super 8's website and click on a feedback link which refers me to a 3rd party like Yelp. I can leave a review on one simple condition that I include the Room number and date that I stayed there. This is so that the Hotel could see the post, review what happened, and leave their own post as a response.

This is just a quick example, but I think it's possible to find solutions that help both sides and possibly even improve the review process. I think the customer should be able to leave negative reviews and yet the business should be able to challenge those reviews or include their side of the story.


I think this is a grand idea and there is therefor no reason to attempt to use government coercion to gain a customer base. 'If you build it, they will come'.

[VIDEODROME]

I think this is a grand idea and there is therefor no reason to attempt to use government coercion to gain a customer base. 'If you build it, they will come'.

Smart government would offer legal advise or help negotiate it. Or simply invite both sides to a neutral conference areas to have a positive discussion.

Not strong arm people into their view, but show up as a promoter and problem solver by putting together excellent solutions for all involved. In the end, they can use the suggested idea or not.


When I picture working government, I think of Winston Wolf from Pulp Fiction. He can show up if asked for, assesses the situation, and tell you what needs to be done. Even the Wolf won't force you to do it it because it's not really his problem.

http://e.lvme.me/cf5qbq9.jpg

[jbauer]

This is a horrible law that I hope never passes. A company has every right to force you to sign a contract agreeing not to disparage their products. If you don't like the terms of the sale, no one is forcing you to buy the product.

So if I tell the truth in a review you think a clause in a 10000page contract should make me liable. I think online reviews are great. Rarely do I do business without checking the reviews.

Now whether this belongs in congress. That's a fair complaints.

[Dr. Dog]

So if I tell the truth in a review you think a clause in a 10000page contract should make me liable.
Yes. The only one at fault would be you if you agreed to a contract you didn't read or weren't ok with.

[phill4paul]

Natural rights, read "sovereign," are not contractual.

in·al·ien·a·ble
inˈālēənəb(ə)l/
adjective
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

Semantics, ok, ok,

un·al·ien·a·ble
ˌənˈālēənəbəl/
adjective
another term for inalienable.

Wrap your head around that.

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't think a signature is needed. A simple note on the wall (or maybe inscribed on the urinal cakes) noting what costumers agree to when they choose to frequent that establishment should suffice as a contract.

That's it. Possibly a small sign somewhere that says "Purchasing our product legally obligates the customer to our purchase contract and to all terms contained or inferred therein. Copies of the contract can be viewed at the law offices of our legal representation firm of "Dewey, Skrewim and Howe, LLC.", located in Libertalia, Madagascar." No doubt every customer at McDonald's and KFC will voluntarily enter into the contract with full judicial and legal cognizance. It's all part of the TPP.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Smart government would offer legal advise or help negotiate it. Or simply invite both sides to a neutral conference areas to have a positive discussion.

Not strong arm people into their view, but show up as a promoter and problem solver by putting together excellent solutions for all involved. In the end, they can use the suggested idea or not.


When I picture working government, I think of Winston Wolf from Pulp Fiction. He can show up if asked for, assesses the situation, and tell you what needs to be done. Even the Wolf won't force you to do it it because it's not really his problem.

http://e.lvme.me/cf5qbq9.jpg


I can dig anything done voluntarily. But I still think you're selling yourself short. You came up with a perfect free-market review website, so why involve the government? Save them tax dollars and spend it on advertising yourself. :cool:

To each their own of course. I don't seek to judge anyone for what they'd want in a voluntary government.

[P3ter_Griffin]

That's it. Possibly a small sign somewhere that says "Purchasing our product legally obligates the customer to our purchase contract and to all terms contained or inferred therein. Copies of the contract can be viewed at the law offices of our legal representation firm of "Dewey, Skrewim and Howe, LLC.", located in Libertalia, Madagascar." No doubt every customer at McDonald's and KFC will voluntarily enter into the contract with full judicial and legal cognizance. It's all part of the TPP.

I'm mostly ignorant of the TPP, and being that this is the second time you've mentioned it I must ask, is there such wording in the TPP?

Brian, I think the only difference in our perspective may be that you have a more rigid definition of a contract. Upholding contracts is something generally held in high importance among libertarians, from what I gather. I take more of the view that a contract is worth what its made of. And if its hidden inscribed in a urinal cake, then quite literally. Said most sufficiently, I hold 'morality' higher than a 'contract', and a 'contract' on level with a 'law' (which is to say, if it is just it should be followed). So I am less interested in what a person or company wants to call a contract and more interested in the details themselves. While you say 'that is no contract' I say 'that is a contract that need not be followed' and the end result is the same.

[helmuth_hubener]

Freedom of speech is already guaranteed by the highest law of the land. Truth has always been a defense against accusations of slander, libel or fraud.


This has to be debated?


No freedom of speech issues involved anywhere in that one. :p :rolleyes:

You guys are responding to the headline -- and very correctly, may I say -- but not to the actual facts and details.

This is a freedom to contract issue. Do two parties have the right to make a contract with each other wherein one of them pledges to not say anything disparaging in public about the other party? I would say that they do. I think you all would agree. That means that passing this bill would be wrong. The headline claims that the bill would protect "your right to leave bad reviews," but actually it would protect "Congress' right to abrogate legal contracts and in short make up whatever random junk it wants and call it law."