Real Estate Firms Slipping 'Non-Disparagement' Clauses Into Rental Agreements To Stifle Online Criticism
from the makes-you-wonder-what-they're-afraid-of dept
Rob Hyndman points us to travel guide guru Arthur Frommer speaking out about a ridiculous trend from some real estate firms that do vacation rentals: slipping a non-disparagement clause into contracts that effectively forbid you from writing a bad review about them online. Frommer's discussion is built off of an article Christopher Elliott wrote for the Washington Post, highlighting the trend:But don’t go looking for the Dorows’ opinion on the Web. Within a few days of posting it, they received a letter from their vacation rental agency.If this kind of thing sounds familiar, you may be remembering how some doctors and dentists have done similar things (though using an even more nefarious method of demanding assignment of the copyright on any such review).
“It has come to our attention that you have written an unauthorized review regarding your stay at a home managed by Progressive Management Concepts,” it said. “If this review is published by VRBO.com, you will be in violation of the confidentiality clause of the rental contract you agreed to when you made your reservation.”
When the Dorows refused to remove the review from VRBO.com, the site through which they’d found the rental, Progressive Management promptly charged $500 to their credit card.
Frommer, reasonably, finds this behavior deplorable, and notes that this is only likely to expand to lots of other things that get reviewed online, such as hotel stays. As he notes, since properties like this already have your credit card on file, it's a real risk that they can then just try to "charge" you for writing a bad review. Frommer also disputes the arguments of those in favor of such clauses by noting their argument is basically that they don't like free speech:
Now the various people who defend these clauses, base their arguments on all sorts of horrid, potential and hypothetical threats. They claim there are a lot of people who, upon checking out, threaten the rental property with a negative review unless they are given a retroactive discount on the rental. They claim, in effect, that vacation renters are blackmailing them.Of course, the best response to something like this is to recognize that if you put such a clause into a contract, it means that you're hiding something, and aren't confident enough in the quality of your property that you can handle criticism. It should be an automatic disqualifier for a renter. Unfortunately, though, as the article notes, sometimes you don't even get to see the terms until after you agree. While I'd argue that makes such terms unenforceable, it does make things more complicated. At the very least, though, it should allow people to post a review that merely notes the fact that such a clause is in the contract, and how that suggests no confidence in the quality of the property...
In my view, simply to state that argument is to refute it. You could justify a great many denials of our First Amendment rights of free speech with scary hypotheticals like that.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: disparagement, real estate, reviews, vacation rental
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Post a letter
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There is good reason to find such contractual provisions void for public policy, however. If that happens, even in a few jurisdictions to begin with, the practice will probably decline. In the mean time, to the extent possible it is best not to do business with people who want you to sign this sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Why do they hate the tourist industry so much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Progressive Management Concepts bad business practices
Anyone that would think of doing business with Progressive Management Concepts should be forwarned that they can not nor will not stand by their service / product. Only desperate people should think of doing business with them.
Enough bad press should either change their practice and/or drive them out of business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BBB
The BBB might not post the complaint, but they will adjust their rating and list the number of complaints against the company.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
waiver of civil liberties or denial of civll liberties?
The thus far unresolved question is how constitutional rights of Free Speech, Access to Appellette Courts, Freedom from unauthorized searches, or confiscation of private property without prior judicial review, became waivable under commercial Terms of Service (TOSs.)
The even more immediate question is why the burden is perpetually on Private Individual citizens to overcome anew a seemingly infinite iteration of impairment to their constitutional rights. After all, the factual distinction between price, or product quality or delivery date, functionality or use, are a KNOWN qualitative order of magnitude DIFFERENT from the constitutional rights of private citizens. The inclusion of Consttutional perogatives in Corporate Terms of Service, like the resulting damage to civil liberties CANNOT be an afterthought.
The News is proof enough: Ten or twenty or thirty ISPs (regulated public monopolies no less) enter into private agreement for the benefit of third party private entities (not their customers) called a Six Strike program under which the ISPs agree to present their millions of customers with imposed shared terms under which the ISPs presume to possess essentially ALL the powers and rights as private parties (including Immunity from liability) which enraged citizens sent into the legislative toilet bowl with their rejections of PIPA, SOPA, ACTA, and CISPA.
What is the legal basis for these presumptions in the aftermath of the defeat of PIPA, SOPA, ACTA and CISPA? Those millions of customers can find their "rights" defined exclusively within the framework of the ISPs Terms of Service. The mere fact that those Terms of Service effectively nullify the constitutional righs of customers falls into the realm of convenient afterthought: Want independent Appellette review of the fact that the ISP invades your right to privacy and due process by inspecting your personal files without prior judicial process? Have you been falsely accused and wish to sue your accuser in court for damages?
For millions of American citizens the answer to those questions are no longer found in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but in their ISPs Terms of Service.
Where in the terms of Service? Look for your right to Due Process under "Arbitration Clause".
It is not that the same public anger that defeated PIPA and SOPA and ACTA and CISPA can't find expression yet again on behalf of civil liberties; but, the infinite repetiveness of these insults must be addressed, or we might discover ultimatelty that we won a million battles for civil liberties, but lost the war,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Need some customer representation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chargebacks?
Alternatively, how about crossing out the part of the part of the contract that talks about disparagement?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
An app for that
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: BBB
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Progressive Management Concepts bad business practices
Rinse, repeat, fumigate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whatever
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Huh??
I'm a little confused about something. Is it possible for a corporation to violate the Constitution by means of a civil contract? How so? I thought the Constitution superceded all law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Huh??
It doesn't say anything about a corporation or private entity abridging the freedom of speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Post a letter
The unfortunate Dorows have been forced into an unconscionable contract, had an unhappy vacation, been hit with a bogus $500 charge and had their first amendment rights trashed. That should be a lesson to all consumers, but it won't be.
With payments, there is always another way. Use it. There is over 50 billion dollars of credit card fraud every year. Who is paying for that? Merchants and consumers, not the banks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: chargebacks?
Consumer: That was an unauthorised charge! I demand a charge back.
Bank: Hmm, maybe. We'll ask the merchant.
Merchant: That charge was authorised right here in the contract that the consumer signed!
Bank: Sorry consumer, no charge back for you. Case closed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Asserting the right to protect your rights
"If you accept that I have just struck out that unacceptable clause and initialed the changes, I shall sign this contract with all hope that the premises shall be as you have promised."
Then, before you sign, write it out in the most available 'white space':
"The 'Rental Agency' party hereto accepts that its hopes for no public comments from me in case the property is not as advertised, is NOT part of this contract and I retain my right to inform anyone of my views regarding the premises, etc."
Memo: NEVER allow anyone to usurp your right to speak up when you should do so!
Should you be a citizen of a nation that would use nuclear and or other weapons of mass murder to gain oil and other resources as the collapse as predicted on July 9, 2002 to Canada's Prime Minister actually starts to take place towards the end of 2012 . . . and you end up being 'Taxed Out!' so as to provide the means by which your political masters might survive:
Think about 'Tuning In' and 'Taxing Out'
Sincerely . . 'The Tax Refusal'
Ps: As for the 'company' that robbed their client of $500.00 . . help the market place correct their thinking . . . spread the word!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh, wait
At least its nice to see our governments showing the rest how it should be done?
You're gonna have cases like these popping up all over the place now, from small business to big, all because of our governments recent stance on behalf of Media companies and no doubt their own convuluted ideas
Vote for internet gimping, i am, you should too
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A safe haven if you will
Just curious, if thats even possible
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
In us of a, Freedom of $peech violates you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Huh??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Asserting the right to protect your rights
Perhaps there should be someone assigned to look into these things, maybe even pay this person from taxation of the citizens they are sworn to protect ........
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Asserting the right to protect your rights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Asserting the right to protect your rights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Asserting the right to protect your rights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: chargebacks?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Asserting the right to protect your rights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: BBB
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: BBB
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Progressive Management Concepts bad business practices
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Huh??
Nevertheless, the government could manipulate businesses into doing their censorship bidding for them, thereby creating an effective workaround -- rather than directly performing censorship themselves, they simply produce a hit list of IPs for companies to go after. When a company slips a clause into their contract/agreement aimed at silencing the invested party from speaking publicly about their services, you know something is wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Asserting the right to protect your rights
You must be a lawyer yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Say what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
preventing backtalk from renters
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Asserting the right to protect your rights
There are existing functions within government at city, county, state, and federal level that are tasked with the prosecution of those who break the law. Their title may be attorney general or district attorney but they are supposed to pursue prosecution of those who would violate the rights of the citizens within their jurisdiction. If I am correct, fraudulent business practice would fall under their purview.
You may think it's retarded, others disagree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Of course it should be. To require otherwise would also be an imposition on my freedom. My right to speak or to to speak is a valuable commodity to me, and it's not the proper function of the government to impose limits on my ability to manage that right to my best benefit.
If I couldn't sign away my right to speak in exchange for money, I could never enter into a settlement agreement, for example, which includes a confidentiality clause. If the potential for settlement were removed, my lawsuit might drag on for years and become financially prohibitive to me, thereby making it impossible for me to receive justice in my case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh??
Then we're agreed that this isn't a 1st Amendment issue at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Love to see them try and take that to court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: BBB
I agree completely that the BBB has no effect whatsoever on non-member businesses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
New Law Prohibits These Clauses
In 2016 the Consumer Review Fairness Act became law, preventing the enforceability of this sort of thing:
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/statutes/consumer-review-fairness-act
The management company on a house I want to lease has included a "Mutual Non-Disparagement Agreement," which has untruthful language that the agreement is "arms-length" and the parties are of "equal bargaining strength," etc., apparent attempts to get around the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]