Roca Labs Sues Customer For Posting A Negative Review
from the that'll-win-new-customers,-i'm-sure dept
We've been covering the saga of Roca Labs for a few days now. This is the company that claims to make an "alternative" to gastric bypass surgery in the form of some "industrial food thickening agents" that (the company claims) will fill up your stomach and make you not want to eat. These claims are not FDA reviewed and an examination of the claims by a doctor found them to be questionable (to say the least). We became aware of the company because it had sued Consumer Opinion Corp., the company that owns the site PissedConsumer.com. The issue? Roca Labs has a terms of service that offers everyone a "discount" on its product if you agree to never, ever, say anything bad about the product ever (you also have to agree to share success stories with Roca and allow them to publicize those stories). In short, the terms of service are designed to only show positive results, and gag any negative results. Roca claims that it has to do this because results may vary, and negative results could be caused by other factors. Of course, doesn't that also mean that positive results could be caused by other factors as well?Either way, Roca Labs sued PissedConsumer on the hilarious legal theory that by offering a forum for unhappy customers to post their story, it was "tortious interference" because it encouraged people to break the terms under which people bought the product. As we noted, this legal theory is fairly laughable, and PissedConsumer's legal response makes that fairly clear as well.
However, Roca Labs and its lawyers are apparently busy. They're not just suing PissedConsumer, but they're actually suing a customer who complained to the Better Business Bureau for "breach of contract" and "defamation per se." While her filing with the BBB included some statements that might reach the level of defamation, amusingly, Roca Labs does not attempt to show that her comments were false in any way. Rather, it relies on yet another ridiculously questionable term in its terms of service, saying that if you post something negative, it will automatically be considered "defamation per se." Here's the term:
You agree that any such negative claim will constitute defamation per seI don't think that's how defamation law works. At all. Even if this woman's comments to the BBB are defamatory (and I'm not saying they are), you can't just have someone sign a contract saying that if they do something, they'll be guilty of defamation.
Either way, all of this should make you wonder just what sort of company Roca Labs is in that it seems to not just sue its own customers for negative reviews, but to work so hard to stop negative reviews and to threaten and intimidate those who make complaints about their experience with the company.
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: contract, free speech, gastric bypass surgery, negative reviews, reviews, tortious interference
Companies: pissedconsumer, roca labs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
http://rocalabs.com/faq/medical/during-pregnancy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://rocalabs.com/faq/medical/weight-loss-for-kids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"As a satisfied customer, I recommend Roca Labs heartily to anyone who has a rodent infestation problem."
"I lost 200 pounds ... when my girlfriend left me."
"Concrete retaining walls are highly alkali, and hard on many bedding plants. The finest earth-friendly substitute I've found...."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, please tell me you were just testing the order process and didn't place an actual order with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[img]http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=78295&d=1382427188[/img]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attorney fees
From the purchase agreement:
From the complaint:
They explicitly stated in the agreement that they weren't entitled to attorney fees, and yet they're seeking them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attorney fees
There are so many things wrong with their so called "case" against me, they seem to for get I remember what they wanted from me too. I tried to get a refund after the first month, but they would not allow it because I had not sent in a before picture at the first day and since I lost no weight it could have sent the same picture and it have been the same pix.
I need the name of the Class Actions Lawyers name and number - proto and get this shit off my heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corruption starts at the top and trickles all the way down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that really enforceable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is that really enforceable?
If I drew up a contract that stated "A negative review will mean that from that point forward, the customer becomes a slave to Roca."
I think most people would find that unreasonable.
So if it's unreasonable for the 13th Amendment, why not for any Amendment, in particular the 1st?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is that really enforceable?
I think it's pretty established that in some cases, nondisparagement clauses are valid. (If I ruled the world I'd make them illegal, but that's not the current situation.) A slavery clause, on the other hand, would be unquestionably unconscionable. Hopefully this clause, given the context, would also be found unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.
But there's a much clearer reason. The 13th amendment is worded differently from the 1st. It says "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude... shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." It doesn't merely limit Congress or the states. It doesn't merely state that people have a right to not be slaves. It categorically bans the existence of slavery. You can't sign a contract to do an illegal thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And now for something completely different
Mother would likely not approve but it still sounds healthier and better controllable than swallowing some solidify-in-stomach-again substance.
At least more cost-effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, technically THIS case is about a consumer's free speech rights. Pissedconsumer was in the other lawsuit.
As long as the review is true, anyway. An intentionally false negative review almost certainly WOULD be defamatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unless it was a clear expression of opinion rather than fact. Opinion cannot be defamatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Unless it was a clear expression of opinion rather than fact."
Obviously it would have to be a fact; I thought that was clear from the context. I'm not exactly sure how you could even have an intentionally false opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Roca Labs Sues Customer For Posting A Negative Review"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No contract shall be binding should it infringe upon ones basic rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]