Apartment Building Attempts To Coerce Tenants Into Crazy Social Media Policy Post-Lease
from the with-facebook-friends-like-these dept
We've done enough posts on apartment complex owners and property management companies to know that too many of them think that they can wage some kind of insane war on negative reviews that might be posted on social media and websites. To combat this, rather than simply addressing the concerns of their tenants, these misguided companies instead attempt to put social media and review policies as riders on the leases they offer. When that fails, some will either sue the critical parties, or will write in five-figure fines for posting anything that could possibly be deemed as critical.
But to see a really brazen attempt to shut up tenants, we can thank Dave Blevins for pointing us to the story of how one apartment owner tried to unilaterally force residents not only to keep quiet with any of their critiques online, but required them to "like" the apartment company on Facebook.
As KSL-TV reports, residents of an apartment building in Salt Lake City, Utah, say they found a curious piece of paper stuck to their doors. Headlined "Facebook Addendum," it had fascinating stipulations.
It insisted that tenants had five days to "friend" the City Park Apartments on Facebook or they'd be in breach of their lease. The fact that they'd already signed their lease perhaps months previously didn't seem to matter to the owners. Oh, and then there was the part about releasing the building owners to post pictures of the tenants or their visitors to, yes, the building's Facebook page.
You will also be traumatized into delirium when I tell you that another stipulation was that the tenants don't post anything negative on social media. This seems a strangely unbalanced "friendship."
So, not only a prohibition on negative reviews on social media, but also a requirement to give an endorsement of sorts instead. And all long after the lease was signed? Oh, this was just destined to go well for all involved.
Actually, the apartment building's Facebook page has a barely-there review score, with many folks dropping in to post negative reviews simply due to the draconian "policy" foisted upon its residents. I'd link to that particular Facebook page but, strangely, it has suddenly become unavailable for unknown reasons. As a result of all the backlash, the apartment building's law firm has helpfully fallen on the sword, indicating that it apparently didn't bother to review the notice it sent to tenants.
Perhaps the owners thought this was reasonable, modern behavior. A spokesman for the law offices of Kirk A. Cullimore, which represents the building owners, offered me this explanation:
As part of opening its pool and an anticipated pool party, City Park desired to provide some protection to its residents and its owners from usage of photos on its Facebook page from all community events, including the opening pool party. The "Facebook" addendum was provided to them to assist in that protection. That addendum went beyond the request and intent of City Park Apartments, and was not carefully reviewed to ensure that it met with their needs and requests. At no time was any resident in jeopardy of eviction or action from City Park for failure to sign the addendum or "friend" City Park Apartments. City Park has not implemented the addendum nor is it requiring its residents to execute it.
One wonders exactly how many billable hours were assigned for the task of creating an addendum outside of the lease agreement for tenants that the apartment complex apparently didn't want, which involved required Facebook likes and prohibited negative reviews, all in order to protect tenants from the horrors of the internet creeping into a simple pool party. Sounds like exactly the kind of thing that would either spur the choice to go with another legal team, or thank them for taking the heat via a heaping help of shielding bullshit.
Regardless, it would probably be best for the apartment to focus on making tenants happy rather than worrying about their social media reviews.
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: landlord, likes, non disparagement, real estate, salt lake city, social media
Companies: city park apartments, facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How to shoot yourself in the foot like a pro
Bad reviews are a given for any company or in this case landlord with customers/tenants, expected even, as you can't please everyone, which most reasonable people will understand. In fact bad reviews can even be turned to the seller's advantage if they show that they are willing to do what they can to fix whatever the problem was/is in order to offer the best product/service that they can.
By trying to prohibit anything but good reviews on the other hand you not only bring into question the sincerity of any previous good reviews('Did they actually get a satisfactory product/service, or were they forced to write that?'), but you have people assuming the worst because clearly the service/product has got to be downright terrible if the one offering it feels the need to bar people from being critical of it.
In an attempt to present a shining, no-flaw product/service they instead make it look worse than any negative review could have ever managed, and they have only themselves to blame for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But for real-estate, it's mandated by law to be in writing.
So yea, if they didn't get sign-offs by each tenant after signing their leases, they can go pound sand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, and you can 'friend' them and then reclassify them using groups/listings to give them zero access if you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebooker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facebooker
I live in the area and I can tell you that, City Park Apartments are pretty nice and I-15 helps block out the noise from the railroad yard that is nearby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sorry, are you saying that a legal document spelling out terms and conditions can be safely ignored?
It was one sided and stupid, but it was still a legal document that compelled people to follow a course of action or face a very adverse outcome.
A court very well might have ruled against the clients, but the damage already could have been done to someone evicted and having an eviction on their record while trying to fight in court against a better financed adversary.
This was stupid & stupid should hurt.
Apparently an addition needs to be made to renters rights clearly spelling out that demanding Facebook liked & never bad mouthing the complex/ownership has a cost. That taking actions against tenants who might not be thrilled with the complex and mention it online will have a financial penalty.
The law firm should be penalized by who ever allows them to pretend to be lawyers, failing to review a legal document and pretending it was an oversight shows a complete failure of their duty to the client & the law.
I think the tenants should boycott the pool party and make it clear on social media that the ownership's stupidity lead to the tenants not wanting to celebrate anything with the ownership.
Aren't hollow threats of eviction actionable?
Stupid should hurt, and having to pay legal fees, penalties, & move out costs for tenants who have been made to feel unsafe in their homes might send the right message. I'm willing to bet they'll have a hard time getting new tenants and maybe the next company to buy the property will think demanding Facebook likes & nothing but positive reviews is a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why are you even asking this when we've been shown pretty clearly that even actual false eviction is not actionable these days? (How many people went to jail over robo-signing and similar scandals?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The clause in question flatly prohibits any electrical, gas or solid fuel device that produces heat from the apartment without prior written consent of the landlord. It goes on to say that written consent will NOT be given unless sought in advance. Each copy of the lease includes a page for individual items to be listed as having consent.
As the clause is phrased, it applies to everything in the apartment from the baseboard heaters to the hot water heater, from the stove to the refrigerator. The intent of the landlord was to stop people from using gas, electric or charcoal grills inside the apartment or out on the balcony, but it so broadly written it could be read to prohibit FIRE EXTINGUISHERS.
None of the landlord-installed devices that are physically wired into the structure of the apartment (stove, baseboard heaters, water heater, overhead lighting, etc) are on the approved list for my lease. Nor are any of the plugged-in but landlord-supplied appliances, such as the refrigerator.
And as written, it is the tenant's (not the landlord's) duty to remove all unapproved devices under penalty of eviction!
Unsurprisingly, everybody in the building is ignoring that clause, including the property manager.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not like people didn't talk or share negative reviews of a business with others before the internet. Granted the reach of people's network of friends and acquaintances was more limited but I would bet the word of mouth you got was more valuable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On the Internet is only the symptom, businesses have decided that it is cheaper to force customers to say how great they are, rather than actually providing great service to get the good reviews.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]