Law Passed To Protect Customers From Non-Disparagement Clauses And Other Ridiculous Restrictions
from the back-to-bogus-libel-lawsuits-then,-I-guess dept
Sitting on the president's desk is a bill [PDF] that will finally prevent companies from tying customers up with restrictive contracts at the point of purchase -- including forbidding the insertion of non-disparagement clauses. The bill is called the Consumer Review Fairness Act, but it might as well be called the KlearGear Act, after the infamous tech toy also-ran that gained international notoriety after it ran a customer's credit rating into the ground attempting to collect a $3,500 fee for violating a non-disparagement clause it inserted into its Terms of Use after the customer had already posted her negative review.
There are any number of existing applications for the bill once signed into law. Companies are still including non-disparagement clauses in contracts, despite there being ample evidence all it really does is generate massive amounts of disparagement from parties not bound by the contractual language. It's basically a pre-emptive federal anti-SLAPP law narrowly focused on protecting consumers from litigious companies who feel the "service" part of "customer service" involves a process server. (That being said, there's nothing stopping companies from filing bogus libel lawsuits over negative reviews -- one of many reasons there needs to be a federal anti-SLAPP statute.)
But that's not the only thing the law will prevent. The language will also keep companies from placing a bunch of restrictions on customers as a thank you gift for choosing to do business with them. Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen points to another all-too-frequent abuse of customers this law will address.
Readers of this blog may recall an article that I posted in late September, taking issue with a proposed contract that the local professional soccer team has transmitted to season ticket holders who are in the process of renewing their season tickets for the coming season. My concern that the contract includes language in which fans waive the right to post “in any media any description, account, picture, video, audio or other form of reproduction of any D.C. United game or any surrounding activities.” Regrettably, despite many fans having objected to the proposed contract, to the extent of telling team sales people that they won’t be renewing if signing this contract is required, and even though the team tried to deflect the adverse coverage by saying that its lawyers would be looking at possible changes to the contract language. However, late last week the team sent out the same contract for signature, and told me privately that the lawyers had decided not to make any changes because the language is “industry standard.”
Nothing says "thanks for supporting our team" like "shut up and stop talking about us." DC United wants to retain strict control of its social media presence, apparently feeling that any "social" aspect should be solely restricted to the official channels. With the new law in place, the ridiculous "industry standard" will no longer be legal. Presumably, this also means it will no longer be the "industry standard."
Levy points out that the law has received the most attention for its banning of non-disparagement clauses, but it's also written to address this sort of contractual overreach.
[I]t forbids a form contract that “prohibits or restricts the ability of an individual who is a party to the form contract to engage in a covered communication,” Section 2(b)(1)(A), and defines “covered communication” to include any “ written, oral, or pictorial review, performance assessment of, or other similar analysis of . . . the goods, services, or conduct of a person by an individual who is party to a form contract.” Section 2(a)(2). The DC United contract that forbids fans from posting written descriptions or pictures of a game (that is, a review or performance assessment of the team’s conduct) is squarely within the law’s prohibition.
While companies should take care to protect their intellectual property and reputations, this can all be accomplished without forcing customers to accept ridiculous restraints in exchange for a product or service. Companies may point to such concerns when writing these clauses, but underneath it all, it's usually just an attempt to control public perception -- either by discouraging negative reviews or shutting down social media postings that don't align with the official company narrative.
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: anti-slapp, consumer review fairness act, crfa, free speech, gag orders, non-disparagement, non-disparagement clauses
Companies: kleargear
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Congress unanimously did something right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But the fact that such a law is even needed in the first place... the cheek of it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With completely unenforceable clauses being the industry standard, this new law will make non-disparagement clauses the epitome of 'industry standard'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know in Canada, ending the parliament session (Election call for example) kills all bills that haven't reached royal accent. They need to be re-introduced and work their way through the process from the start again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. Sign the bill and it becomes law,
2. Let it sit on his desk and after 10 days, it automatically becomes law (while Congress is in session),
3. Veto the bill and it goes back to Congress for a veto-override vote, reworking and resubmission, or is dropped entirely from Congressional consideration.
http://www.naeyc.org/policy/federal/bill_law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even if Obama did veto it, it passed the senate by unanimous consent, and the house by a voice-vote. It seems to me that means it's largely popular, probably popular enough to get 2/3 in both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give them what they want: sports reports should ignore them
In that case, give them what they want: no one should post photos or talk about the games. Sports reporters should simply say "The home team played a game and they won. We can't give you the name of the team or the score or the big plays because the team claims a copyright on all of those."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give them what they want: sports reports should ignore them
Everyone should have seen this coming AGES AGO. Rights-holders (regardless of the rights they hold) are more determined to protect their position than ever before. Doubly so if they're middle-men.
The current IP craze will most likely wind down as the workforce becomes more automated. Too bad nobody will have the money to buy stuff at that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And what's the plan for firms that are in the the online review business posting false reviews?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]