Years Later, FTC Wins Case Against Roca Labs For Its Bogus Non-Disparagement Clause
from the not-to-mention-junk-weight-loss-claims dept
Remember Roca Labs? A few years back we wrote about them extensively. The company (along with Don Juravin, who ran it), had cooked up quite a scheme. They were selling what they claimed was a "weight loss" product, which involved ingesting something that one doctor summarized as "consist[ing] primarily of industrial food thickening agents." If that wasn't already sketchy enough, the company more or less required purchasers to agree to a non-disparagement contract in order to order the stuff. Roca claimed that you were just getting a "discount" if you agreed to the non-disaparagement clause, but it was unclear if there was any other way to order. Roca had a "doctor" vouching for its product, but it turned out it was a doctor who had lost his medical license. The company came to our attention when it sued Pissedconsumer because some of its many unhappy customers had ignored the non-disparagement clause and complained about Roca Labs on that site.
The company then trotted out nearly every sketchy trick in the book -- including threatening legal action against us, actually suing PissedConsumer's lawyer, Marc Randazza (over something that we had written on Techdirt), and filing bogus DMCA notices to try to delete negative reviews -- before the FTC finally went after the company in September of 2015.
That case has continued for years (during which PissedConsumer won its case against Roca) and now the FTC has finally prevailed against Roca and Juravin as well. Eric Goldman has a good write-up on the ruling as well.
Roca lost on basically every point. The key one is that its anti-disparagement clause was considered an "unfair" practice by the FTC. Roca tried to argue that this clause was legal because it was a clickwrap contract, and clickwrap contracts have been found to be legal. The court points out hat that's not even the issue here at all. It's a question of whether or not what's in that contract is an "unfair practice." And here it's pretty clearly established First, the FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews:
Because Defendants admittedly suppressed negative information about the products and because Dr. Pavlou testified that the absence of negative information could make a consumer more inclined to purchase Roca Labs products, the Court finds that Defendants’ practices have caused or were likely to cause substantial injury to consumers. The record demonstrates that some consumers paid hundreds of dollars for the Roca Labs products and unsuccessfully sought refunds because of Defendants’ practice of issuing threats under the guise of enforcing the gag clause. Thus, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue of fact on this basis that would preclude summary judgment in favor of the FTC.
The court is not impressed by the argument that potential purchasers should have just read the terms and used a different weight loss program if they didn't like Roca Labs' nonsense:
Defendants offer no evidence that their practices did not prohibit the availability of negative reviews or that their practices were reasonably avoidable by the prospective consumer. Rather, Defendants argue that prospective customers could have reasonably avoided any injury by reading the contract that contained the gag clause or joining another weight loss program. (Dkt. 212 at 17–18) Defendants’ argument misses the mark. Under this prong of the FTC Act, the FTC alleges that Defendants’ practices relating to the gag clause, not the gag clause itself, were unfair. Further, because Defendants offer no facts to support a claim that prospective customers could reasonably avoid a dearth of negative reviews, which the Defendants assiduously prevented from being available, there is no genuine issue of a material fact in dispute on this issue.
Roca also tried to argue that the gag clause was okay because (get this) losing weight makes people feel good, and that's a benefit. But, as the court notes, this was in response to questions about the gag clause, not the product itself:
Defendants’ recitation of the benefits they claim consumers received from using the products ignores the issue presented in this claim, which is whether Defendants’ gag clause practices, not their products and services, presented a countervailing benefit.
Roca also gets in trouble for claiming that the price everyone got was "discounted," but only if they agreed to the non-disparagement clause. As the court points out, Roca advertised the "discounted" price all over the place as if it were the actual price, and only put in the fine print that you had to pay a lot more if you didn't want to be gagged:
Defendants created an overall net impression that the price of the product was $480 without reference to a discount or any concessions as to publishing negative comments. Defendants advertised that the basic package of Roca Labs products costs $480 for purchasers with a “valid health insurance.”... In multiple online advertisements, including those that appeared on Google, Bing, and Facebook, Defendants advertised the cost as simply $480, at least for a basic package of Roca Labs products.... At the top of the “Roca Labs Procedure Cost” page of Defendants’ Websites, Defendants state “Only $480 and NO surgery to gastric bypass cost of $8,000 + health insurance payments. Save yourself from surgery that can cost your life. Save 90%.” ... Farther down on that page, in smaller print, Defendants state that the “Roca Labs Formula is available for as low as $480” and display a chart showing the various packages, from the basic package for $480 to the customized package for $1,080.... The price differences in the packages reflect the quantity of products ordered and the level of customer service provided.... Several of the banner ads that appear online typically have five words: “GASTRIC BYPASS NO SURGERY $480.”... Scores of search advertisements also convey the price as $480, stating, for example, “Mini Gastric Bypass $480” followed by “Official Site: No Surgery Solution! Reduce Stomach Size & Lose Weight.” ... The advertisements did not contain any disclaimers that the price was discounted or subsidized in exchange for a customer’s agreement to refrain from publishing negative comments. As such, Defendants created an overall net impression that the price was $480, with no exceptions or limitations.
And, thus, it's a deceptive practice to make people think they could pay $480 and still criticize the product, when the terms of the deal were quite different:
Defendants’ misrepresentation is material and deceptive because it is an express claim that involves important information to customers: the price of the product and limitations on what customers could say about the products or Defendants. A customer would likely be misled to believe that he or she had the option to purchase the product at “full” price and maintain the ability to post negative but truthful comments. Customers also would likely to be misled to believe that they had actually agreed to refrain from posting negative comments, when they had not agreed to do so, by paying the purportedly discounted price.
The court also takes on a bunch of issues regarding Roca Labs' products, and agrees (surprise surprise) that Roca Labs' claims about weight loss from its products were unfair and deceptive:
The FTC has established that Defendants’ claims are false in that they were material and likely to mislead consumers. As discussed above, Defendants made express claims regarding weight loss. Those express claims, which significantly involve health, are inherently material... Defendants disseminated their claims online—through the Roca Labs Websites and online advertisements—to direct consumers to the Roca Labs Websites to purchase the products. The ads intentionally contained medical images and terminology to bolster the credibility of Defendants’ claims and induce customers to believe that the claims were scientifically validated by the medical community. Thus, the Court concludes that the claims were likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances.
The FTC also has established that Defendants had no reasonable basis to assert the claims because they lack competent and reliable scientific evidence. For healthrelated claims, including weight-loss claims, an advertiser must demonstrate that it has competent and reliable scientific evidence to support any claimed reasonable basis to assert that the claims are true.... Additionally, the FTC’s expert, Dr. Steven Heymsfield (“Dr. Heymsfield”), a medical doctor at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Louisiana State University and an expert in obesity treatment and weight loss, opined that no competent and reliable scientific evidence for Defendants’ claims existed.... To prove a weight-loss claim, “experts in the field of obesity treatment and weight loss would require well-designed and properly conducted clinical trials.” ... Dr. Heymsfield explained that a trial should be doubleblind and placebo-controlled so that the testers and participants are unaware of who is assigned to a particular group.... Dr. Heymsfield also explained that a valid clinical trial would have at least eighty participants and last at least three months.... He stated that a clinical trial should test the substance, not the individual ingredients, for which the claims are made because it is well established in the scientific community that the efficacy of individual ingredients is insufficient to establish the efficacy of those ingredients combined.
Not surprisingly, Roca Labs did none of that. Ridiculously, Roca Labs' defense was to say that a randomized controlled test wasn't necessary after completely misreading a different case, involving Bayer, in which Bayer was accused of violating a consent decree, whereas the court ruled that the consent decree did not require a randomized controlled test. But, that's got nothing to do with this case, as there was no consent decree at issue. But, even beyond that, the court notes that Roca Labs' offering certainly appears to be snake oil:
Defendants failed to produce any competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate their claims. In September 2015, the same month that the FTC filed this Complaint, Defendants’ products were studied by the Center for Applied Health Sciences, which issued a report after a clinical trial on the Roca Labs products.... Dr. Heymsfield reviewed the study, which Defendants provided to the FTC.... The study tested thirty-one overweight adults, including seventeen adults who used the Roca Labs products for twenty-eight days.... The results showed that the participants did not lose weight after taking the Roca Labs products and that there was a “slight but statistically insignificant ‘trend’ that active users reported feeling less hungry three hours after taking the product.” ... He noted the study reflected that there was no “lasting reduction in gastric capacity.” ... Dr. Heymsfield determined that the trial did not provide any competent or reliable scientific evidence because the trial design was flawed....
Additionally, Dr. Heymsfield opined that the scientific articles on weight loss and individual dietary fibers, the specific articles posted on Roca Labs Websites, and other materials provided by Roca Labs do not offer any competent and reliable scientific evidence in support of Defendants’ claims.
In a footnote, it also points out that one of the articles on Roca's site supporting its claims for weight loss was... authored by Don Juravin himself "who has not been identified as an expert."
The court further notes that Roca's claim on its website of a "ninety-percent success rate" is, shall we say... a problem:
the FTC also has demonstrated that Defendants’ claim that the use of Formula and Anti-Cravings is scientifically proven to have a ninety-percent success rate in forcing users to eat half their usual food intake and cause substantial weight loss is false. This representation of success is an establishment claim because the claim purports to be supported by scientific evidence. By law, an establishment claim is required to have a certain level of scientific proof to support of the claim.... The advertiser must have sufficient evidence to satisfy the relevant scientific community of the claim’s truth.... Defendants have advertised the “scientifically proven” claim online, but they have not produced any evidence to support the claim.... As discussed above, Defendants have failed to provide any evidence of a valid clinical study on the Roca Labs products. Hence, the unsubstantiated claim is false and likely to mislead consumers into believing that it was supported when it was not.
Roca also gets in trouble for running a related site that pretended to be independent and paying people for testimonials about Roca on this supposedly independent third party website. As you can imagine, that's not an acceptable way to market a product.
Material misrepresentations or omissions on which a consumer would likely rely to decide whether to make a purchase constitute deceptive advertising... Juravin testified that he created Gastricbypass.me to “educate and scare people about” gastric bypass surgery.... Only Roca Labs products were discussed favorably on the site, although there was no disclosure of the affiliation with Defendants.... Juravin stated that Gastricbypass.me was controlled by Roca Labs and that he was responsible for the content, but he did not see any value in letting consumers know “[h]ey we are Roca Labs.”
Oh, it gets worse:
Purportedly satisfied customers—“Carla” and “Roxie”—depicted in the videos posted on RocaLabs.com were actually Defendants’ employees.... Defendants directed their employees to create blogs or fictitious posts. For example, Roca Labs General Manager Sharon King (“King”) testified that she wrote a Roca Labs product review under the name of “Fran,” which was a fictitious name, and that Juravin edited the review.... Juravin also directed King to instruct “the Customer Service people” to write posts or reviews and comment on Roca Labs Facebook advertisements.... Defendants did not instruct the employees to disclose their affiliation with Defendants... Roca Labs employee Sharon Hensley (“Hensley”), who appeared on video as “Roxie,” testified that she was asked to post positive comments monthly on Facebook about Roca Labs monthly and did not state her association with Defendants.
Amusingly, Roca Labs tried to defend some of their employees' posts saying that they really did lose weight using the product. As the court points out, this argument "misses the point." It's not the weight loss that's the issue. It's failing to disclose the relationship with the company.
So, if you're keeping score at home: the company posted a ton of fake reviews, pretending they were from satisfied customers, selling a product that promoted weight loss with no scientific basis, and barred actual customers from posting any negative reviews. And, let's not forget they threatened to sue us for reporting all of that originally.
And that doesn't even touch on the fact that Roca Labs didn't keep its customers private health information secret (despite promising to do so). Roca's defense on that one is even worse: it claims that the health info was public (it was not) and that it needed to share the info in response to customers breaching the contract...
What does this all mean for Roca and Juravin? The court agrees to a permanent injunction, and notes that while Juravin has dropped the Roca name, he's still playing the same game:
Juravin testified that he has moved away from using the Roca Labs brand and is now using “gastric.care,” but “[t]he formula is the same formula.”... Juravin also stated that he is marketing the products on Facebook, a “Lost 100” Website, and online videos and chat.... In his deposition, Juravin also said he told his Facebook boot camp customers: “I’m allowed to tell you anything I want; to do anything I want with you that would lead you to a healthy weight . . .” ... He also testified that he will show the customers “any images I want. I will do anything I want for them for as long as I lead them to achieve a healthy weight.” ... Based on Defendants’ extended history of deceptive and unfair practices and Defendants’ continued promotion of their products and comparisons to gastric bypass surgery, the FTC has proven that a cognizable danger of recurrent violation exists. Thus, a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants’ deceptive and unfair practices is justified.
Then there's how much money Juravin needs to pay for all of this. The FTC asked the court to make Juravin hand over the net revenue earned in selling all this junk, while Juravin attempted a sillier formula, saying that he should only have to pay back $350 for each Better Business Bureau complaint there was, as those were the only dissatisfied customers. It takes quite a lot of guts to make such a claim, considering the bullshit contract he used barred customers from complaining to the BBB. The FTC showed that Juravin made an astounding $26 million from this scam, but because he failed to accurately document how much Roca had to pay back in refunds, the court asks him to provide some more info -- but it certainly appears that Juravin is going to be facing a hefty invoice from the US government before long.
Incredibly, so much attention was driven in the direction of Roca because it first sued PissedConsumer. It is entirely possible that the FTC would have cracked down on Roca and Juravin eventually no matter what, but it certainly appears that getting aggressive and suing others helped bring about Roca's and Juravin's downfall.
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: deceptive, don juravin, ftc, unfair
Companies: roca labs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
EXACTLY. HARM. To the writer and to all other persons.
Now, how much effort is required to apply that principle against suppressing "critical reviews" to here at Techdirt? HMM?
As I just wrote two items ago: Masnick / Techdirt only provide HTML code and invite the whole world to comment, advertise "free speech", write about it all the time as an absolute, wanting any question to be decided in favor of allowing, but HERE the practice is to attack and disadvantage dissent.
Oh, I admit that "disadvantage" isn't same as trying to get money, but the principle IS the same.
Businesses are simply not allowed -- because not "persons" -- to impose any and all conditions on users through "Terms Of Service" -- which exist by way of "forms contract" even if not explicitly writtent: see Computer Review Fairness Act.
Techdirt's practices are not consistent with this ruling, nor with common law. Techdirt visibly reserves NO rights, let alone to edit my comments by interposing a warning and requiring a click to other readers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
And, you lie.
Is Mike somehow suppressant reviews of TD on Your website?
Didn't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
What's the lie?
YES. Masnick / Techdirt is a business -- it's not a "blog", but a business: see "d/b/a" which means "doing business as" in the defamation case -- and Masnick provides CODE which enables comments to be censored, which you clowns euphemize as "hidden", but is certainly "suppressant (sic)" the word you use here. Without the code deliberately put in, there would be no "hiding" and my comments would be on same basis as yours. So you're flatly wrong on that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
Solipsism: what you don't know is proof. Sheesh.
STATE ONE POINT, you empty "AC" astro-turfer.
This is more of the typical one-liners here, no point except to appear to reply, but zero substance. Sheesh. It's a tactic that wears out reasonable people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:member when you were going to leave forever?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
Without the code deliberately put in, there would be no "hiding" and my comments would be on same basis as yours. So you're flatly wrong on that point.
Mike's not hiding your comments, dumbass. The rest of us are.
Here - enjoy a few more "Reported as shit" flags.
Protip: the world doesn't particularly like whiny little bitches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
So you think. Read this, and see my later too:
[Masnick] contrived the "hiding" as way to disadvantage dissent without appearing responsible. You cannot say with any authority whether that's done by site or some mechanical number of clicks. Nor will Masnick state any actual details. It's a mystery, so it's reasonable to conclude is approved by an Administrator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
SESTA voted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
[Masnick] contrived the "hiding" as way to disadvantage dissent without appearing responsible. You cannot say with any authority whether that's done by site or some mechanical number of clicks. Nor will Masnick state any actual details. It's a mystery, so it's reasonable to conclude is approved by an Administrator.
Translation: I don't know how it works, so it must be what I think it is.
Enjoy the flag again, bubble boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
Whoops. Incomplete answer, missed "Your website", and is important.
I hold that Techdirt of its own free will by providing plain HTML with no stated right to edit (as by adding a warning) has ceded its comment section to The Public, so that's MY website, then.
That's what Section 230 of CDA actually provides, NOT the full editorial control to a "platform" as of a print magazine. The Internet provides TWO-WAY communication, and the comments section belongs to The Public. Masnick / Techdirt is not liable for what you or I write so long as does not edit.
Now, "moderation" is not editing, it's to be applied when comments are outside common law. Masnick / Techdirt does NOT "moderate", but should, it'd increase use of the site. But Masnick does hide behind Section 230 to shield from liability. He contrived the "hiding" as way to disadvantage dissent without appearing responsible. You cannot say with any authority whether that's done by site or some mechanical number of clicks. Nor will Masnick state any actual details. It's a mystery, so it's reasonable to conclude is approved by an Administrator.
AND THEN the site is actually EDITING comments, so in my view -- I think it's inevitable to be so found when comes up in court, though unlikely to be a case because so little at stake -- anyway, in my view since does edit comments, then Techdirt is liable for all that's written here. It's intruded itself to abridge MY First Amendment Right. -- And again, IF you will READ the Sandvik decision, the Supreme Court has practically stated this, just hasn't the right case yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"MY First Amendment Right."
"I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
And now the censoring sets in to PROVE my point that Techdirt cannot stand "critical review"!
Sheesh.
Anyone reasonable: enjoy the site for Masnick's ridiculous outside all bounds corporatism, so you know what They are up to, and the triviality of ankle-biters, just don't take this site seriously, you'll be the fool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt cannot stand "critical review"
It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole,
And they're showing you the door."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt cannot stand "critical review"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:Laughable Troll
You do understand that your opinion here is not backed up by any actual law, tradition or agreement with TD, right?
And I infer - from your clouded response - that you have no website of your own, because if *you* opened up comments, you would be giving up ownership?
And you don't see why everyone has a problem following this chain of logic?
I "deflect" to your website because I want to see a working validation of your dogma. But you can't show me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
By the way, "Gary", I commented at "you" way back when you started analyzing Techdirt and wondering that you wouldn't last long here. I was for once wrong. Instead, you've turned into ardent defender of Techdirt, similarly unable to flick your eyes over a bit of "critical review", advocating "hiding" at the least, and preferably to run off all dissent.
So now I wonder, given the massive astro-turfing here which is supported by the massive gaps in many "accounts", besides the obviously falling number of comments for the motive, if "you" too aren't just more astro-turfing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
Only once ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
Ahah. SO astro-turfing isn't actually legally.
Nor then is running one site which states support by say, Google, and then pretending on another to be "independent".
https://copia.is/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sponsors.png
These cases take time to percolate through the system, but there's still the substance to law and American principles that I believe, but not to the corporatism that Masnick practices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
Please show us your unmoderated website that proves that modersation is necessary for comment boards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
Yes. Masnick advocates "free speech" but then asserts that this site and all corporations actually have total editorial control.
"And, I think it's fairly important to state that these platforms have their own First Amendment rights, which allow them to deny service to anyone."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170825/01300738081/nazis-internet-policing-content -free-speech.shtml
In my estimation, that's false advertising, a networked bait-and-switch.
I don't understand what you ask, and Techdirt IS the topic site, so don't bother to "clarify", you're only deflecting and diverting from Techdit, just as other astro-turfing does here. -- SURELY this site's practices are RELEVANT to "critical review", since that's been a irritant for dissent since long before "your" screen name popped up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
And you're still lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
That's a little personal, isn't it? And off-topic.
NOW, unless one of you actually STATES and not just asks and diverts, then I stop. One more refresh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
That's a little personal, isn't it? And off-topic.
Welcome to every sorry post you make, you little shit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's what's for dinner!
That or he's being paid by one of the many enemies that TechDirt has accrued due to reporting, such as Comcast's lobbyist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's what's for dinner!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's what's for dinner!
Hmm. Perhaps she did hug, squeezed too hard and pushed what little brain existed out through the rear orifice. Either that or dropped him on his head. No, perhaps not - it might have done some good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wah
So then sue Techdirt already, you fecking lying coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, Ms Streisand....
Sunlight is a really strong disinfectant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Now where to stick the next nail..."
With how sleazy the company was it's not really surprising that they got hammered, the only question was 'on how many points will they be slammed?'
Nice that they realized that just going after them for Roca was solving the wrong problem, and applied a permanent injunction against using the same tricks in the future, given the ones who ran Roca seem to have just switched names and carried right on, same as before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great Deals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Summing up
Let's see...
Yessiree, that will teach all those bad ol' companies to not use non-disparagement clauses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Summing up
I'm deeply suspicious of these things on principle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Summing up
Non-disparagement clauses are explicitly illegal now.
(As opposed to being merely implicitly illegal at the time of the Roca Labs, KlearGear, etc. cases.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Summing up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know this was years ago, but it just dawned on me that this may explain why customer service was never available. Apparently, they were too busy making and posting positive content online to actually service any customers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]