Miami Plastic Surgeon Sues Two Patients For Negative Reviews After He Had Them Sign Illegal Non Disparagement Agreements

from the this-again dept

What is it with plastic surgeons suing their former customers over negative reviews? We've written stories with that basic plotline over and over and over again. The latest involves Miami-based plastic surgeon Dr. Leonard Hochstein, who the article lets us know, has appeared on "The Real Housewives of Miami." Except, now he's getting attention for suing two of his former clients who left negative reviews online. Even though there's now a law, the Consumer Review Fairness Act, that bars anyone from forcing customers to sign a non-disparagement clause, Hochstein did so anyway. He insists he only recently became aware of that law. But he won't stop suing those customers.

His quotes are truly a work of art.

"I didn't have a choice, this is the last thing you want to do," said Dr. Hochstein.

Yeah, let's review this for a second: you did have a choice. You had lots of choices. You didn't need to sue. Indeed, you shouldn't have sued. Because before this, what people knew of your reputation, was that (and I'm not making this up), you were called "the Boob God." I mean, you even promoted yourself that way:

And, now, your name is splashed all over the news as the boob who decided to sue his patients over a few negative reviews. So you had a choice. And you chose unwisely.

"All I ever wanted was for people to be honest," he said.

Okay. Here's some honesty: don't (1) force people to sign illegal contracts that say they can't ever say anything negative about you, and (2) don't then sue those customers. Beyond being illegal under the Consumer Review Fairness Act, the agreement didn't say "be honest in your reviews." It said that your customers are not allowed to post "negative reviews or disparaging comments or statements about Dr. Leonard Hochstein or his employees." So, it's bullshit that you wanted people to be honest, because if they were honestly negative about you, you were telling them they had to shut up. And now you're suing them.

The article notes that the law doesn't prevent Hochstein from suing his patients, though now that he's getting attention for this, I'd image the FTC or potentially Florida's Attorney General might want to look into the fact that he made a bunch of patients sign such agreements. But still, Hochstein appears to have no intention of backing down:

Dr. Hochstein says he's moving forward with both cases.

"Be honest, tell the truth," he said. "There's nothing wrong with saying 'I didn't like my surgery, I didn't like how it went' and just stop there, don't make things up."

Once again, I feel the need to point out that the contract Hochstein made his clients sign would not have, in fact, allowed them to say "I didn't like my surgery." Because it forbade all negative reviews.

Over the weekend, it was reported that, far from backing down, Hochstein has now asked a court to throw his former client in jail for continuing to talk about the case.

According to legal documents obtained by The Blast, Hochstein filed a motion for bodily attachment against Kristen LaPointe, which in basically asks a judge to lock her up until she removes all negatives posts about the doctor as a part of a court order.

Unfortunately, despite "obtaining" those legal documents, The Blast didn't actually post them, so we have to rely on what they claim. Similarly, the NBC article above doesn't link to the actual court records, and a quick search of the Miami Dade court records online finds other unrelated lawsuits involving a Dr. Leonard Hochstein, but not the cases discussed here. So perhaps there are more details here, but doctors suing patients over reviews is never a good look -- especially after having them sign a non-disparagement clause. Asking to lock up patients for their reviews is even worse. And since Hochstein claims he was unaware of the Consumer Review Fairness Act, he might also be unaware of Florida's anti-SLAPP law. He might want to familiarize himself with it, because it certainly seems like he might run into some issues with that law as well.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, boob god, crfa, leonard hochstein, non-disparagement clause, reviews, slapp suits

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.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, consumer review fairness act, crfa, free speech, gag orders, non-disparagement, non-disparagement clauses
Companies: kleargear