|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A proposed bill introduced this week by Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) would make it illegal for businesses to penalize customers who write negative reviews on Yelp or other online review sites.
Called the Consumer Review Freedom Act, Swalwell said the bill was motivated by several examples of companies attempting to dissuade people from writing honest reviews by slipping non-disparagement clauses in their consumer contracts.
“No country that values free speech would allow customers to be penalized for writing an honest review,” said Swalwell, whose district includes San Ramon. “I introduced this legislation to put a stop to this egregious behavior so people can share honest reviews without fear of litigation. I look forward to advancing this in a bipartisan manner, and protecting the right to speak one’s mind.”
Co-signing the proposed bill was fellow California Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman, who represents the 30th Congressional District, which includes part of the San Fernando Valley.
According to Swalwell, the Palmers, a couple from Utah, were fined $3,500 by KlearGear for violation of a non-disparagement clause after they posted a negative review online about their experience with the company. When they refused to pay, the company in turn reported their debt to the credit bureaus, which damaged their credit rating.
Swalwell’s legislation would declare such non-disparagement clauses in consumer contracts unenforceable, in addition to providing authority to the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to take action against businesses that include them.
Last week, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a bill making non-disparagement clauses illegal in California unless their right to share their opinion was “knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently” waived.
The legislation is also co-sponsored by Democratic Congressmen Steve Cohen, of Tennessee, and Tony Cardenas, also from the San Fernando Valley and representing the 29th Congressional District.
Others supporting the measure are Public Citizen, Yelp, Consumers Union, Trip Advisor, Consumer Federation of America, Public Participation Project and the National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients).
“The Consumer Review Freedom Act will ensure that consumers have the freedom to express their candid and public feedback on companies,” explained Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, an early supporter of the bill.
“Hidden contract terms should not be used to bully consumers into silence,” he added. “This measure not only will protect consumers who review businesses, but also safeguard the flow of information to other consumers who rely on reviews to figure out which businesses to patronize.”
The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Appeal over redevelopment project at old Chevron HQ coming to San Ramon councilApril 6, 2026 10:32 pm
The problem has never been “honest” reviews, but rather “dishonest” reviews. What recourse does a business have against a reviewer who intentionally disparages a business for the sole purpose of harming it? Swalwell should spend his time in DC on more relevant issues… like maybe the economy?
I disagree with @George for the most part. It would appear that he defines “Dishonest” as anything a business owner does not like. I read many reviews and I find that almost every last one “appears” to me to be honest. I sort through the good ones and bad. Smart business owner get good reviews by giving good service. And on Yelp I have found that business owners can actually respond to the feedback!
To put a clause in a contract that says you must only give good feedback is ridiculous.
Actually there is a problem with a business that charges you for writing a ‘bad’ review. Who decides if it is bad. What about free speech? Without this protection for consumers sites like Yelp and Trip Advisor become useless. How do we find out if a business is doing a good job or just suppressing all bad comments. I realize that there may be some malicious posts but I would prefer a nation where free speech is protected and not subject to retaliation.
This law should be extended to apply to professionals like doctors, too. I’ve seen doctors’ consent forms that now include non-disparagement clauses, forbidding the patient to post anything online about their opinion of quality of the doctor’s services.
Just what we need: LESS information about which doctors are good and which are not.
Not to change the subject, but…I would like to see a new review site where a business can review, get this, its clients. I have some great clients that I would give great reviews of…then there are the clients that I wouldn’t wish on my competition. If I could review those who pass bad checks and refuse to pay until we chase them for months and waste our time, it could help a future business to know not to do business with that person. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Dave,
That ‘site’ used to exist for those that had passed bad checks around town amongst other more heinous offenses. It was routinely viewed by nearly everyone in the community.
All you had to do, was go to your local U.S. Post Office. Miss those days?
Sounds like one of these feel good bills that addresses a non-issue but is an easy way to make the sponsor look good. Our elected officials need to stop protecting themselves with this nonsense.