In August 2017, Illinois passed SB 1898, amending the state’s Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act to prohibit the use of non-disparagement clauses in contracts for consumer goods and services. The law “provides that a contract or proposed contract for the sale or lease of consumer merchandise or services may not include a provision waiving the consumer’s right to make any statement regarding the seller or lessor or the employees or agents of the seller or lessor or concerning the merchandise or services.”
Before the law was passed, businesses could arguably use non-disparagement clauses to prevent consumers from posting negative reviews online. Now such clauses are void and unenforceable.
In the past, businesses could—for the most part—control brand image and reputation through company-developed advertising and marketing. But with the advent of the Internet and social media, brand communication is no longer a one-sided conversation, especially on crowdsourced review websites like Yelp and Angie’s List. On the one hand, increased interactivity between businesses and consumers helps businesses gain insight, improve consumer engagement, and address issues to the benefit of both parties. On the other, consumers can easily share negative views of a company or product, however accurate or unreasonable.
Some businesses argue that non-disparagement clauses are necessary to protect their reputation and goodwill in the digital age, where social media has the potential to make or break a company. And while a negative review may be posted by a consumer with a legitimate complaint, a negative review may also be posted by a crooked competitor or Internet troll. Businesses known to use non-disparagement clauses include online shops, hotels and rentals, wedding photographers, and medical professionals.
For consumers, the glaring problem with non-disparagement clauses is they inherently contradict the principle of free speech by threatening penalties for sharing an opinion. However, courts have long upheld the validity of speech suppression contracts in employment, legal settlement, franchise, and personal relationship situations. With SB 1898, the Illinois legislature has decided that freedom of speech trumps freedom of contract when it comes to publishing reviews online, as the potential benefit to the public outweighs the potential harm to businesses.
SB 1898 does not prohibit or limit a person or business that hosts online consumer reviews from removing statements that are otherwise lawful to remove. For example, many websites do not allow the use of profanity or people’s names when posting reviews and comments. This means businesses may still petition review websites to remove reviews for other legal reasons.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the adoption of a final rule aimed at curbing the sale, purchase, and dissemination of fake reviews and testimonials. This rule, which will become effective 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register, marks a decisive step in the agency’s ongoing efforts to... Read More »
Online e-commerce giant Amazon is taking a tougher stance on fake reviews as the federal government is cracking down harder on e-commerce platforms to ensure that customers are getting an honest and fair account of what they are purchasing online. Earlier this month, Amazon filed a lawsuit in King County... Read More »
In this age of social media, it is no wonder that public officials use it to communicate with their constituents. Two members of a Southern California school board did just that. But to their dismay, two disgruntled parents repeatedly posted lengthy, unfavorable opinions on the officials’ public Facebook and Twitter... Read More »
On August 30, 2021, the California legislature passed the Silenced No More Act, which allows employees who have experienced harassment or discrimination in the workplace to speak out even if they have reached a settlement with their employer concerning their allegations. Governor Newsom signed the bill into law late last... Read More »
