ARTICLE
16 May 2019

FTC Acts To Enforce Non-Disparagement Provision Ban

KM
Klein Moynihan Turco LLP

Contributor

Klein Moynihan Turco LLP (KMT) maintains an extensive practice, with an international client base, in the rapidly developing fields of Internet, telemarketing and mobile marketing law, sweepstakes and promotions law, gambling, fantasy sports and gaming law, data and consumer privacy law, intellectual property law and general corporate law.
The FTC has settled its first CRFA violation investigations. Enacted in December of 2016, the CRFA prohibits businesses from offering provisions in form contracts that prevent customers from publicly expressing...
United States Consumer Protection

The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") has settled its first Consumer Review Fairness Act ("CRFA") violation investigations. Enacted in December of 2016, the CRFA prohibits businesses from offering provisions in form contracts that prevent customers from publicly expressing honest reviews about products or services, or penalizing those customers who have publicized such reviews. Complaints were filed against: 1) A Waldron HVAC, LLC and its owner; 2) National Floors Direct, Inc.; and 3) LVTR LLC and its owner (collectively, "Respondents"). In the complaints, the FTC alleged that Respondents violated Section 2(c) of the CRFA, by offering customers form contracts that contained non-disparagement provisions. In each case, the Respondents have accepted proposed consent agreements, and are awaiting public comment before a final order is entered.

Why were the non-disparagement provisions deemed invalid?

Banning Non-Disparagement Provisions

In the past, we have blogged about how the FTC acts to protect consumers from false and deceptive online reviews. Equally alarming to the FTC, are reviews that are never shared with the public because businesses have contractually prohibited customers from communicating their negative experiences. The FTC maintains that these contractual non-disparagement provisions harm the public by preventing future customers from obtaining accurate prior customer experience information.

Terms of the Proposed Consent Agreements

Pursuant to the terms of their respective settlement agreements with the FTC, Respondents are prohibited from offering prospective customers any contract that limits their ability to post public reviews relating to Respondents' goods or services. The Respondents also must notify all customers who entered into a contract with them after March 14, 2017, that their agreements contained unenforceable non-disparagement provisions. In addition, Respondents are required to file periodic compliance reports with the FTC.

Negative reviews can be harmful to businesses, but an FTC investigation can be even more damaging from a financial and reputational standpoint. Considering the regulatory and contractual risks, businesses should always consult with a knowledgeable attorney before drafting customer agreements.

Similar Blog Posts:

FTC Settles Online Review Law Charges

Internet Marketers Involved in Free Trial Law FTC Settlement

FTC Obtains Sweepstakes Sponsor Asset Freeze

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More