By MARSHA MERCER
Alice Roosevelt Longworth, Teddy Roosevelt’s
daughter, had a pillow in her upstairs sitting room embroidered with the
invitation, “If you can’t say something good about someone, sit right here by
me.”
Today, the Internet sits right by all of us, churning
out critiques that are far more than juicy gossip. Irate consumers who once spouted
off only to friends and family about haphazard customer service, shoddy products
and careless workmanship now have, at their fingertips, a megaphone to the
world.
Customers are empowered by the wisdom of the crowd
as online reviews help us choose everything from donuts and dog walkers to
dentists and vacation destinations.
We take some reviews with a shaker of salt, knowing
that some are fake, posted by unscrupulous competitors. We can ignore unsigned
rants, but people who sign their reviews should have a right to air their
opinions.
Unfortunately, more and more companies and even medical
professionals want to stifle complaints with gag or anti-disparagement clauses.
These provisions show up in “Terms and Conditions” boilerplate and form contracts.
Since most people rarely read the fine print, they don’t realize they’ve agreed
not to share negative comments until they’re threatened with warnings, fees and
lawsuits.
Such intimidation should not happen, and, the old
joke aside, Washington actually may be here to help.
The Federal Trade Commission in September sued marketers
of a line of weight-loss products alleging that they made false claims for
their products and then threatened to enforce a gag clause to stop consumers from
posting negative reviews and testimonials online.
A federal judge last month
issued an injunction, stopping Roca Labs from telling customers they can’t post bad
product reviews.
California last year passed a law prohibiting
companies from inserting language in contracts that waives a consumer’s right
to make “any statement” about goods and services. But individual lawsuits and
separate state laws take time.
Congress is
considering a federal law to eliminate confusion about what’s allowed where. The
Consumer Review Freedom Act would ban non-disparagement claims in form
contracts while still allowing companies to pursue defamation cases in court.
The bills in the House and Senate have bipartisan support as well as backing from
Angie’s List and Yelp.
A Senate Commerce Committee hearing Nov. 4 featured
a victim of a gag clause, Jen Palmer of Utah. Her husband, John, bought a key
chain and desk toy that together cost under $20 as Christmas gifts in 2008 from
online retailer KlearGear.com, but the items never arrived.
After the couple couldn’t reach anyone at the
company by phone, Jen Palmer wrote a negative review on RipoffReport.com. Three
years later, KlearGear contacted John Palmer, insisting that his wife’s
negative review be taken down or that he pay a $3,500 fine for violating a
non-disparagement clause. KlearGear claimed the items were never paid for.
RipoffReport.com has a policy of not removing
reviews. Plus, the Palmers said the non-disparagement clause wasn’t part of
KlearGear’s fine print until well after the purchase. When Palmer did not pay
the penalty, KlearGear reported an unpaid debt of $3,500 on his credit report, resulting
in delays getting loans and financing for a furnace.
Unable to repair the credit score, Jen Palmer finally
asked a television station in Salt Lake City for help. Public Citizen, a
consumer advocacy organization, saw the story and took the case. KlearGear did
not respond to the lawsuit, and a federal judge awarded the couple more than
$300,000. KlearGear, however, is based in France and has not paid a penny.
A KlearGear.com
spokesman said the company’s contracts are enforceable in the United States
because business transactions are exempt from First Amendment rights, adding,
“If a customer disagrees with any of a merchant’s policies, they are free to
shop elsewhere,” the Associated Press reported.
“The only two things we wanted,” Jen Palmer told the
senators, was “my husband’s credit to be cleaned, and we wanted to make sure
this would never happen to anyone else.”
She’s right. Companies should not be allowed to
bully or silence consumers who have suffered bad service or products. Congress
should act to protect consumers’ right to gripe, especially as we rely on the Internet
to help us decide what to buy and where to shop, eat and stay.
We all should be able to discover the good, the bad
and the ugly before we spend our hard-earned money.
©2015 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.
30
No comments:
Post a Comment