A gadget retailer lost a lawsuit in federal court after it retaliated against a Utah couple who posted a critical review online about the retailer’s service. KlearGear had attempted to force the couple to pay it $3,500 for criticizing it. (The Salt Lake Tribune, May 20, 2014, by Pamela Manson)
KlearGear claimed the review violated its “non-disparagement clause” in its terms of service that reads, “In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts KlearGear.com, its reputation, products, services, management or employees.” (The Volokh Conspiracy, May 16, 2014, by Eugene Volokh)
A bill recently introduced in California’s assembly would prohibit contracts including provisions forcing consumers to waive rights to make statements about their experiences in conducting business with companies “…unless the waiver of this right was knowing, voluntary and intelligent.” The waivers are often concealed in fine print so that consumers were unaware of the contracts. “If merchants think that our First Amendment free speech rights need to be curtailed, they should say so upfront and in plain language,” said Assemblyman John A. Perez who introduced the bill. (Ars Technica, May 19, 2014, by Joe Silver)
Joe Silver in Ars Technica, May 13, 2014, wrote that reviewers should be aware of libel law when they post critical comments online about a service or product, particularly if in making the comments you stick to the truth, you are protected by the First Amendment.