FTC Acts to Enforce Non-Disparagement Provision Ban

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

May 10, 2019

non-disparagement-provision
Non-Disparagement Provision Ban

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.

If you are interested in having a contract prepared for your business or if you are facing an FTC or state attorney general investigation, please e-mail us at info@kleinmoynihan.com, or call us at (212) 246-0900.

The material contained herein is provided for information purposes only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney. Each situation is unique, and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney.

Attorney Advertising

Similar Blog Posts:

FTC Settles Online Review Law Charges

Internet Marketers Involved in Free Trial Law FTC Settlement

FTC Obtains Sweepstakes Sponsor Asset Freeze

David O. Klein

David O. Klein

David Klein is one of the most recognized attorneys in the telemarketing, technology, Internet marketing, sweepstakes and telecommunications fields. Skilled at counseling clients on a broad range of technology-related matters, David Klein has substantial experience in negotiating and drafting complex licensing, marketing and Internet agreements.

Schedule a Call
In The Know

Trending Topics

Creating a Viral and Legally Compliant "Pin to Win" Contest- Klein Moynihan Turco

Creating a Viral (And Legally Compliant) “Pin to Win” Contest

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

We have frequently written about the marketing benefits associated with the use of promotional contests and sweepstakes.  Promotional contests and sweepstakes often appear on social media platforms, which provide companies with a free and effective means to increase the number of consumers participating in their respective contests. While companies must

Facebook Decision defines a TCPA Autodialer- Klein Moynihan Turco LLP

Facebook Aftermath: Courts Clarify Definition of TCPA Autodialer

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On April 1st, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, marking a newly clarified definition of “autodialer” within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). In the two weeks that followed, two federal courts have directly addressed the definition of TCPA autodialer as

Critical Role that TCPA Plays in Outbound Telemarketing- KMT

The Critical Role that the TCPA Plays in Outbound Telemarketing

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

If you’re running any sort of outbound telemarketing campaign – phone calls, voicemail drops, or text messaging – you need to understand the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and its enabling regulations. Call center operators are not the only businesses that employ outbound telemarketing to reach out to consumers. Using

How to Use Promotional Marketing the Legal Way: Klein Moynihan Turco LLP

How To Use Promotional Marketing The Legal Way

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The use of promotional contests, games and sweepstakes marketing can be a dynamic and cost-effective way to increase sales, build a database of interested consumers and otherwise increase brand awareness and buzz. Consumers are more easily attracted to your marketing message by the opportunity to win prizes than with more

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin