Beware the Negative Online Review: New Federal Law Prohibits Companies from Restricting the Right to Complain
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.21.16
Retailers and consumer products companies need to be aware of a new law affecting negative online reviews. Last Wednesday, President Obama signed the Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 (H.R. 5111) into law. The Act voids “non-disparagement clauses” in form contracts designed to prevent consumers from posting negative comments and online reviews of products and services. The Act also makes it unlawful for companies to include these clauses in their form contracts. The Federal Trade Commission will enforce the Act in the same way it enforces against unfair or deceptive trade practices under its jurisdiction; state attorneys general may also enforce the Act under certain conditions. For existing contracts, the Act will take effect in 90 days and FTC/state enforcement may commence one year from now.
According to the sponsoring House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Act is designed to “curtail non-disparagement clauses in order to preserve the credibility and value of online consumer reviews.” The Act arose following high profile actions by companies to suppress negative consumer reviews pursuant to “gag” clauses in form contracts. In one instance, a company referred a bad review to a debt collector to enforce a $3,500 contract penalty against the consumer.
Whether the Act leads to serious FTC/state enforcement of the now-banned clauses is uncertain. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enforcement collections will be “insignificant” because of the small number of cases that will be pursued. More likely, companies will simply remove non-disparagement clauses from their contracts to comply with the law, or otherwise be in a position to defend these clauses under the Act’s exceptions. Those exceptions include clauses prohibiting disclosure of, or allowing the removal of, trade secrets, privileged or confidential information, private medical information, and clearly false or misleading content.
The Act is careful to make clear that it does not restrict companies’ rights to take actions against false, abusive, vulgar, or discriminatory reviews. Companies may still take down such reviews and/or pursue defamation and similar claims against reviewers. The Act’s scope is thus intentionally narrow: companies cannot include (and must now remove) non-disparagement clauses in their form contracts.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 09.08.26
Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21: Good Faith in the Boardroom
The UK Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of Mr Francesco Costa, former chairman of Spring Media Investments Limited, in the first Supreme Court judgment to consider the scope of the duty under section 172(1) of the Companies Act 2006. The foundational position is that good faith requires honest conduct as well as honest thinking. A director's genuine belief that they are acting in the company's best interests will not excuse covert or disloyal conduct in pursuit of that belief.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.08.26
IRS Takes Aim: Proposed Rule Threatens Tax-Exempt Status of Private Schools
Client Alert | 5 min read | 09.03.26
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.03.26
FDA Seeks Input for Regulating GenAI-Powered Medical Devices

