California Tells Businesses: Stop Trying To Ban Consumer Reviews 275
ericgoldman writes Some businesses are so paranoid about negative consumer reviews that they have contractually banned their customers from writing reviews or imposed fines on consumers who bash them. California has told businesses to stop it. AB 2365--signed by Governor Brown yesterday, and the first law of its kind in the nation--says any contract provisions restricting consumer reviews are void, and simply including an anti-review clause in the contract can trigger penalties of $2,500.
One Sure Way (Score:5, Insightful)
There is one sure way to reduce negative reviews: Make sure your product and/or service is good quality.
Nothing can entirely eliminate negative reviews, because sometimes people just get a lemon product, or the person giving them service was having a bad day, or they're just ornery people who can't be satisfied. But if you do your job right, monitor your employees to make sure they're not slacking off or mistreating your customers—and, of course, the best way to do this is to make sure they're satisfied with their jobs in the first place—and don't skimp monetarily on the quality of your product, service, or employees, then you're likely to get more good reviews than bad.
Dan Aris
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is one sure way to reduce negative reviews: Make sure your product and/or service is good quality.
It's the best way, but not a sure way. Unscrupulous companies will sometimes engage in reverse-astroturfing, where they hire a bunch of folks to post bad reviews of their competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon and Newegg will now mark reviews as "verified buyer" if they bought the product, and I'm sure it affects the overall rating in some way.
Re: (Score:2)
That's called "libel" and it's been illegal forever.
Posting fake positive reviews is immoral, but legal. Posting fake negative reviews can get your ass hauled into court, and paying for every cent of damage your actions did to the target, multiplied by whatever factor the judge likes...
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, have you actually TRIED to do that? Especially since those reviews are
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe they are a competitor's shill?
I'm sure that happens too! ^_~
Dan Aris
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.
Think I've heard that before...
Ummm...what?
That's generally brought up in the context of surveillance. Do you view reviews, by customers, of the products and/or services they've received from companies serving the public as being in the same category as overly broad and privacy-invading surveillance?
'Cause to me, that sounds like the kind of transparency a free market is built upon.
Dan Aris
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, what if the reviewer is an enemy trying to ruin his business or a prankster looking for some fun? There must be recourse for the owner to deal with malicious/invalid reviews.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you'll find a company out there that can afford to not skimp monetarily and yet compete at the same time, but I seriously doubt it.
Why? I for one will happily pay a higher price, even a much higher one, for good quality and service. I don't think this costs as much as it seems, because for example a good pair of shoes will last much longer than a bad pair that you'll have to replace much sooner. In any case, I prioritise value for money over cost, so for any non-essentials I'll usually prefer to save up for something nicer than buy cheap consumer tat that I won't really enjoy or find useful.
Re:One Sure Way (Score:5, Insightful)
because for example a good pair of shoes will last much longer than a bad pair that you'll have to replace much sooner.
Thing is there is no correlation between quality and cost.
I've had $100 runners fall apart within months. I've had $2 runners bought at the chinese night market last 4 years. (I had a belt bought the same night for under a buck fall apart the first time I tried using it. But I have inexpensive belts from inexpensive stores that have been with me since high school and are still just fine.
Like you I'm willing to pay more for better. But as often as not I'm paying more for same.
I can buy a car charger online for $2. I can buy another charger online for $10 and its just as good as the OEM one. I can walk into a local cellular store and buy their 'store brand' charger for $35 and find out its the SAME charger as the $2 one. Or I can pay $50 and get an OEM charger from Samsung or Apple etc and its just as good as the $10 generic online one but with a brand name logo and smarter packaging.
So I have to pay 25 times as much to reliably get a few nickels worth of resisters and slightly higher grade plastic? Because anything less, and I'm risking counterfiet goods or horrifically inferior product... but the difference between quality and junk is less than a $1 worth of actual parts/cost.
Re: (Score:2)
because for example a good pair of shoes will last much longer than a bad pair that you'll have to replace much sooner.
Thing is there is no correlation between quality and cost.
There is a correlation, it's just not a perfect one.
Dan Aris
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is there is no correlation between quality and cost.
Of course there is. It's not 100% obviously, but the idea that you can in general provide inferior products or services and yet charge the same as or more than your competition makes no sense on any level.
Re: (Score:2)
What I've found is that you don't get what you pay for; rather, you pay for what you get.
Re: (Score:2)
So you subscribe the Vimes boot theory of economics ?
Of course, if saving up to buy longer lasting shoes means you won't have shoes today, or food tomorrow, it kind of changes things, don't it?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a fancy name for it. For essentials like shoes and food I'm lucky enough to have plenty in the bank these days to buy what I need, so I have the luxury of choosing quality without sacrificing timeliness. But for something that costs a significant amount by whatever my financial standards are today, I'd rather wait and buy something good.
Mecial Cannabis companies (Score:3, Informative)
In Canada started doing this from bad reviews on their facebook/twitter pages but dropping the customer and not allowing them to purchase anymore.
Please can (Score:4, Insightful)
You stop putting the start of your comment in the subject and the rest in the body. Why? BECAUSE IT IS HARD TO READ - like all caps (BUT WORSE). We can quickly gloss over the effect it has on your argument, whether good or bad.
Re:Please can (Score:5, Funny)
Yah ok anonymous coward slashdot post police.
Re:Please can (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't often read the subject lines of comments, that's why it's annoying. You start reading the comment, it makes no sense, and then you have to go back and read the subject to understand what the hell is going on.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh well a couple spelling mistakes. As for being a customer of those companies, eh no, I do have a posession license but I prefer my weed illegal as it cheaper and better those those so called "medical companies"
Re: (Score:3)
This is a big problem in terms of legibility. Sometimes, it's easy to tell that you're starting your post in the middle of a sentence, but sometimes, it's impossible. I would say it's worse than posting in ALL CAPS, and around as bad as not having punctuation and paragraph breaks (depending on the length of the text).
If only there was a -1 unintelligibility mod option. Posts that start in the subject and continue in the body, among the other aforementioned transgressions, would slot perfectly in.
Re: (Score:2)
I just thought he was a French speaking Canadian.
do that. (Score:4, Funny)
We don't
Re: (Score:3)
Because this is suppose to be "medical grade" cannabis but people are getting weed with mould on it. So I can take if from your post that you are more then happy to sell a defective product, knowing its defective but then drop that person as a client because they show everyone that the product is so bad it can't be used.
Re:Mecial Cannabis companies (Score:4, Insightful)
If a company sold me a moldy product, I don't see why I would care if they refuse to sell to me again. It's not like the situation would likely come up.
Re: (Score:2)
Well when you're limited to who you can buy from and stay 100% legal you have no choice since most of the other companies are just as bad or there's huge waiting time for the product.
Re: Mecial Cannabis companies (Score:5, Interesting)
My dad pretty much does this. He says sometimes there are customers not worth having. They bitch and moan, saying everything is wrong even though the product is 100% fine. He would not have been in business 40 years if it wasn't, with almost all of his customers being repeat clients. These people just trying to get a massive discount on a product . So my dad just tells them to go to his competitor because he no longer wants their business.
It's like the people in a restaurant who eat 80% of their food then say they don't like it and ask for refund.
I worked at a small independent grocery store where sometimes we had loss leaders. Well there was this one lady who owned a local restaurant and would come in and load up her cart full of the sale item. We told her she couldn't do that and was meant for families. So we started putting limit signs. She would then start sending in her kids to get more. After so much hassle and constantly running out of product annoying others customers, the owner banned her and her family from the store
Re: (Score:2)
So you used dishonest sales tactics, and then got angry when someone called you on it? Cry me a river.
Re: (Score:3)
How is this even legal?
Re: Mecial Cannabis companies (Score:5, Informative)
Well it wasn't me, I was just a kid working there. And what are you talking about? We sold to everyone at that price. We had a LIMIT sign on it and she STILL had a cart load of product. Remember this wasn't walmart with 50 skids of product in the back, we were a small independent grocer. We let her take it a few times, but enough is enough. When she literally takes 1/'2 the product not leaving much for anybody else that's bullshit.
Let me guess you are one of those asshats who is selfish and takes everything for yourself and screw everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
I would think, if the stuff kept flying off the shelf like that (even is only due to one customer), you would just stock more of it and then sell more of it. Stock enough to let her buy all she wants and still have enough left over for everyone else who wants to buy it to get theirs too.
Re: Mecial Cannabis companies (Score:4, Interesting)
Their intent is to sell to local families, not be a restaurant supply business. The women intentional abused the intent. When the spelled it out to her, she still abused the intent. So they banned her. They chose to put families over a business, and good for them.
Re: Mecial Cannabis companies (Score:4, Informative)
Did you fail comprehension? He clearly stated they sold the item at the advertised price. Loss leaders are perfectly legal (at least here in California), but you have to actually have to have a reasonable amount of the product on hand. So if a single person buys out all the stock, the business could get in trouble for not having the product on hand, which could be seen as bait-and-switch. When there is an extremely limited supply, it must be clearly stated in the advertisement. A loss leader is meant to attract customers in the hopes that they will buy additional items and make up for the loss and possibly gain a new regular customer. Also, it is perfectly legal to set a limit on sale items.
Normally (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Businesses should be able to have comments that are just ridiculous removed as there are some people you just cannot please, no matter what.
I disagree. "Ridiculous" is too subjective. I think the main issue is small businesses who do not have many reviews to begin with are disproportionately harmed by negative reviews, especially when false negative claims are made by the one or two people who happen to be "savvy" to a particular review site, where the highly pleased majority of customers never visit
We need more of this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
+1 This! We're already guaranteed our freedom of speech through the first amendment, but having the cash to fight it can be tough for many people. Not to mention that in the case of financial transactions, often times the business gets the upper hand because they can report you to credit agencies, and then you've got even more garbage to contend with... the penalty clause for trying to put language like that in a contract is my favorite part of this whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Can't see anything there that affects a private companies ability to include terms in a contract which would restrict your free speech, perhaps you could point it out to me ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
which part of the do you not understand?
Fuck beta (Score:2)
Law or no law.
Luckily for Kitchen Nightmare's ratings (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
wow score one for free speech (Score:3)
Terrific to hear! Nice to see this terrible practiced blocked. It has been awful damaging to enterprise software for almost two decades now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, but so much more needs to be done to reign in EULA's. Having to agree to lousy binding mediation terms just to buy software or sign up for internet service is such a sham. Sadly we often end up having little real choice thanks to either no competition, or competition that employs the same tactics. There should not be 48 pages of EULA just to download and listen to a song.
California gets one RIGHT!! (Score:2)
Every once in a while even a bat-s**t crazy state like California gets one right...
Ridiculous (Score:2)
Look if I was running a business I wouldn't want people writing negative reviews either!
Think of it this way: bad businessmen have children to feed too and you can't starve their poor kids just because of some arbitrarily designated bad business practices, correct?
Correct!
PS: Don't forget to think of the children!
Bechmarks? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this mean that DeWitt clauses (http://sqlmag.com/sql-server/devils-dewitt-clause) prohibiting publication of benchmark results are now invalid by statute in California? I'm sure that would be he very definition of 'unintended consequence', but I'd love for it to be true.
Re: (Score:2)
We can hope! Although a better option would be for EULAs to simply be unenforcable entirely.
And Yelp gets to choose if anyone reads it (Score:3)
In other news, California courts ruled that Yelp is allowed to manipulate the ratings [sfgate.com] that users see, depending on whether the restaurant pays for advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody has one?
Re:reviews (Score:5, Funny)
Reviews are like a box of chocolate.
The person with the loose filling always gets the caramel instead of the strawberry truffle they were expecting.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You never know what you're gonna get.
Map of a box of chocolates (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You're not over-analyzing, you're completely missing the point. It's not his line, it's his momma's. She's the one who says the line in the movie and he attributes it to her every time he repeats it. In her day the chocolates didn't have a little guide. It was hit or miss.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not so sure what that widely repeated line from the film Forrest Gump is supposed to mean. Every box of Zachary chocolates that I've seen has a map of the chocolates on the inside of the lid.
Have you ever seen a normal person try to read a map?
Dear god man, you ask them to find Los Angeles and I'd be surprised if you didn't end up near Vladivostock.
Re:Map of a box of chocolates (Score:5, Funny)
To be fair, if all of them end up near Vladivostock instead of just some random location, it's probably the map at fault.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not so sure what that widely repeated line from the film Forrest Gump is supposed to mean. Every box of Zachary chocolates that I've seen has a map of the chocolates on the inside of the lid. I wonder if this misconception was meant as a sign of Forrest's inability to read the map due to mild low intelligence. Or are maps of chocolate samplers the result of increased food allergen awareness that didn't exist during the era when the film takes place? Or am I overanalyzing?
Even a map may be no good.
In Australia there is a brand of boxed assorted, individually wrapped chocolates called Quality Street. There's about 11 varieties and 5 main colours. So the difference between getting a Strawberry Creme or Turkish delight was figuring out which was the right shade of red wrapper. Given Quality Street's reasonable price point and bright purple packaging it is favoured by elderly customers. Elderly customers who generally, dont have the best eyesight.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:reviews (Score:5, Funny)
no, those are nougat. As far as my family knows, the never come with caramal :)
Re: (Score:2)
I would probably think a judge will rule about NDAs, and tend to rule in favor of businesses. Trade secrets have centuries of precedent behind them. Even if a jury is involved (as this is a civil issue), it would end up being appealed.
There is one concern of mine about this law: Shills for place "A" who post scads of bad reviews about spot "B" that are not in themselves defamatory, but a lot of one-star reviews add up. At the extreme, a place could try to pay people to visit review sites that are in oth
Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care how many 1-star reviews a place get. You know what matters? How they respond to them.
I'd rather go to a place that replies politely to every negative review than one that ignores them entirely. And if they are genuinely fake, things such as "We have no record of your stay, but we're sorry that you had trouble" speak a thousand times more to what's actually happening then any amount of ignorance.
Everywhere gets bad reviews. You cannot have perfection. What matters is how you deal with when you fuck up.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's one more headache for small businesses. Oh great, I forgot to check supplies because I was on Yelp. Now we're out of Dijon mustard. Next thing you know, there's a 1-star review from somebody who loves Dijon mustard. If there isn't any existing law, conspiracy to place unwarranted negative reviews should also be illegal. Competitors and their employees should be barred, or at the very least required to disclose their positions. That would be similar to the financial talking heads on TV who have
Re:hmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
That's one more headache for small businesses. Oh great, I forgot to check supplies because I was on Yelp. Now we're out of Dijon mustard. Next thing you know, there's a 1-star review from somebody who loves Dijon mustard. If there isn't any existing law, conspiracy to place unwarranted negative reviews should also be illegal. Competitors and their employees should be barred, or at the very least required to disclose their positions. That would be similar to the financial talking heads on TV who have to say if they own the stocks they discuss.
If the business ran out of Dijon mustard, they deserve the one star review from the Dijon lover -- that way other Dijon lovers can steer clear. Why shouldn't a restaurant get bad reviews for not stocking an expected condiment? If the restaurant doesn't have time to stock basic supplies, what else is falling through the cracks?
Re: (Score:2)
As there should be.
People will read the post that say 'one star no DIJON!!!!!!11!!!!!' And evaluate it properly.
If someone is malicious and lying, then there are already laws in place for that.
Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech. I can say anything I want about anyone.
Within reasonable limits. There are laws that cover libel, slander, nuisance, needlessly yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.
I'm allowed to have an opinion.
Absolutely 100% true. But nobody is obliged to help you express that opinion. And IANAL, but my understanding is that your ability to express an opinion can be affected by any contract you sign, including the click-through contracts these companies are foisting on their customers at the time of purchase.
BTW, I wholeheartedly support what California is doing here. What these companies are doing is unconscionable, but possibly tenable. This law closes the door on it.
Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
What you're saying is, every small business has to do business with Yelp. They're the 1000 lb gorilla in this case, and Yelp itself has earned plenty of bad reviews from businesses forced to deal with them.
Re: (Score:3)
If they care about Yelp, then yes they have to work with Yelp.
If they don't care about Yelp then they can ignore it completely.
You can't care about Yelp but not want to do anything about it so the site should be shut down.
Re:hmmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right that businesses should respond to negative reviews and customer complaints. However, the burden is rather high on small businesses to be constantly doing this. And hiring an outside firm to do it doesn't guarantee satisfactory results all the time either.
Since Google's being forced to delist web pages (DMCA and all), Yelp and other such directory sites probably should be forced to have a delist procedure as well. In fact, I would think that a lot of issues with fake reviews and fake updates and such would be solved if many of these things were opt-in (in the same way that Craig's List or eBay or Amazon Marketplace or Google Shopping is opt-in). At the very least, there should be an ability to opt-out.
I mean, it's one thing to complain when the system you took part in is working against you, but it's something else to be forced into the system that without your active involvement is being gamed against you.
People forget that consumer protection is not just about protecting the consumer directly, but also about preventing unfair business practices to maintain a competitive landscape (this falls in the same vein as price collusion, except it's one bad actor instead of multiple bad actors).
Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't get to opt-out of being the subject of other people's freedom of speech.
Unless you're Kim Jong Un.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but Yelp! and similar are also under no obligation to make your speech accessible via their search engines.
I'm not sure being able to opt-out of Yelp! (presumably you'd lose/hide both your good and bad reviews if you did) is really all that useful.
I suppose being a non-entity (ie: you don't show up on Yelp! at all) is better than having a terrible rating, but generally speaking opting out would mean you're losing visibility and unless you truly suck, that's a worse prospect than dealing with a few bad
Yelp Is Opt In (Score:3)
Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
I own a tiny one person business. In order for me to reply to comments on Yelp! I have to pay them a monthly fee. Last time I looked one patient gave me a glowing review. Before that I was "invisible." After that I got 30 calls from people working for Yelp! trying to get to to 'join.'
Meanwhile, other business review websites have popped up, giving me 4/5 stars. Basically, they quote the Yelp! review, but knock it down one star. For low number of reviews? For?
For me fortunately it probably makes no difference. But at the same time if I'm looking for a plumber it is so easy to go with the guy with good reviews.
Re:hmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. I always go straight to the bad reviews. Usually the 2-3 star are the most useful. 1 star is often posted by people that will never be happy and is usually a rant about something insignificant, unless there are lots of them. Even a company with 99% ratings, I'll look at those 2-3 stars to see how they handle things when they DO have problems,
That's the real lesson companies need to learn. Bad reviews are a great chance for good PR. It's ok to screw up. Last time I logged a complaint at Amazon, I almost felt bad about having said anything. THAT is why they're dominating the market. I have paid extra to buy things through them rather than direct from a dealer because the Amazon backing had that much value to me. I didn't know if the dealer would back the product, but I *KNEW* Amazon would.
Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care how many 1-star reviews a place get. You know what matters? How they respond to them.
I'd rather go to a place that replies politely to every negative review than one that ignores them entirely. And if they are genuinely fake, things such as "We have no record of your stay, but we're sorry that you had trouble" speak a thousand times more to what's actually happening then any amount of ignorance.
Everywhere gets bad reviews. You cannot have perfection. What matters is how you deal with when you fuck up.
This x 1000.
Fuck ups happen, I'd rather stay with someone who understands how to deal with them than someone who pretends they dont happen.
I know quite a few hoteliers (protip: if you want a good room, book direct and not through an agency) and the problem isn't just bad reviews, the problem is that people are too meek (read: gutless) to bring a problem to a owner/managers attention. So the live with the problem for their entire stay and then make a "scathing" review on Yelp or trip advisor. So often a guest can do something about their problem with a short conversation with the owner or manager (or front desk if its a big hotel) but wont. Often the hotel management doesn't know about the problem (previous guests hide or ignore them because they're scared of being charged for it) and managers cant count on housekeepers working for minimum wage (or less in some countries) who have dozens of rooms to do, to do a thorough inspection when a guest leaves.
There is an art form to complaining and getting what you want. First you must be clear about the resolution you would like, but also friendly (this is why I prefer to do it in person rather than over the phone, even if I have to wait in a line). God and hotel managers help those who help themselves, going a little way to fixing an issue is enough to make someone else go a long way. Appreciation is always appreciated, just a thanks. To a hotelier it makes them feel good about themselves and you (this often leads to discounts, free upgrades and drinks, especially for repeat customers). For staff it earns them brownie points, promotions or sometimes bonuses (so if a front desk staffer, concierge or housekeeper helps you, leave a compliment and make sure to mention those who helped you by name).
Beyond this you have the outliers, guests who are just difficult to deal with. I'm sure we all know the kind, people who want to pay bottom dollar but expect champagne service and nothing is ever good enough for these people. Fortunately these people are as rare as they are arrogant and blusterous.
Of course there are always crap hotels. But a bigger issue is that a lot of people who have a bad time have a bad time because they did nothing to fix it. Why wait until after leaving to make your issue known and make a big song and dance on an anonymous message board when 99 times out of 100 they'll fix it for you because being hospitable is what the hospitality industry is all about.
Knowing a bit about how guests behave from the other side of the desk means I explicitly dont trust sites like Trip Advisor or Yelp because they're too easily manipulated by the passive aggressive. Also, they can be manipulated by the other side (especially Trip Advisor) to have genuine negative reviews quashed or edited (remember with these sites, you aren't paying for them so that makes you the product, not the client).
Re:hmmmm (Score:4, Funny)
My favorite bad review response ever:
Review:
Incredibly rude disgusting fat slob insulted me and my family. Needed a table for five wife and kids in line midway to counter, I decide to sit down (just had hip replacement) and this idiot approaches and tells me to order or get out. This punk needs for someone to adjust his attitude.
Response from the owner:
This is the fat slob. I wanted to put some context around Mr Scaccia's review. First, no disputting it, I'm fat. I take issue with the rude and slob parts. I shower every day. I say please and thank you. But, fat, unfortunately I can't dispute that.
OK, let's talk about our interaction yesterday. I was in the dining room as I am almost every Saturday and Sunday when we start to get really busy. We had a medium sized line (probably about 15 people) and we were seating groups as they ordered so that everyone could get a table before they get their food. I call it Kindergarten rules. if someone is in front of you, they get to go first. I came around the corner and Mr S was at a table that had been put together for 8 people as was a man caring a baby carrier who was also looking for a table for a larger group. I asked Mr S if he had ordered yet and he said he hadn't and I told him that we would get him a table once his group had ordered.
I couldn't get anything more out of my mouth. Mr S said "well if we can't have a table then we will just leave." I did not approach Mr. S and tell him to order or get out, I said that we would get him a table once his group had ordered. After he proclaimed that if he didn't get a table right then that he would leave, I told him to have a nice day.
This really isn't a position I ever like to be put in. We don't have a line to the door every saturday and sunday because we are bad at what we do. The line is there because we take care of our customers and all their requests, just as we would have taken care of Mr. S. I was still going to try to save this relationship, but what Mr. S did next shocked me so much that I froze. He threw his menu on the table, moved toward me and belly bumped me out of his way and stormed off. (I'm not sure if he noticed the video camera that hopefully caught all of this directly next to the flat screen in the corner as he pushed me out of his way)
I then proceeded to help the group of 8 with the baby and the group of 7 with the elderly couple who had waited in line and ordered, get their tables after they had ordered, as I did for the next hour and a half every other large group who walked in and calmly waited in our long but quickly moving line. I wish I had a much bigger restaurant and a much smaller stomach but the facts are the facts.
Mr S would have hopefully spent this morning back in Louisiana writing a great review about this little mom and pop restaurant in Houston if he had only let us do our job, but he chose to give me an ultimatum where I can't win. Let him take a table before two groups who were in front of him, making a family with small children and a baby stand and wait or the group with the elderly couple stand and wait. I feel I did the only thing I could and wish Mr. S the opportunity to reflect on this situation and see the big picture.
Brock Silverstein Pecan Creek Grille
Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Informative)
A shill posting a fake review is still committing defamation. A company whose purpose is to commit crimes is committing racketeering. This law covers fines for bad reviews from customers not negative reviews from non customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Those are already inadequately covered by existing law.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right.. it's false advertising.
Still not welcome
Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Informative)
This law applies specifically to consumer goods. How many consumer goods require an NDA to purchase? In pretty sure not even the Apple store has tried that.
Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Informative)
This law applies specifically to consumer goods. How many consumer goods require an NDA to purchase?
Many EULAs contain something that is NDA-like.
Some consumer products even forbid you from publishing performance metrics or the results of comparative performance testing.... if I recall correctly, VMware used to be known for this, specifically.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just gonna bring up the topic of EULA's. But thanks for doing that instead. And it's not just VMware, but all heavy iron SQL database vendors like MS SQL Server, Oracle, IBM DB2, etc. A decade ago I used to look at storagereview.com for harddrives, then I'd look for database performance reviews, just to find out the software EULA specifically forbids those. What a load of crap?
So could this mean EULAs are reined in? (Score:3)
This law applies specifically to consumer goods. How many consumer goods require an NDA to purchase?
Many EULAs contain something that is NDA-like.
Some consumer products even forbid you from publishing performance metrics or the results of comparative performance testing.... if I recall correctly, VMware used to be known for this, specifically.
Maybe this law has *good* unintended consequences?
Re: (Score:3)
This law applies specifically to consumer goods. How many consumer goods require an NDA to purchase?
Many EULAs contain something that is NDA-like.
Some consumer products even forbid you from publishing performance metrics or the results of comparative performance testing.... if I recall correctly, VMware used to be known for this, specifically.
Publishing is a different kettle of fish. Publishing means a syndicated or corporate distribution. It is also used to prevent competitors from publishing fake reviews (I.E. I'm pretty certain this is what Uber was doing to Lyft).
However message boards (and sites like Yelp are just that) are not covered as publications.
However in my country, shrink wrap EULA's and NDA's are completely unenforceable. We have strong laws against deformation and slander (but the truth or at least reasonable doubt is a wat
Re: (Score:3)
It should be a clear enough distinction. Hotel's and restaurants don't get you to sign NDA's.
Re:hmmmm (Score:4)
It should be a clear enough distinction. Hotel's and restaurants don't get you to sign NDA's.
Some may start adding a non-disclosure clause, that is, if they think it can allow them to legally restrict negative reviews.
Re: (Score:2)
For it to be a NDA it would also have to include positive reviews, and also telling your family about your stay.
"Our holiday was lovely! We stayed at and it was "
Re: (Score:2)
It applies to restrictions on consumer - end customer - reviews, specifically. An NDA on consumer goods is not a common thing; most NDAs apply to employees. And this bill doesn't address that sort of thing at all. Read literally, however, yeah, it does seem to prohibit an NDA that restricts a consumer's right to talk trash about bad services or products. How it gets enforced is anybody's guess. California courts can get pretty stupid sometimes (and remarkably sensible at others).
I got no problem with it, th
Re: (Score:2)
NDAs, for the most part, aren't legal in Ca. There are some companies, military, that are exempt.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect, an NDA is legal in California. You are possibly confusing a non-disclosure with a non-compete, two completely different things.
Incorrect, NDAs are illegal in the entire US of A.
The judicial branch enforcing a a contract that restricts speech is tantamount to the government restricting speech - a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
The government should never enforce a contract where party A agreed to sever their foot for party B's amusement and $50. The government should never enforce any contracts where party A agrees to give up any fundamental rights, under any terms, for party B.
The fact that this is routinely done is bullshit
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
NDAs are to cover technology or "trade secrets" - writing a review for "peppermint Coca-Cola" (making something up) saying "it sucks moose balls" isn't revealing their 'recipe' for making it or anything secret, anyone can buy a can and make their own judgement.
By the same token, even if I enter an NDA with a company to, say, integrate their technology into a product - saying "these people are a PITA to work with and I would never want to deal with them again" isn't violating the NDA on their technology.
Now.
Re: (Score:2)
If it ends oppressive NDAs I'll pop a cork. Any gain in freedoms should be celebrated. Protecting corporate secrets just isn't as important as protecting free speech.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Here is an example from my home state, Utah:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/n... [sltrib.com]
This crap is actually happening a lot! Its one of the rare instances where I hope the nation follows Cali.
Re: (Score:3)
Even KlearGear's lawyer can't hide his scumminess from his public statements.
>> "Ironically, if Mr. Palmer [consumer] had simply approach[ed] Kleargear first last fall and requested a stay to finance their new furnace — we would have worked with him," Mathieu [shitty company's lawyer] wrote. "We are human beings. Instead he has chosen a public forum."
Yeah, and be sure to ask your mugger if he can hold off a minute, so you can buy your lunch before he steals your credit card.
Re: (Score:2)
If you've got the resources to pursue a class action suit at all, such a restriction can already be challenged as unconscionable.