- Did the Space Force logo rip off Star Trek? Friday 6:24 PM
- Disabled people with service dogs say Uber, Lyft drivers are denying them rides Friday 3:25 PM
- TikTok teen famous for greasy hair ends her 8-year reign Friday 2:48 PM
- Police handcuff brown man at subway station for carrying a toy gun Friday 1:20 PM
- Fake clip of Sanders quoting infamous ‘hot chip’ tweet is duping people online Friday 1:16 PM
- The Mars Volta’s Cedric Bixler-Zavala alleges Scientologists behind dog’s death Friday 12:46 PM
- Eminem responds to critics: ‘This album was not made for the squeamish’ Friday 12:42 PM
- ‘The poet, the poem’ meme takes iconic lines and turns them into art Friday 12:40 PM
- People are making dark memes about the coronavirus Friday 12:27 PM
- Trump camp’s ‘head on a pike’ impeachment threat hit with memes Friday 11:34 AM
- What is the #FreeBritney movement, and why is Cher tweeting about it? Friday 10:52 AM
- This YouTuber claims the Saudi government plotted to kidnap him on U.S. soil Friday 10:30 AM
- Report: Jack Dorsey declined to host a fundraiser for Tulsi Gabbard Friday 10:22 AM
- Bernie Sanders plugs Joe Rogan endorsement—and women are furious Friday 10:04 AM
- Young woman using TikTok to document the end of her life says she’s dying next week Friday 8:43 AM
It may soon be safer to leave negative reviews on Yelp
Two members of Congress are fighting for your right to leave negative reviews.
Every once in a while, a few members of Congress try to do something good. Such was the case on Tuesday, when two representatives introduced a bill to prevent businesses from censoring their customers’ negative online reviews.
The House bill from California Democrats Eric Swalwell and Brad Sherman, called the Consumer Review Freedom Act, is short and to the point. It declares that a contract clause is illegal if it “prohibits or restricts the ability of a person who is a party to the form contract to engage in a covered communication” or “imposes a penalty or fee against a person who is a party to the form contract for engaging in a covered communication.” In this case, the term “covered communication” refers to online reviews.
The bill’s final provision clarifies that nothing in its text should be read to nullify ongoing lawsuits related to libel, slander, or other punishable speech. A company will still be able to sue a customer who, for example, deliberately lies to tarnish the company’s reputation.
Over the years, a number of businesses have gained attention for requiring customers to sign “non-disparagement” clauses when they interact with that business. In November 2013, for example, online retailer KlearGear attempted to charge a couple $3,500 for a negative review about its failure to deliver their orders. It was this infamous case that inspired Swalwell to draft his bill.
Customer intimidation and retribution is such a problem on Yelp that the company declared its support for a California law protecting negative reviews on Sept. 10. That bill passed by a wide margin on Aug. 18 and became law last week.
Laurent Crenshaw, Yelp’s head of public affairs, told National Journal that the company “was supportive of [Swalwell’s] effort and the efforts of other lawmakers to make it explicitly clear under law that non-disparagement clauses in consumer contracts violate the core tenets of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”
Before the Consumer Review Freedom Act can get a full floor vote, it must pass the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Eric Geller is a politics reporter who focuses on cybersecurity, surveillance, encryption, and privacy. A former staff writer at the Daily Dot, Geller joined Politico in June 2016, where he's focused on policymaking at the White House, the Justice Department, the State Department, and the Commerce Department.