A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Congress protects Americans’ right to review goods and services

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

One of the most important values in the United States is freedom of speech. As Americans, we want to be able to express ourselves without interference. This value includes online reviews for goods and services.

Although there has been some retaliation from some companies against people who leave negative reviews on various websites, the US legislature has stepped in recently to protect the rights of Americans to state their opinions without such recourse, according to a recent article in arstechnica.com.

How Companies Use Gag Clauses

Many sellers write gag clauses into the fine print of their user agreements. Non-disparagement clauses prohibit consumers from posting negative reviews. In the primary case that sparked the recent bill, “a company demanded the removal of a negative online review or payment of $3,500 in fines because the online merchant’s terms of service included a non-disparagement clause.”

The Importance of Freedom in Online Reviews

It’s obvious that consumers being fined by companies for leaving negative reviews would have a tremendous impact on consumer rights.

Especially in a market dominated by online purchases, where word of mouth and standard print advertising is not nearly as important as it once was, online reviews are extremely important for people making purchasing decisions.

This legislation, which should be signed into law without incident, is an important move for the rights of consumers.

We will keep our eye on this legislation. In the meantime, if your rights as a consumer are being violated by non-disparagement clauses of this kind, talk with an experienced lawyer right away.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.