PSA: CA businesses.... trying to ban reviews will net you a $2,500 fine.

[cbelt3]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/...r-reviews/

"Increasingly, businesses are looking for ways to suppress or erase consumers’ negative online reviews of them. In particular, we’ve recently seen a proliferation of contract clauses purporting to stop consumers from reviewing businesses online. Those overreaching contract clauses have never been a good idea, but yesterday, the idea got worse. Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB 2365 into law, to be codified as California Civil Code Sec. 1670.8. The law is a first-in-the-nation statute to stop businesses from contractually gagging their consumers."

[rjmacs]

But what if i waaaaaaannntt to sign away my right to express myself! :whine:

[freeradical]

If they really wanted to do something positive, they would make a law that allows consumers to selectively opt out of software TOS "agreements".

[hal]

While it sounds absurd, it's also absurd how easy it is to destroy a business with an attack via social media review sites. It's the little shops I worry about.

There are LOTS of stories on the net about yelp killing perfectly good businesses... it wouldn't take much much for a person with a vendetta to rally a negative yelp review campaign. Especially, say a popular high school kid doesn't get the summer job he wanted from that nice little ice cream shop. How hard would it be for him to tell all of his friends to write bad reviews?

[Buzz]

hal- Not that I'm disagreeing w/ you, but sometimes businesses need to be held accountable for their actions. I'd love for sites to allow both sides to air moderated grievances and rebuttals, w/ the moderator vetting and commenting on both sides. The popular kid could rag about not getting the gig, and the shop owner could say he had to give the job to his niece because his sister was pressuring him, but he thought highly of the popular kid, and wasn't expecting the sour grapes that ensued. The mods could sort it out in short order, and likely the ice cream shop survives. OTOH, when businesses do screw up, social media can be a wake up call; businesses should make things right asap, rather than try to bully the customer in order to get away w/ a mistake. A little moderation would go a long w/ social media. Jerry's bill is just a start, not the entire solution. OTOOH, I agree that there should also be some way of controlling an over zealous crowd of unwarranted reviews, which again favors moderation. Without checks and balances, the ugly appears all too easily, all too often.
==

[rjmacs]

If you're the target of a smear campaign, fight back. Respond to negative comments on Yelp. Encourage your good customers to write positive reviews. Excel, and reap the rewards. I find it hard to believe that excellent, customer-oriented businesses are being torpedoed by pissy kids.

[hal]

Buzz wrote: ...w/ the moderator vetting and commenting on both sides....

You can't moderate twitter or yelp - it's too big. And the pissy kid is just one example. Like I said, google the issue - there are LOTS of stories on the net, at news sites and such about victims of unfair social attacks.

I LOVE online reviews, but if people lie in their reviews, they should be held accountable.

[Racer X]

in the old days, when journalism had standards and ethics, it was called "SLANDER"

[eustacetilley]

Racer X wrote:
in the old days, when journalism had standards and ethics, it was called "SLANDER"

Well, technically...

"Linda L. Edwards, J. Stanley Edwards, Patricia Kirtley Wells, Tort Law for Legal Assistants, Cengage Learning, 2008, p. 390. "Libel refers to written defamatory statements; slander refers to oral statements. Libel encompasses communications occurring in 'physical form'... defamatory statements on records and computer tapes are considered libel rather than slander.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#cite_note-2

This is a General rule, and the distinction is not always made.

Also, technically, the truth or falsity of the statements are not an issue in some jurisdictions.

Eustace

[RgrF]

Had business' not turned to lawyers and attempted to stifle open comment, this law would have been unnecessary. It's not unlike their attempt to stifle criticism by filing SLAPP lawsuits, lawsuits only intended to raise the cost for an ordinary citizen to sue for damages.

Hal's concern for small business is noted but small business is seldom the cause or origin of these laws.