FTC: Consumer Gag Clauses a No-Go
Time 1 Minute Read

In continued enforcement of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), the Federal Trade Commission entered consent decrees against two rental management companies that mandated non-disparaging reviews in their consumer contracts.

Florida-based Shore to Please threated that any vacationer who posted less than a 5-star review immediately owed the company at least $25,000; Baltimore-based Staffordshire Property Management, LLC threatened suit for any disparagement. Under the CRFA, which was enacted in 2017, businesses that use standardized contract terms imposed with limited ability for consumer negotiation cannot in those terms bar consumers from writing and posting negative reviews online nor threaten penalties for doing so. Both companies agreed to refrain from the future use of such non-disparagement provisions, as well as to inform previously affected consumers of the voiding of the relevant contract clauses and their right to post honest reviews. These proposed orders follow the FTC’s recent settlement of three other complaints, the Commission’s first actions to deal exclusively with the CRFA, which included similarly broad injunctive and other relief. The FTC’s proposed orders will be subject to public comment before issuance of any final consent orders.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 3 Minute Read

On January 8, 2026, the Kentucky Attorney General announced the first enforcement action against a company for alleged violations of the Kentucky Consumer Data Protection Act, just eight days after the law went into effect. The enforcement action is part of a larger legislative and regulatory focus on AI-powered chatbots used by minors.

Time 7 Minute Read

As we ring in the New Year, one thing remains the same: understanding the definitions and conditions in your insurance policy is critical. In a recent decision, a Florida federal court in Ohio Security Insurance Co. v. E Kelly Enterprises Inc. et al., No. 3:22-cv-24754, held that an insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify a general contractor and no duty to indemnify a subcontractor for damages from defective work on a naval base, based on the policy’s definition of “suit,” “property damage,” and allocation requirements. The decision highlights the importance of numerous issues in the context of commercial general liability policies, including the nuances of policy definitions, obtaining insurer consent when necessary, and allocation between covered and uncovered claims.

Time 6 Minute Read

Third-party funding of high-stakes litigation can often make the difference between litigating the case or walking away.  The financial arrangement often makes good sense, with investors helping to facilitate the pursuit of bona fide claims that might otherwise be forgone in exchange for a piece of the recovery.  Insurance coverage disputes fit this model well, since those claims typically involve an insured who has already suffered some financial or other hardship and an insurance company with deep resources that refuses to pay the claim.  It should come as little surprise, therefore, that the Insurance Services Office (ISO), an advisory and rating organization for the property/casualty insurance industry, recently approved a new endorsement that requires disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements. The approval comes as courts and state legislatures step up demands for transparency in funding to curtail influence that funders may have over litigation strategy.

Time 4 Minute Read

On Tuesday, July 1, FTC Chair Andrew N. Ferguson, issued a statement designating July as “Made in the USA” month.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page