AS IT IS 2016-01-30 Businesses Want to Ban Bad Online Reviews

AS IT IS 2016-01-30 Businesses Want to Ban Bad Online Reviews

In 2009, John and Jen Palmer posted a critical online comment about a business.

The Palmers said they ordered and paid for a small toy and a keychain for $20 from KlearGear.com, but never got the items. They said they could never reach anyone at KlearGear to fix the problem. They posted their complaint on RipoffReport.com.

Three years later, Jen Palmer said her husband received an email from KlearGear demanding they remove the post. If not, he was told, he would have to pay a $3,500 fine.

KlearGear said the Palmers violated the company’s policy that bars customers from posting critical comments.

It is becoming common practice for businesses to demand money from customers who criticize them online, according to Eric Goldman, a Santa Clara University law professor. He follows Internet legal issues.

These “do not criticize” clauses come as review sites such as Yelp¹, TripAdvisor, Angies List and ZocDoc become more popular. Comscore, an online research company, lists Yelp and TripAdvisor among the top 50 websites in the U.S. The sites have more visitors than even Netflix and ESPN.

Jen Palmer said she and her husband tried to remove their critical post, but could not get Ripoff Report to take it down. They refused to pay the $3,500 fine demanded by KlearGear. They said they did not believe the company had the right to demand it.

Two years later, a judge agreed with them. He said the company was wrong to demand money and to report the couple’s refusal to pay to a credit rating agency. That hurt the Palmers credit rating and made it impossible for them to finance the purchase of a furnace and car, Jen Palmer said.

The judge awarded the couple over $300,000 in damages.

At a recent Senate hearing, consumer advocates said what happened to the Palmers is not unusual. They gave some examples:

A New York City inn fined newlyweds $500 for every critical review posted by them or their wedding guests.

A dentist demanded $100 a day from a patient for each day he kept an online posting accusing the dentist of overcharging him.

 The U.S. owner of a Paris rental² apartment barred renters from using “blogs or websites for complaints.”

In all three cases, the business owner either backed down or was ordered to stop by a court.

But Senator John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, said the public will never know how many critical online postings get taken down under pressure.

Most people, he said, would “rather avoid the “threat of excessive penalties, costly³ litigation or damage to their credit scores.”

Since that November Senate hearing, the Senate passed Thune’s bill to stop companies from blocking critical online comments. The bill is now pending⁴ in the House of Representatives.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees free speech. But backers of the Thune legislation say the guarantee applies mostly to government, not private businesses. The First Amendment⁵ Center notes that the Supreme⁶ Court has said that private organizations can limit free speech on their property.

Some business groups complain that some online reviewers make up problems. One hotel owner wrote that a customer who described his hotel as a “filthy⁷” did not even stay there.

TripAdvisor has responded to such criticism. The website said it allows businesses to respond to every review – positive or negative. And most hotels get many reviews, making it hard for a single very negative or very positive review to have much effect, TripAdvisor said.

Words in This Story

post – v. to write an online message

keychain – n. a holder⁸ of keys

customer – n. someone who buys goods or services from a business

clause – n. legal language in a contract or document

review -- n. an act of carefully looking at or examining the quality or condition of something

newlyweds – n. A newly married couple

overcharge – v. to charge too much for something

excessive – adj. going beyond what is usual, normal, or proper

penalty -- n. punishment for breaking a rule

filthy – adj. very dirty

1 yelp   

vi.狗吠

参考例句：

• The dog gave a yelp of pain.狗疼得叫了一声。
• The puppy a yelp when John stepped on her tail.当约翰踩到小狗的尾巴，小狗发出尖叫。

2 rental   

n.租赁，出租，出租业

参考例句：

• The yearly rental of her house is 2400 yuan.她这房子年租金是2400元。
• We can organise car rental from Chicago O'Hare Airport.我们可以安排提供从芝加哥奥黑尔机场出发的租车服务。

3 costly   

adj.昂贵的，价值高的，豪华的

参考例句：

• It must be very costly to keep up a house like this.维修这么一幢房子一定很昂贵。
• This dictionary is very useful,only it is a bit costly.这本词典很有用，左不过贵了些。

4 pending   

prep.直到，等待…期间；adj.待定的；迫近的

参考例句：

• The lawsuit is still pending in the state court.这案子仍在州法庭等待定夺。
• He knew my examination was pending.他知道我就要考试了。

5 amendment   

n.改正，修正，改善，修正案

参考例句：

• The amendment was rejected by 207 voters to 143.这项修正案以207票对143票被否决。
• The Opposition has tabled an amendment to the bill.反对党已经就该议案提交了一项修正条款。

6 supreme   

adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的

参考例句：

• It was the supreme moment in his life.那是他一生中最重要的时刻。
• He handed up the indictment to the supreme court.他把起诉书送交最高法院。

7 filthy   

adj.卑劣的；恶劣的，肮脏的

参考例句：

• The whole river has been fouled up with filthy waste from factories.整条河都被工厂的污秽废物污染了。
• You really should throw out that filthy old sofa and get a new one.你真的应该扔掉那张肮脏的旧沙发，然后再去买张新的。

8 holder   

n.持有者，占有者；(台，架等)支持物

参考例句：

• The holder of the office of chairman is reponsible for arranging meetings.担任主席职位的人负责安排会议。
• That runner is the holder of the world record for the hundred-yard dash.那位运动员是一百码赛跑世界纪录的保持者。