'Miracle weight-loss' biz sued for trying to silence bad online reviews A US watchdog is suing a health biz that allegedly used the terms and conditions on its diet powder to silence disgruntled customers. In a complaint [PDF] filed to the Middle Florida US District Court, the FTC accused Roca Labs of peddling an ineffective weight-loss product, then threatening customers who posted negative …
Here in the UK unreasonable contact requirements do not trump your statutory right to a product that is fit for purpose.
Sadly in the US sellers can require Rumpelstiltskin style contacts and ordinary people ending up giving away their first born child because they cannot afford justice.
IMHO is is high time that the US sorted this mess out, especially when US sellers attempt to push US contact law down the world and dogs throat.
This justice only for those with deep pockets is not only unfair but I would say has ramifications that extend into every US citizen's life and not for the better.
It has been suggested that the US has more lawyers per head of population than any other country and when you examine exactly what they produce you discover it is just more costly and resource hogging legal actions.
The law we are told applies to everyone and given that ignorance is no defense then the law should be simple enough that everyone can understand it and act themselves without needing a translator.
In the US IMHO the law is out of the control of the population and could be said to limit freedoms enjoyed elsewhere in countrys not calling themselves "The land of the free"
"Whether or not your rights can be taken by T&C in product 'contracts' is a matter of State law. Some allow it, some don't."
IANAL, but I would suspect this is only true when the company does no business across state lines. At that point, it would become interstate commerce, which is governed by federal law. Since the company has a Web site, I think it would be very difficult for them to claim they were not engaging in interstate commerce.
Whether or not your rights can be taken by T&C in product "contracts" is a matter of State law. Some allow it, some don't.
Yeah, I was going to write something similar. The state of California knocked back an increasing trend of companies to include "no jury trial" waivers in contracts by declaring them invalid. I just happened to be reading about it a while ago. See, eg, this link about a "landmark" case in 2005.
You might be right about the US, but the UK is not entirely blameless. A little while ago there was a case when somebody posted a negative review of a hotel and the hotel charged them extra afterwards because in the booking contract there was a clause enabling the hotel to charge extra in case of a negative comments. It might not be as bad as getting sued but still a nasty trick.
The trick is to write a review that is glowing praise when read literally but can also be read as an indictment.
"I was expecting very little result from this product and it EXCEEDED MY EXPECTATIONS!"
"If this product works for you as advertised, you are indeed fortunate!"
"I've been using this product for months and I FEEL GREAT!" (This one really only works if one is willing to send along a "testimonial" photo of oneself showing off one's shirtless manboobs and with one's fat ass spilling out in all directions from a pair of Speedos.)
"The trick is to write a review that is glowing praise when read literally but can also be read as an indictment."
That kind of "trick" is for cowards, and for fools who buy into the idea that anything written in a EULA or the T&C's has the force of law.
Grow a backbone and some spine to go along with. It could do you some good.
No need. Scumbag lying toads like this are advertising, and paying for their space, on hundreds of supposedly "reputable" websites.
The sheer anount of complete lying shite that is linked to on otherwise not entirely unreasonable websites is ludicrous. Think all the targetted lies of "5 tricks millionaires don't want you to know", "<local area person> makes <x>£ a week from this", "miracle slimming tricks that your doctor doesn't want you to know", "how to get the latest iDevice for only £1" and the slightly more benign but still outrageous, "you wouldn't believe what happened next in these holiday photos".
And the problem is, the more this shite is present and seen the more it is perceived as being "true".
The FTC says Roca Labs has gone so far as to file suit against customers who posted negative reviews and comments, claiming violations of the terms and conditions.
I am, happily, not conversant with American legal practices, but does the above mean that somewhere, a lawyer was happy to accept these filings as cases which he / she thought they could win in a court of law?
I'm sort of surprised at that - although I admit my naivety.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
