SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Signed into law yesterday by Governor Jerry Brown, California Civil Code Section 1670.8 now provides that:
A contract or proposed contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services may not include a provision waiving the consumer's right to make any statement regarding the seller or lessor or its employees or agents, or concerning the goods or services.
This statute comes with a fine of up to $2,500 for the first violation, up to $5,000 for the second and subsequent violations, as well as up to $10,000 for a willful, intentional, or reckless violation.
Software product EULAs are sometimes used to forbid negative reviews, and while this is not mentioned specifically in the text of the law, it is a fairly reasonable argument to think that this provision will apply there as well as in places like Yelp.com.
This law only applies in California, not in other states, or in other nations. Even so, it is a step in the right direction.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by rts008 on Monday May 11 2015, @01:56PM
You make an excellelant point.
I guess I am just more cynical, because I use the 'shotgun' approach, and initially assume that all of them are out to screw me over. After more than 5 decades, experience has hammered into my skull that this is the only rational approach. The very few times that I have experienced exceptions to this, those companies/businesses have gained a loyal customer.
Pro-tip for companies/businesses wanting 'brand loyalty':
Show some honest customer loyalty, and it brand loyalty will be rock-solid without having to spend gazillions on marketing and advertising...your customers will gleefully advertise and market for you.
You{business) killed brand loyalty with that whole 'you are a consumer, not a customer' campaign.
Customers have brand loyalty, consumers look for the best bargain. Look at the root/base of those two words...it is very telling.
The only time I even came close to 'consuming' music was back in the 1970's, when I 'tasted the music' on an acid-trip. It was two hits of 4-way windowpane, and Santana 'tasted' so yummy that weekend! But, when the trip ended, I still had the LP, it was not consmed...I did not have to fish it out of the toilet and clean the shit off after it had passed through my digestive system.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @02:15PM
Customers have brand loyalty, consumers look for the best bargain.
Those are two strategic choices for companies in almost any retail segment. For example, Bloomingdale's goes after the first one, Wal-Mart the second.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by infodragon on Monday May 11 2015, @05:01PM
Bloomingdales is only different from Wal-Mart in one way. Bloomingdales wants you to consume their brand, Wal-Mart wants you to consume as much as possible in their store. Both see you as a consumer, one sees you as consuming a brand the other sees you as consuming whatever is the cheapest. Both care about only one thing, the bottom line!
Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday May 11 2015, @02:20PM
My point is that these contract clauses make it clear that they screw people over enough to be planning ahead for the likely litigious aftermath. That suggests that they'll do more than overcharge or provide shoddy service (that is just to be expected).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.