Not a lawyer but I think in the US, you have the right to remain silent. I don't think a law can compel anyone to publish anything. Might be the first amendment.
Nor am I one. However there are surely differences between chilling free speech (removing speech), litigating against slanderous speech, the illusion of (but not actually) a public forum for reviews of all sorts (particularly if there are ratings but legitimate low rated reviews are removed), and retaliating against those who've publicly reviewed.
It is far more credible to believe that a loose association of similar tactics across a small number of large business entities might reasonably create a chilling effect upon speech.
An example; as a renter I have heard rumors of others who've left low reviews in public places and find it difficult to find willing renters in the future. I have no basis for this but the process of qualifying a renter is also opaque so I have no evidence to refute it either. It isn't unreasonable to think market forces could coincidentally cause various entities to reach a similar logical conclusion, or that an outsourced background check agency checks for various public posts that might be relevant to the rental agencies.
It looks like there is a law against companies writing contract clauses barring you or penalizing you for writing a negative review, but I don't know if there is a law that bars companies from deleting truthful, non-libelous reviews. Seems like a basic loophole to me that should have been covered in the Consumer Review Fairness Act.
> Whether your summer plans include replacing your air conditioning, installing new flooring, or riding the range, you will probably read customer reviews to learn what people say about their experiences with a business or product. Shoppers benefit from knowing what others have to say, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) protects people’s ability to share their truthful experiences and opinions.
> The FTC enforces the CRFA and recently sued three businesses (and two of their owners) for violating that law. According to the FTC, the companies used form contracts that barred customers from sharing negative comments and that imposed financial penalties against customers who did so. Under proposed agreements with the FTC, the businesses — including an HVAC and electrical contractor, a flooring seller, and a company that takes people on horseback rides — will stop using, and will not enforce, those contract provisions. They will also inform people who signed the contracts that the provisions can't be enforced.
> The CRFA protects your ability to share your honest opinions about a business’s products, services, or conduct in any forum, including social media. You can publish your honest review even if you say something negative about a business or the services it performed for you. If you have a signed form contract that restricts you from sharing reviews or penalizes you for doing that, the business may not be able to enforce those restrictions. If a business tries to enforce a restriction or penalty, let the business know about the CRFA, and please report it to the FTC or your state consumer protection agency. [0]
That seems more applicable to situations where the person leaving the review is doing so elsewhere, that is, posting it somewhere that the entity being reviewed is not connected to the hosting of it and therefore cannot trivially get it deleted/prevented; in such situations the entity being reviewed might try to compel the reviewer or the third party host to delete/prevent it, and the CRFA makes it illegal to do so. I haven't read it enough to say for sure, though.
Typically, the right to remain silent is associated with the right to refuse self-incrimination in a criminal proceeding, which is part of the fifth amendment.
The law can compel publication, but that power is typically used for material arising in judicial proceedings or documents of inherent public interest (like the Watergate tapes, etc.). So, it would be unlikely to apply here.
I've had Yelp and AirBnB remove reviews. I don't know what to do about it. They Yelp one I can't verify the service (a dentist) didn't get better. The AirBnB one I can tell nothing was fixed because the issues are verifiable in the listing itself.
I'm sure in some cases older reviews aren't relevant but in other cases they are quite important as they describe the host's attitude.
I met a person that rented the same horrific Airbnb I rented in Snoqualmie, WA. They were horrified too and wanted their money back. Airbnb said it was possible but they had to check with the owner. This was two years after my stay and after the host had been warned multiple times and had their superhost status stripped!
I was thinking more along the lines of what counts as advertising vs. user feedback. Not a lawyer, so maybe it doesn't even matter. Still, I'd argue that if you are selectively removing negative reviews in order to give a better impression of a product, while giving the customer the impression that the reviews are representative of people who bought the product, you're no longer just publishing reviews. You are now engaged in promoting the product, and you're doing so through dishonest means.
Now is that illegal? I sure don't know. Is it provable? That could be tough, too. But if someone asked me if it's legal to doctor reviews of products, I'd tell them to consult a very good lawyer or two.
Tons of advertising includes only glowing reviews/testimonials and it has been going on with newspapers, television, etc. forever. I can't imagine similar selectivity being illegal on websites merely because it's presented in a way that implies (but does not explicitly say) that they're faithfully reproducing everything that has been submitted in good faith.
My argument here is that product reviews become more like advertising once they start being edited or selected for marketing purposes. So e.g. Amazon's reviews do not appear to be advertising, which would make it misleading to bias them in some way. And the rules for what's acceptable in advertising might be different from what's acceptable in providing a neutral forum for customer reviews.
> I don't think a law can compel anyone to publish anything.
Laws in the US can, and often do, require disclosure of certain factual information when publishing other information; this is particularly common in the context of commercial (and political) advertising.
While they probably can't be forced to publish negative reviews, I think it could be viable to use false advertising laws against misrepresenting the product / service through manipulating reviews.
There’s plenty of exceptions like the DMCA forcing a host to restore access to something if a counterclaim is filed. Or being required to communicate the surgeons general warning on tobacco products.
DMCA counter claims do not force a restore, it just permits the host to restore without personal liability for infringement (as the uploader takes on the full legal liability for the material, and often need to identify themselves in the process).
No. The original claim also removes liability for taking down the material. But if a counter notice is filed the material must be restored after no less than 10 and no more than 14 days or liability resumes.
> There’s plenty of exceptions like the DMCA forcing a host to restore access to something if a counterclaim is filed.
The DMCA doesn't do that.
The DMCA allows a host to do that without liability for infringement, and continues to provide the host immunity to liability for any claims the user would otherwise have for the original takedown so long as they do that (the second half is the closest thing to force, but it usually is immaterial because hosts usually structure their contracts with users so that they would have no liability to them to immunize against, which is also why hosts are much more likely to provide reliable notice-takedown than counternotice-restorartion.)
C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice [...]
