I love the Streisand Effect. You know – some person or company takes umbrage at what someone else has written somewhere and decides to “fix” things. Usually, that fix creates even more awareness of the original negative item and so the attempt to hide it has just the opposite effect. Some genius at a Florida company that sells weight loss products decided to solve the negative item problem in a different way. It allegedly made false claims for their products, and then threatened to enforce “gag clause” provisions against consumers to stop them from posting negative reviews and testimonials online. How great an idea was this?
In a complaint filed in federal court, the FTC alleges that Roca Labs, Inc.; Roca Labs Nutraceutical USA, Inc.; and their principals have sued and threatened to sue consumers who shared their negative experiences online or complained to the Better Business Bureau, stating that the consumers violated the non-disparagement provisions of the “Terms and Conditions” they supposedly agreed to when they bought the products. The FTC alleges that these gag clause provisions, and the defendants’ related warnings, threats, and lawsuits, harm consumers by unfairly barring purchasers from sharing truthful, negative comments about the defendants and their products.
Hmm. Maybe not such a good idea after all, huh? Telling consumers that they would be subject to $100,000 in damages for posting reviews isn’t exactly embracing the customer. In fact, I can’t really imagine a circumstance where preemptively threatening to sue a customer for anything short of non-payment makes any sense. In this case, not only has the Streisand Effect kicked in but so too has a stream of legal fees and, potentially, fines and damages. As it turns out, the FTC alleges that the product’s weight-loss claims are false or unsubstantiated – you know, the stuff they’re selling just doesn’t work. That will move a lot of product, right? Just to kick them a little while they’re down, the FTC also charges that the defendants failed to disclose that they compensated users who posted positive reviews.
The takeaways (none of which are news to anyone who has read this screed before): don’t threaten your customers, don’t lie about your products, don’t pay for fake reviews and don’t actually follow through and sue them when someone posts a negative comment (these guys did file a number of suits). Sure, if someone is spreading out-and-out lies, you need to respond but hopefully not in court. If what they are saying contains a fair amount of truth, however, the fault isn’t the customer’s. Agreed?