59–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 114–731 

CONSUMER REVIEW FAIRNESS ACT OF 2016 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2016.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. UPTON, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 5111] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 5111) to prohibit the use of certain clauses in form 

contracts that restrict the ability of a consumer to communicate regarding the goods or services offered in interstate commerce that 

were the subject of the contract, and for other purposes, having 

considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 

and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 4 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 5 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 6 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 6 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 6 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 7 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 7 

Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits ............................. 7 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 7 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 7 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 8 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 8 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 8 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 8 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 9 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 9 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 9 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
2 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016’’. 

SEC. 2. CONSUMER REVIEW PROTECTION. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ means the Federal Trade Commission. 

(2) COVERED COMMUNICATION.—The term ‘‘covered communication’’ means a 

written, oral, or pictorial review, performance assessment of, or other similar 

analysis of, including by electronic means, the goods, services, or conduct of a 

person by an individual who is party to a form contract with respect to which 

such person is also a party. 

(3) FORM CONTRACT.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term ‘‘form 

contract’’ means a contract with standardized terms— 

(i) used by a person in the course of selling or leasing the person’s 

goods or services; and 

(ii) imposed on an individual without a meaningful opportunity for 

such individual to negotiate the standardized terms. 

(B) EXCEPTION.—The term ‘‘form contract’’ does not include an employeremployee or independent contractor contract. 

(4) PICTORIAL.—The term ‘‘pictorial’’ includes pictures, photographs, video, illustrations, and symbols. 

(b) INVALIDITY OF CONTRACTS THAT IMPEDE CONSUMER REVIEWS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), a provision 

of a form contract is void from the inception of such contract if such provision— 

(A) prohibits or restricts the ability of an individual who is a party to the 

form contract to engage in a covered communication; 

(B) imposes a penalty or fee against an individual who is a party to the 

form contract for engaging in a covered communication; or 

(C) transfers or requires an individual who is a party to the form contract 

to transfer to any person any intellectual property rights in review or feedback content, with the exception of a non-exclusive license to use the content, that the individual may have in any otherwise lawful covered communication about such person or the goods or services provided by such person. 

(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to 

affect— 

(A) any duty of confidentiality imposed by law (including agency guidance); 

(B) any civil cause of action for defamation, libel, or slander, or any similar cause of action; 

(C) any party’s right to remove or refuse to display publicly on an Internet website or webpage owned, operated, or otherwise controlled by such 

party any content of a covered communication that— 

(i) contains the personal information or likeness of another person, 

or is libelous, harassing, abusive, obscene, vulgar, sexually explicit, or 

is inappropriate with respect to race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or 

other intrinsic characteristic; 

(ii) is unrelated to the goods or services offered by or available at 

such party’s Internet website or webpage; or 

(iii) is clearly false or misleading; or 

(D) a party’s right to establish terms and conditions with respect to the 

creation of photographs or video of such party’s property when those photographs or video are created by an employee or independent contractor of a 

commercial entity and solely intended for commercial purposes by that entity. 

(3) EXCEPTIONS.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the extent that a provision 

of a form contract prohibits disclosure or submission of, or reserves the right 

of a person or business that hosts online consumer reviews or comments to remove— 

(A) trade secrets or commercial or financial information obtained from a 

person and considered privileged or confidential; 

(B) personnel and medical files and similar information the disclosure of 

which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; 

(C) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, the 

disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
3 

(D) content that is unlawful or otherwise meets the requirements of paragraph (2)(C); or 

(E) content that contains any computer viruses, worms, or other potentially damaging computer code, processes, programs, applications, or files. 

(c) PROHIBITION.—It shall be unlawful for a person to offer a form contract containing a provision described as void in subsection (b). 

(d) ENFORCEMENT BY COMMISSION.— (1) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES.—A violation of subsection (c) 

by a person with respect to which the Commission is empowered under section 

5(a)(2) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(2)) shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 

U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). 

(2) POWERS OF COMMISSION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall enforce this section in the same 

manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and 

duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a 

part of this Act. 

(B) PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.—Any person who violates this section 

shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.). 

(e) ENFORCEMENT BY STATES.— 

(1) AUTHORIZATION.—Subject to paragraph (2), in any case in which the attorney general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of the residents 

of the State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by the engagement 

of any person subject to subsection (c) in a practice that violates such subsection, the attorney general of the State may, as parens patriae, bring a civil 

action on behalf of the residents of the State in an appropriate district court 

of the United States to obtain appropriate relief. 

(2) RIGHTS OF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.— 

(A) NOTICE TO FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in clause (iii), the attorney general of a State shall notify the Commission in writing that the attorney 

general intends to bring a civil action under paragraph (1) before initiating the civil action against a person described in subsection (d)(1). 

(ii) CONTENTS.—The notification required by clause (i) with respect to 

a civil action shall include a copy of the complaint to be filed to initiate 

the civil action. 

(iii) EXCEPTION.—If it is not feasible for the attorney general of a 

State to provide the notification required by clause (i) before initiating 

a civil action under paragraph (1), the attorney general shall notify the 

Commission immediately upon instituting the civil action. 

(B) INTERVENTION BY FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.—The Commission 

may— 

(i) intervene in any civil action brought by the attorney general of a 

State under paragraph (1) against a person described in subsection 

(d)(1); and 

(ii) upon intervening— 

(I) be heard on all matters arising in the civil action; and 

(II) file petitions for appeal of a decision in the civil action. 

(3) INVESTIGATORY POWERS.—Nothing in this subsection may be construed to 

prevent the attorney general of a State from exercising the powers conferred on 

the attorney general by the laws of the State to conduct investigations, to administer oaths or affirmations, or to compel the attendance of witnesses or the 

production of documentary or other evidence. 

(4) PREEMPTIVE ACTION BY FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.—If the Federal Trade 

Commission institutes a civil action or an administrative action with respect to 

a violation of subsection (c), the attorney general of a State may not, during the 

pendency of such action, bring a civil action under paragraph (1) against any 

defendant named in the complaint of the Commission for the violation with respect to which the Commission instituted such action. 

(5) VENUE; SERVICE OF PROCESS.— 

(A) VENUE.—Any action brought under paragraph (1) may be brought 

in— 

(i) the district court of the United States that meets applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391 of title 28, United 

States Code; or 

(ii) another court of competent jurisdiction. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
4 

(B) SERVICE OF PROCESS.—In an action brought under paragraph (1), 

process may be served in any district in which the defendant— 

(i) is an inhabitant; or 

(ii) may be found. 

(6) ACTIONS BY OTHER STATE OFFICIALS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—In addition to civil actions brought by attorneys general 

under paragraph (1), any other consumer protection officer of a State who 

is authorized by the State to do so may bring a civil action under paragraph 

(1), subject to the same requirements and limitations that apply under this 

subsection to civil actions brought by attorneys general. 

(B) SAVINGS PROVISION.—Nothing in this subsection may be construed to 

prohibit an authorized official of a State from initiating or continuing any 

proceeding in a court of the State for a violation of any civil or criminal law 

of the State. 

(f) EDUCATION AND OUTREACH FOR BUSINESSES.—Not later than 60 days after the 

date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall commence conducting education and outreach that provides businesses with non-binding best practices for 

compliance with this Act. 

(g) RELATION TO STATE CAUSES OF ACTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any cause of action brought by a person that exists or may exist 

under State law. 

(h) SAVINGS PROVISION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit, impair, or supersede the operation of the Federal Trade Commission Act or any other 

provision of Federal law. 

(i) EFFECTIVE DATES.—This section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

of this Act, except that— 

(1) subsections (b) and (c) shall apply with respect to contracts in effect on 

or after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; 

and 

(2) subsections (d) and (e) shall apply with respect to contracts in effect on 

or after the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 5111, the Consumer Review Fairness Act of 

2016, is to prohibit the use of certain non-disparagement clauses in 

form contracts that restrict the ability of a consumer to publicly review the goods or services offered in interstate commerce that were 

the subject of the contract. H.R. 5111 would invalidate such clauses 

subject to this legislation in form contracts and prohibit a person 

from offering a contract containing a non-disparagement clause, 

where a consumer has no meaningful opportunity to negotiate the 

terms. A violation of the legislation would be treated as a violation 

of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed 

under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 

et seq.). Such violations are punishable by civil penalties. 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the primary enforcer of 

H.R. 5111. Subject to certain restraints outlined in the legislation, 

a State’s attorney general may also enforce the provisions of H.R. 

5111 if the State attorney general has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of the State has been threatened or adversely affected by the engagement of any person in a practice that 

violates H.R. 5111. State attorneys general would be required to 

notify the FTC in writing when they bring civil actions under the 

statute and are precluded from State enforcement actions during 

the pendency of an FTC enforcement action involving the same violation. 

The legislation would provide a rule of construction and several 

exceptions. For example, H.R. 5111 would not limit the ability of 

a person or business that hosts online reviews to remove comments, including comments that contain personal information, comments that contain the likeness of a person, libelous, harassing, or 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
5 

1See, e.g., BrightLocal, Local Consumer Review Survey 2014 (2014), available at https:// 

www.brightlocal.com/learn/local-consumer-review-survey-2014/ (finding that 88% of consumers 

rely on online consumer reviews). 2See, e.g., Peter Wilkinson, Guests Fined for Leaving Review of ‘Filthy, Dirty Rotten’ Hotel on 

TripAdvisor, CNN (Nov. 19, 2014), available at https://perma.cc/9PXX–5H67; FTC v. Roca 

Labs, Inc., No. 8:15–cv–02231–MSS-TBM (M.D. Fla. filed Sept. 28, 2015), available at https:// 

www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/142-3255/roca-labs-inc. 3FTC v. Roca Labs, Inc., No. 8:15–cv–02231–MSS–TBM (M.D. Fla. filed Sept. 28, 2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/142-3255/roca-labs-inc. 4 Chris Morran, Wedding Company Contract Tries to Ban Bride & Groom From ‘‘Encouraging’’ 

Negative Feedback, Consumerist (Apr. 20, 2015), available at https://consumerist.com/2015/ 

04/20/wedding-company-contract-tries-to-ban-bride-groom-from-encouraging-negative-feedback/. 5Palmer v. KlearGear.com, No. 1:13–cv–00175 (N.D. Utah, filed Dec. 18, 2013), available at 

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/929250-palmer-v-kleargear-complaint.html. 6 CAL. CIV. CODE 1670.8. 7See, e.g., Daniel D. Barnhizer, Nancy Kim’s Wrap Contracts Symposium: Escaping Toxic Contracts: How we have Lost the War on Assent in Wrap Contracts, 44 SW. L. REV. 215 (2014) (‘‘If 

such [non-disparagement] terms do become widespread, both common law doctrines, such as 

unconscionability and reasonable expectations, and statutory consumer protection regulations 

that are informed by commercial norms will be affected in favor of the drafters of such terms’’). 

abusive comments, trade secrets, personnel and medical files, or 

content that contains computer viruses. 

The Committee’s view is that H.R. 5111 should prevent businesses and individuals from imposing non-disparagement clauses 

restricting truthful reviews in cases where consumers have no 

meaningful opportunity to bargain over the terms of a form contract. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Internet has enabled consumers to publish reviews of products and services widely at low cost, improving information flows 

to consumers and providers of goods and services. The wide availability of these reviews has caused consumers to rely on them more 

heavily as credible indicators of product or service quality.1 In turn, 

businesses have sought to avoid negative reviews. Some businesses 

have attempted to suppress negative reviews, even if they are 

truthful, through provisions of form contracts with consumers restricting such reviews. These provisions typically impose monetary 

or other penalties for publishing negative comments regarding the 

provider’s services or products.2 The provisions have come to be 

known as gag clauses or non-disparagement clauses. 

Gag clauses have been imposed by many different types of businesses and come in different forms. Some examples include a 

$3,500 penalty imposed by online retailer KlearGear, a gag clause 

by a weight loss supplement seller,3 and a wedding vendor’s prohibition on encouraging disparaging comments.4 In at least a few 

cases, when a consumer has refused to pay a fine, the offeror of a 

contract containing a non-disparagement clause has referred the 

monetary penalty to debt collectors, creating further headaches for 

the consumer. When KlearGear referred the $3,500 penalty allegedly owed under the non-disparagement clause to a collection agency, the consumer sued KlearGear seeking damages and a declaratory judgment that the debt was not owed.5 The consumer ultimately won a judgment, and California passed a law banning nondisparagement clauses.6 However, their wider effect on state contract laws is unclear and common law doctrines may even evolve 

to accept them.7

Non-disparagement clauses interfere with the benefits consumers 

derive from ready access to ‘‘crowd-sourced’’ reviews of products 

and services. If such clauses become widely adopted, negative yet 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
6 

truthful reviews may be chilled, undermining the overall credibility 

of consumer reviews. The newfound utility of consumer reviews 

would then be reduced as trust in their veracity diminishes. H.R. 

5111 seeks to curtail non-disparagement clauses in order to preserve the credibility and value of online consumer reviews. 

HEARINGS

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade held 

a hearing on H.R. 5111, along with several other bills, on May 24, 

2016. The Subcommittee received testimony from: 

• Edith Ramirez, Chairwoman, Federal Trade Commission; 

• Joshua D. Wright, University Professor, Antonin Scalia 

Law School at George Mason University; 

• Geoffrey Manne, Founder and Executive Director, International Center for Law and Economics; 

• Daniel Castro, Vice President, Information Technology and 

Innovation Foundation; 

• Abigail Slater, General Counsel, Internet Association; 

• Michael Best, Senior Policy Advocate, Consumer Federation of America; 

• David Vladeck, Professor of Law, Georgetown Law; 

• Richard Hendrickson, President and CEO of Lifetime 

Products; 

• Greg O’Shanick, President and Medical Director, Center 

for Neurorehabilitation Services; 

• Stephen Shur, President, Travel Technology Association; 

• Robert Arrington, President, National Funeral Directors 

Association; 

• John Breyault, Vice President of Public Policy, Telecommunications and Fraud, National Consumers League; 

• Gil Genn, Maryland Sports and Entertainment Industry 

Coalition; and 

• Jamie Pena, Vice President, Revenue Strategy and Global 

Distribution, Omni Hotels and Resorts. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On June 8, 2016, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade met in open markup session and forwarded H.R. 

5111 to the full Committee by a voice vote. On July 12, 2016, the 

full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5111 reported to the House, as amended, by 

a voice vote on July 13, 2016. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. There were no 

record votes taken in connection with ordering H.R. 5111 reported. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee held a hearing and made findings that are reflected in this report. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
7 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of H.R. 5111 is to preserve the credibility and value of 

online consumer reviews by prohibiting non-disparagement clauses 

restricting negative, yet truthful, reviews of products and services 

by consumers. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 5111 

would result in no new or increased budget authority, entitlement 

authority, or tax expenditures or revenues. 

EARMARK, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that 

H.R. 5111 contains no earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 

tariff benefits. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

H.R. 5111—Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 

H.R. 5111 would void certain provisions in standard form contracts (those used in the course of selling or leasing goods and services) that impose restrictions or penalties for one party’s review of 

the performance of another party under the contract. It also would 

void and prohibit certain contract provisions that would assign the 

intellectual property rights for one party’s review of the performance of the contract to any other party. The bill would grant the 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the authority to enforce the new 

prohibitions and authorize the agency to levy civil penalties for violations. H.R. 5111 also would direct the FTC to develop an education and outreach program to provide businesses with best practices for complying with new restrictions. 

CBO estimates that the cost of implementing H.R. 5111 would be 

insignificant because the FTC enforces similar prohibitions and 

provides compliance assistance under its existing general authorities. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5111 would increase federal 

revenues from the new authority to collect civil penalties; therefore, 

pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates those collections would be insignificant because of the small number of 

cases that the agency would probably pursue. CBO estimates that 

enacting the bill would not affect direct spending. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5111 would not increase net 

direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 

10-year periods beginning in 2027. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
8 

H.R. 5111 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect the 

budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Although the FTC has begun to enforce prohibitions on contract 

provisions similar to those outlined in the bill under its existing 

authorities, to the extent that such provisions are not currently 

considered void in all jurisdictions, the bill would impose a privatesector mandate as defined in UMRA on entities that use such provisions in their contracts. The cost of the mandate would be the 

value of forgone income from out-of-court settlements and compensation for damages the entities could be awarded under a 

breach of contract claim. However, reliable and comprehensive information concerning the number of businesses that continue to use 

contracts containing such provisions, the number of those contracts 

that impose a monetary payment as a penalty, and the level of any 

such payments is not available. In addition, although the court 

cases in which consumers have challenged these provisions have 

resulted in judgments in favor of the consumer, the limited sample 

of such cases cannot be used to generalize about the results of such 

cases in other jurisdictions. Therefore, CBO cannot determine 

whether the cost of the mandate would exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($154 million 

in 2016, adjusted annually for inflation). 

On December 9, 2015, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 

2044, the Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2015, as reported by 

the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

on November 18, 2015. The two pieces of legislation are similar and 

CBO’s estimates of their budgetary effects are the same. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Stephen Rabent (for 

federal costs) and Logan Smith (for the impact on the private sector). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of H.R. 5111 establishes or reauthorizes a program 

of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 5111 specifically directs to be completed no rulemakings within the meaning of 5 

U.S.C. 551. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
9 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 provides that the Act may be cited as the ‘‘Consumer 

Review Fairness Act of 2016.’’ 

Section 2. Consumer review protection 

This section voids form contract provisions that prohibit or restrict an individual who is a party to the form contract from engaging in a covered communication, impose a penalty or fee against 

such an individual for engaging in covered communications, or require the transfer of intellectual property rights—except for non-exclusive licenses—in review or feedback content. 

This section does not affect any duty of confidentiality imposed 

by law; any civil cause of action for defamation, libel, or slander, 

or similar cause of action; any party’s right to remove or refuse to 

display on an Internet website or webpage controlled by such party 

content of a covered communication, including content that contains personal information or likeness of a person or is libelous, 

harassing, abusive, obscene, vulgar, sexually explicit, or is inappropriate with respect to race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or other intrinsic characteristic; is unrelated to the goods or services available 

on such Internet website or webpage; or is clearly false or misleading. This section does not affect a party’s right to establish 

terms and conditions for content creation by an employee or independent contractor of a commercial entity in certain circumstances. 

This section shall not apply to a provision of a form contract that 

prohibits disclosure or submission of, or reserves the right of a person or business that hosts online consumer reviews or comments, 

to remove trade secrets or commercial or financial information considered privileged or confidential; personnel and medical files; 

records compiled for law enforcement purposes; unlawful content; 

and computer viruses, worms, or other potentially damaging code, 

processes, programs, applications, or files. 

This section outlines the enforcement responsibilities of the FTC, 

State attorneys general, and consumer protection officials. This section also outlines venue and service of process requirements. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

This legislation does not amend any existing Federal statute. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING