In the Matter of Shore to Please Vacations LLC

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER TO AID PUBLIC COMMENT

The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final

approval, an agreement containing a consent order as to Shore to Please Vacations LLC and 

Robert A. Stephens (“respondents”).

The proposed consent order (“order”) has been placed on the public record for 30 days 

for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will 

become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the order 

and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw the order or make it

final.

This matter involves the respondents’ use of non-disparagement provisions in 

consumer form contracts in the course of renting vacation properties. The complaint alleges 

that the respondents violated Section 2(c) of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (“CRFA”) 

by offering to consumers form contracts that contained non-disparagement provisions made 

void by Section 2(b) of the CRFA. The CRFA defines a form contract as a contract with 

standardized terms, used in the course of selling or leasing goods or services, and imposed on 

an individual without a meaningful opportunity for such individual to negotiate the 

standardized terms.

The order includes injunctive relief that prohibits these alleged violations and fences 

in similar and related conduct involving the use of contract terms that prohibit, restrict, 

penalize, or transfer rights in consumer reviews or evaluation of the respondents, their goods,

or their services. The CRFA authorizes the Commission to seek civil penalties for knowing 

violations, but the complaint does not allege that the respondents’ violations were knowing, 

and the order does not provide for monetary relief.

Part I prohibits, in the sale or leasing of any good or service, the respondents from: 

offering to any prospective customer a contract, or offering to any customer a renewal 

contract, that includes a review-limiting term; requiring that a customer accept such a term as 

a condition of the respondents’ fulfillment of their obligations under contracts entered into 

before the effective date of the order; or attempting to enforce or assert the validity of such a 

term in customer contracts entered into before the effective date of the order. Part I would not 

require that the respondents publish or host the content of any person, affect any other legal 

duty of a party to a contract, or affect any cause of action arising from the breach of such duty.

Part II requires the respondents to notify by mail or email customers with whom they 

entered into form contracts with a non-disparagement provision on or after March 14, 2017 

that the non-disparagement provision is void and cannot be enforced, and that those customers 

can publish their honest reviews about the respondents, even if their comments are negative.

Part III requires that the respondents dismiss their remaining count against a renter for 

alleged breach of the non-disparagement provision.
Part IV requires the respondents to submit signed acknowledgments that relevant 

personnel received the order.

Part V requires the respondents to file compliance reports with the Commission, and 

to notify the Commission of bankruptcy filings or changes in company structure that might 

affect compliance obligations.

Part VI contains recordkeeping requirements for personnel records, consumer 

contracts, communications with consumers threatening any legal action relating to any 

review; and court filings and the company’s discovery responses in legal actions over 

consumer reviews, as well as all records necessary to demonstrate compliance or noncompliance with the order.

Part VII contains other requirements related to the Commission’s monitoring of 

the respondent’s order compliance.

Part VIII provides the effective dates of the order, including that, with exceptions, the 

order will terminate in 20 years.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the order, and it is not 

intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or order, or to modify the 

order’s terms in any way.