California Non-Disparagement Law Investigations: Are Your Rights Being Restricted?

Attorneys working with ClassAction.org suspect that some companies may be violating a California law by including what’s known as a non-disparagement clause in the terms and conditions for their websites and apps.

Though the wording may vary, a non-disparagement clause generally requires consumers to agree not to make negative statements about the company or its products. The attorneys believe that this type of restriction is illegal under a provision of the California Civil Code that specifically prohibits companies from “waiving the consumer’s right to make any statement” about the company, its employees or agents, or its goods and services.

The attorneys are now looking to pursue claims over these potential violations and are gathering California residents who want to participate.

Keep reading for a summary of each website or app under investigation, including details about the specific clauses in their terms of use. Each summary will also include a link to a form where users can sign up and join others taking action.

Which Websites/Apps Are Under Investigation?

Bluestone Lane Terms of Service Investigation

Bluestone Lane, an Australian-inspired chain of cafes and coffee shops, sells signature coffee blends, merchandise and more on BluestoneLane.com and its associated app.

Whether you purchase the award-winning Maverick espresso blend or a Montauk crew sweater, you agree just by using the site or app to Bluestone Lane’s terms of use, which prohibit consumers from making certain comments that are “likely to cause confusion … that in any way disparage[] or discredit[] Bluestone Lane … or in any manner that would disparage our marks and brand.”

The attorneys believe these provisions may illegally restrict Bluestone Lane customers’ right to speak freely about the company, and they’re now gathering users to take legal action.

If you live in California and made a purchase on BluestoneLane.com or the Bluestone Lane app within the past four years, use the link below to join others taking action.

Bluestone Lane Users Sign Up Here

Arby's Non-Disparagement Investigation

Arby’s, a fast food chain that famously claims to “have the meats,” may also have a clause in its terms of use that illegally restricts website and app users from fully expressing their opinions about the company and its meat-centric sandwiches.

Specifically, the terms of use for Arbys.com and its corresponding app contain a provision that appears to prohibit users from making any comment “that is likely to cause confusion among consumers [or] that disparages or discredits Arby’s and/or its licensors.” The attorneys believe this restriction constitutes a non-disparagement clause banned by California law—and they’re now gathering website and app users in the state to take legal action against Arby’s.

If you live in California and made a purchase on Arbys.com or the Arby's app within the past four years while in California, join others taking action by signing up at the link below.

Arby’s Customers Sign Up Here

Turo: Were Your Rights Restricted?

Renting a vehicle through Turo’s peer-to-peer car sharing marketplace lets you take to the open road. Attorneys suspect, however, that drivers may find themselves more restricted than expected.

Specifically, the attorneys are looking into a non-disparagement clause in the terms of service for Turo.com and its associated app, which requires users to agree to refrain from taking any action that will “harm the reputation of” or “lead to unwanted or unfavorable publicity to” the car rental company. They believe this clause may be illegal under California law and are now gathering Turo users to take legal action.

If you’ve rented a vehicle through Turo.com or its mobile app within the past four years while living in California, click the link below to join others taking action.

Turo Customers Sign Up Here

Experian Terms of Use Investigation

As one of the “Big Three” credit-reporting agencies, Experian collects and reports information on millions of consumers—but are its customers being prevented from turning the tables?

Attorneys believe Experian’s terms of use for some of its services contain a line that could restrict users from making any comment that “disparages or discredits” the company or its affiliates. They suspect this restriction may violate California’s non-disparagement law and are gathering Experian customers to take action.

If you live in California and, within the last four years, paid for an Experian subscription or service (including IdentityWorks, CreditWorks, 3-Bureau Credit Report, Free Credit Report or ProfilePlusReport), join others taking action by filling out the form linked to below.

Experian Customers Sign Up Here

California Non-Disparagement Law

In late 2014, California’s governor signed into law a measure known as the “Yelp bill” that aimed to protect consumers’ right to leave negative reviews about a company’s products or services. The law was reportedly inspired by the experience of a Utah couple who was fined $3,500 after posting a negative review about a company’s customer service—which the company claimed violated the “non-disparagement clause” in its terms of service.

Under the law, section 1670.8 of the California Civil Code, companies are prohibited from including in their terms and conditions a provision that waives consumers’ right to make any statement about the company, its employees, or its goods or services.

Some companies have recently been hit with proposed class action lawsuits alleging violations of the California non-disparagement law. In one lawsuit, for example, the plaintiff argued that a bank’s online service agreement illegally prohibited customers from making any statement that might expose the bank to “liability, reputational harm or brand damage.”

For the companies mentioned on this page, the attorneys believe that any provisions in their terms and conditions that restrict users from making certain comments or statements may qualify as illegal non-disparagement clauses.

Is This a Lawsuit? What Kind of Legal Action Am I Signing Up For?

You are not signing up for a lawsuit, but rather a process known as mass arbitration. This is a relatively new legal technique that, like a class action lawsuit, allows a large group of people to take action and seek compensation from a company over an alleged wrongdoing. Here is a quick explanation of mass arbitration from our blog:

“[M]ass arbitration occurs when hundreds or thousands of consumers file individual arbitration claims against the same company over the same issue at the same time. The aim of a mass arbitration proceeding is to grant relief on a large scale (similar to a class action lawsuit) for those who sign up.”

Some companies' terms of use may contain a class action waiver and/or an arbitration clause requiring users to resolve disputes via arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution that takes place outside of court before a neutral arbitrator, as opposed to a judge or jury. It’s for this reason that attorneys working with ClassAction.org have decided to handle these matters as mass arbitrations rather than class action lawsuits.

How Much Does This Cost?

It costs nothing to sign up, and you’ll only need to pay if the attorneys win money on your behalf. Their payment will come as a percentage of your award.

If they don’t win your claim, you don’t pay.

How Much Money Could I Get?

There are no guarantees as to how much money you could get or whether your claim will be successful. However, California law states that companies that are found to have violated the non-disparagement statute may need to pay $2,500 for the first violation, $5,000 for the second and subsequent violations, and up to $10,000 for “willful, intentional, or reckless” violations.

Previous Investigations

The following investigations are complete, and attorneys are no longer signing up affected consumers. 

Before commenting, please review our comment policy.