Case: the one-star review and the gag clause
In one paragraph
A new contractor inherits a contract form from the company he used to work for, including a terms-and-conditions page with a clause charging $2,500 to any customer who posts a negative review. When a customer posts a one-star review over a two-week inspection delay, he sends her the clause and an invoice. She sends both to a consumer attorney. The clause is void under California law, the threat itself is unlawful, and the same conduct is an unfair practice under the federal review rule. The case follows the letter he receives, what it costs, the three-paragraph reply he should have posted instead, and the audit of every inherited form that follows. The names are invented; the statutes are quoted.
The rule
A contract for consumer services may not include a provision waiving the consumer's right to make any statement about the seller, and it is unlawful to threaten to enforce such a provision or otherwise penalize the consumer for a protected statement; the civil penalty is up to $2,500 for a first violation and $5,000 for each later one (Civil Code 1670.8). Under the FTC's rule, using an unfounded legal threat to get a review removed is an unfair or deceptive practice (16 CFR 465.7(a)), as is compensating reviews conditioned on positive sentiment (465.4).
Why it matters
Inherited forms are how a new contractor ends up enforcing a clause that has been illegal in California for years. The gag clause feels like protection and is a liability with a price tag, and the instinct to invoice a critic is exactly the conduct two agencies now name. The case is about reading every page you sign your name under, and about the reply that would have turned the one-star review into a five-star answer.