Las Vegas doctor demands patients sign a contract promising not to give him negative reviews

[Dan Druff]

Vegas health care sucks. I can't stress this enough. It's one aspect of Las Vegas living which is very rarely discussed, but which most people living there will acknowledge. I experienced it myself over and over while living there, to the point where I would hold off on doctor visits for non-urgent matters until I would visit California next.

The latest? John Mehaffey (gambling columnist in Las Vegas) ran into this:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1180231865933783040

Unfortunately, John couldn't simply just walk out, because this visit was for his daughter, and this doctor was the only orthopedist in town who performed a certain kind of ankle surgery which she might potentially need.

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1180301905043443712

As John noted, what this doctor did was completely illegal, but few people probably realize it, and even those that do might be afraid to challenge it anyway, given that they have signed a paper promising they wouldn't do so.

Awful.

Usually doctors who do this shit are the ones who are incompetent, and have gotten numerous negative reviews in the past.

[Dan Druff]

While this is specifically illegal, this brings up an interesting moral/legal question:

When should it be okay for businesses to sue customers who give unfair bad reviews, which damage their business?

Today's social media driven society gives a ton of power to reviews, to the point where some businesses (especially smaller ones) can succeed or fail upon bad reviews. For example, when I travel, I don't even consider a restaurant with fewer than 4 Yelp stars (out of 5), even if it's a lower-end restaurant. The only exception is if it's a chain I already know, and even then I will sometimes stay away.

Reviews are very powerful consumer tool, but at the same time, they can torture owners when delusional or unreasonably bitter assholes choose to trash your good and fair business. For example, I have a friend who showed me 100% ironclad proof that a particular reviewer was lying about his business and their experience there, but it was a small business and he was terrified that it was going to really hurt him.

I feel bad reviews should only be actionable legally if one or more of the following is true:

- The reviewer said something clearly false which can be proven false, and which the reviewer refuses to retract when contacted about it. (For example, if you claim they purposely overcharged your credit card when the business owner has proof that didn't happen.)

- The review was posted by a competitor simply in attempt to achieve gains for his own business.

- The reviewer impersonates being several people and posts several different bad reviews, in attempt to make it seem like more people are giving bad reviews than they really are.

Basically, I would support legal action against reviewers only when it's 100% clear that the reviewer is acting in bad faith to harm the business, and attempting to mislead the reader. I would NOT support legal action if the reviewer simply expresses an opinion of the business or business owner which is unflattering.

[Sanlmar]

You can imagine my feelings about the value and influence of social media. However, people are stupid and business is business.

We recently laid off maintenance and cleaning staff. Getting really lean in the face of increased competition.

You know who’s job is untouchable? The girl who manages our social media (crime scene fixer) and social media marketing using creepy tools like Ashley.

[RS_]

IMO, if the review is in bad faith then it should be actionable.

[limitles]

While this is specifically illegal, this brings up an interesting moral/legal question:

When should it be okay for businesses to sue customers who give unfair bad reviews, which damage their business?

Today's social media driven society gives a ton of power to reviews, to the point where some businesses (especially smaller ones) can succeed or fail upon bad reviews. For example, when I travel, I don't even consider a restaurant with fewer than 4 Yelp stars (out of 5), even if it's a lower-end restaurant. The only exception is if it's a chain I already know, and even then I will sometimes stay away.

Reviews are very powerful consumer tool, but at the same time, they can torture owners when delusional or unreasonably bitter assholes choose to trash your good and fair business. For example, I have a friend who showed me 100% ironclad proof that a particular reviewer was lying about his business and their experience there, but it was a small business and he was terrified that it was going to really hurt him.

I feel bad reviews should only be actionable legally if one or more of the following is true:

- The reviewer said something clearly false which can be proven false, and which the reviewer refuses to retract when contacted about it. (For example, if you claim they purposely overcharged your credit card when the business owner has proof that didn't happen.)

- The review was posted by a competitor simply in attempt to achieve gains for his own business.

- The reviewer impersonates being several people and posts several different bad reviews, in attempt to make it seem like more people are giving bad reviews than they really are.

Basically, I would support legal action against reviewers only when it's 100% clear that the reviewer is acting in bad faith to harm the business, and attempting to mislead the reader. I would NOT support legal action if the reviewer simply expresses an opinion of the business or business owner which is unflattering.

Sounds like nation wide regulations are in need. Reviewers targeting a business or practice can be sourced out. The majority are trying to prevent others from trouble ahead. The Yelp cat is well out of the bag. And isn't legal action available to everyone in the U.S.?

[duped_samaritan]

Even if it were legal, easy work around:

3/5 Was required to sign a contract that prevents me from leaving negative reviews.