Can a California Business Ban Negative Reviews in Its Customer Contract?

Last updated: November 2026. Reviewed by Pavel Kolmogorov, California business litigation attorney (State Bar No. 321018).

A clause that forbids customers from posting negative reviews may not be put in a California consumer contract. Civil Code section 1670.8 bars any provision waiving a consumer's right to make statements about the business, its employees, or its goods or services. Threatening to enforce one is also prohibited. Civil penalties reach $2,500 for a first violation, $5,000 for each later one, and $10,000 more if willful. A federal statute voids similar terms in form contracts. Kolmogorov Law, P.C. is a business litigation firm in Irvine.

Call (909) 235-6116 or contact us online to discuss a dispute over customer reviews or the terms that govern them.

What section 1670.8 prohibits

The section makes three things unlawful.

Including the provision. A contract or proposed contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services may not include a provision waiving the consumer's right to make any statement. That covers statements about the seller or lessor, its employees or agents, and the goods or services. (Civ. Code, § 1670.8, subd. (a)(1).)
Threatening or seeking to enforce such a provision.
Otherwise penalizing a consumer for making a protected statement. (Civ. Code, § 1670.8, subd. (a)(2).)

The words "proposed contract" matter. On the statute's text, the violation is complete when the term appears in the form offered to the customer. Nobody has to be sued or billed first.

Any waiver of the section is contrary to public policy, void, and unenforceable. (Civ. Code, § 1670.8, subd. (b).)

How the clause shows up

A home services company's work order says the customer agrees not to post negative comments online and sets a fee for each one. That is a waiver of the right to make statements, backed by a penalty.

A clinic's intake terms assign to the clinic the copyright in anything a patient writes about it. The federal statute discussed below treats that transfer as void.

A retailer emails a reviewer, cites its terms of sale, and demands that the review come down. The email is a threat to enforce.

Penalties and who can sue

A violation carries a civil penalty of up to $2,500 for the first violation and up to $5,000 for the second and each later one. The action may be brought by the consumer, the Attorney General, or the district attorney or city attorney where the violation occurred. The penalty is paid to the consumer or to the public entity that sued. (Civ. Code, § 1670.8, subd. (c).)

For a willful, intentional, or reckless violation, a consumer or public prosecutor may recover an additional penalty of up to $10,000. (Civ. Code, § 1670.8, subd. (d).) The penalty is not an exclusive remedy. (Civ. Code, § 1670.8, subd. (e).)

The section does not spell out how violations are counted when one form was used with thousands of customers.

The federal Consumer Review Fairness Act

Federal law reaches the same conduct when it appears in a form contract. A form contract has standardized terms, is used in selling or leasing goods or services, and is imposed on an individual without a meaningful opportunity to negotiate. Employment and independent contractor agreements are excluded. (15 U.S.C. § 45b(a)(3).)

A provision of a form contract is void from the inception if it does any of three things. (15 U.S.C. § 45b(b)(1).)

Prohibits or restricts a review, performance assessment, or similar analysis by the individual.
Imposes a penalty or fee for one.
Transfers the individual's intellectual property rights in review content, other than a non-exclusive license.

Offering a form contract that contains such a provision is unlawful. (15 U.S.C. § 45b(c).) The Federal Trade Commission enforces the statute, and state attorneys general may sue in federal court. (15 U.S.C. § 45b(d), (e).)

What a business may still do

The federal Act does not affect a civil claim for defamation, libel, or slander. It preserves a party's right to remove, from a website it controls, review content that is clearly false or misleading, unrelated to its goods or services, or abusive. A form contract may still bar disclosure of trade secrets, and of personnel and medical files whose disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (15 U.S.C. § 45b(b)(2), (3).) California's section likewise does not limit a host of online reviews from removing a statement that is otherwise lawful to remove. (Civ. Code, § 1670.8.)

The lawful responses are covered on our page about what a business can do about negative reviews. A provably false factual statement may support a claim described in our business defamation guide or on our trade libel page. Any such suit may have to survive an anti-SLAPP motion.

Contracts between businesses, and settlements

Section 1670.8 is limited to contracts for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services. The federal Act is limited to form contracts imposed on individuals. A negotiated non-disparagement term between two companies is not what either statute addresses.

Settlements with customers are harder. The text does not say whether an agreement negotiated to end a dispute is a contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services. A non-disparagement term in a consumer settlement should be examined with that open question in mind.

If the clause is in your terms, or a demand has arrived

Stop relying on the clause, and do not cite it in any message to a customer. Each threat to enforce is unlawful in its own right. Keep every version of the terms and the dates each was in use. If a customer, a lawyer, or a prosecutor has written to you about the clause, follow the steps on our page about receiving a demand letter.

What to bring to the first meeting

Every version of your customer terms, work orders, or intake forms.
The review or statement at issue, saved as posted.
Any message your business sent to the customer about it.
The demand letter or complaint, if there is one.

Frequently asked questions

Can we put a clause in our customer contract that forbids negative online reviews?

No. California Civil Code section 1670.8 prohibits any contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services from including a provision that waives the consumer's right to make statements about the business or its goods or services. The clause is unlawful, and including it exposes the business to civil penalties. Federal law separately voids review restrictions in form contracts.

What is the penalty for a non-disparagement clause in a California consumer contract?

Under Civil Code section 1670.8, the civil penalty may not exceed $2,500 for the first violation and $5,000 for the second and each subsequent violation. A willful, intentional, or reckless violation can add up to $10,000. The consumer, the California Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney may bring the action, and the penalty is not the only remedy available.

What is the Consumer Review Fairness Act?

It is a federal statute, 15 U.S.C. section 45b. It voids any provision of a form contract that prohibits or restricts a customer's review, imposes a penalty or fee for one, or transfers the customer's intellectual property rights in it, other than a non-exclusive license. The Act has exceptions, including for defamation claims and trade secrets. Offering such a contract is unlawful. The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general enforce it, in California as elsewhere.

A customer signed our agreement promising not to post reviews and then posted one. Can we enforce the clause or charge the fee?

No. In California the clause is unlawful, and Civil Code section 1670.8 also makes it unlawful to threaten or seek to enforce it or to penalize the customer for the statement. Charging the fee, or sending a demand that cites the clause, would be a further violation. If the review states something false as fact, a defamation claim is a separate question.

Can a business remove a negative review from its own website?

In many cases. The federal Consumer Review Fairness Act preserves a party's right to remove or refuse to display, on a website it controls, review content that is clearly false or misleading, unrelated to its goods or services, or abusive or obscene. California Civil Code section 1670.8 does not prevent a host of online reviews from removing a statement that is otherwise lawful to remove.

Do these laws apply to contracts between two businesses?

Not by their terms. California Civil Code section 1670.8 applies to contracts for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services. The federal Act applies to form contracts imposed on an individual without a meaningful chance to negotiate, and it excludes employment and independent contractor agreements. A negotiated term between two companies is governed by ordinary contract law.

Talk to a California business litigation attorney

If a review is damaging your business, or someone has challenged a clause in your customer terms, call (909) 235-6116 or contact us online. Kolmogorov Law, P.C. is located in Irvine, California, and represents companies and their owners, not individuals, in these disputes.

This page provides general information about California and federal law and is not legal advice. Outcomes depend on the contract, the statement, and the court.