Weekend, concrete solutions to stop this pattern. We need to ease racial tension in america by rebuilding our communities in a balanced way where everyone receives equal education. Thats where it starts. Job opportunities and a fair shot at the american dream. Equal education is where it starts, but the home is where it really starts, isnt it . Its the home. The sad truth about this kind of an incident is that its root causes are tied together with societal racism that brand black citizens as predators and Police Practice that treats them as potential perpetrators. Breeding distrust between Law Enforcement and the community that they are bound to protect. Responding to this destructive cycle requires a broadbased approach. To address Police Practices, i 3z proud to pass 42 usc 14141, the federal statute, as part of the 1994 crime bill to allow the department of justice to sue or provide local Police Departments with resources necessary to address dangerous and discriminatory practices
You are bound by the fine print that lawyers are good at drafting and the idea that some companies are suing or threatening to sue customers for truthfully reviewing their Consumer Experience because of the despairage clauses in the content in the fine print is appalling. In a state like mine, florida, that is dependented on tourism, we want visitors to their their experience. Dependent businesses that do a good job should be rewarded with good comments and those who do not ought to be punished by telling the truth. They are sharing their opinion with other consumers. I think this hearing is timely, mr. Chairman, because of this issue in your bill brings up also a related issue that needs to be discussed. Just a few weeks ago, the Los Angeles Times reported that fiatchrysler was requiring consumers who wanted to receive on a car, they must in order to get that, sign a mandatory arbstration clause as part of the contract. So if the car is defective and kills or injurs that consumer, as
Fundamental right. Consumers today are typically required to waive all sorts of rights, including the right to seek our Justice System, and the right to even speak. What is happening is obvious. Through the use of indecipherable language and nonnegotiable contracts, corporations have successfully strip consumers of the seventh amendment right. Why should we be surprised when corporations what to do the same to consumers First Amendment right . Deemed would have been unconscionable and unenforceable. Surely, there is no consent by the consumer. Surely it was on constable it was [indiscernible] congress should pass a bill that prohibits gag causes. Simply, these gag causes attack the very heart of affair and functioning american marketplace by considering prohibiting few bursts consumers prohibiting consumers. Consumer Protection Laws in a free economy protect the market itself and all its participants. They have recognized this on countless occasions. Created withere the understanding t
See is a precedent, and a set of standards set for how terms of use and privacy are conveyed to consumers. Senator mccaskill one of the reason that contracts are so successful is because they are very buried in a way that the average person is never going to understand what is being done to them. I think many of them would run in horror i think ms. Palmer would have run in horror if she would have realized what that company was purporting to do. It seems this is something we really have to work on. Because this is a lot of waste. Nobody is reading this stuff. Why are we doing it if it is not providing the service that it needs to provide to the consumers that it is designed for . We have got to work on that. In your case, they added this long after the transaction occurred, correct . Ms. Palmer yes. I read through the terms of Service Three times to make sure there is nothing in there that would have invented that would have prevented me especially since i did not purchase the items, m
Post a false negative complaint. Mr. Medros there are certainly some instances where consumers threaten a business with a negative review, threatened to share their experience online. And that business, rightfully so, has concerns that that is going to impede their future Marketing Efforts and impede their business. Reality is, first of all, we encourage businesses to proactively communicate those threats to us and we monitor for thoseerties negative reviews. In the vast majority come the vast majority, they never appear. We asked the businesses to respond to any Consumer Review. We believe transparency will solve the problem. Future is get to read those responses, the fact and forth between those two parties, and make their own decision, their beliefs as to whether this is the right business for them to visit. So you encourage those businesses, if there is a false review, to contact you. Would this legislation prevent a Business Owner who is threatened with a false or malicious review