Medical Justice provides consultations to doctors facing medico-legal obstacles. We have solutions for doctor-patient conflicts, unwarranted demands for refunds, online defamation (patient review mischief), meritless litigation, and a gazillion other issues. We also provide counsel specific to COVID-19. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a consultation – or use the tool shared below.
“Can Medical Justice solve my problem?” Click here to review recent consultations…
all. Here’s a sample of typical recent consultation discussions…
- Former employee stole patient list. Now a competitor…
- Patient suing doctor in small claims court…
- Just received board complaint…
- Allegations of sexual harassment by employee…
- Patient filed police complaint doctor inappropriately touched her…
- DEA showed up to my office…
- Patient “extorting” me. “Pay me or I’ll slam you online.”
- My carrier wants me to settle. My case is fully defensible…
- My patient is demanding an unwarranted refund…
- How do I safely terminate doctor-patient relationship?
- How to avoid reporting to Data Bank…
- I want my day in court. But don’t want to risk my nest egg…
- Hospital wants to fire me…
- Sham peer review inappropriately limiting privileges…
- Can I safely use stem cells in my practice?
- Patient’s results are not what was expected…
- Just received request for medical records from an attorney…
- Just received notice of intent to sue…
- Just received summons for meritless case…
- Safely responding to negative online reviews…
We challenge you to supply us with a medico-legal obstacle we haven’t seen before. Know you are in good hands. Schedule your consultation below – or click here to visit our booking page.
In 2019, we alerted members to avoid the practice of “review gating.”
What’s that, you reasonably ask?
Review-gating is the process of filtering candidates before asking them to leave you a review. Normally this is done by sending many or all customers an email or text message template and first asking them if they had a positive or negative experience.
If they had a positive experience, they are asked to leave a review on a review site, such as Google.
But if they had a negative experience, they are prompted to leave private feedback and are never sent the option to leave a review publicly. Negative reviews are buried.
Business owners have loved this feature because they are terrified of negative reviews and naturally prefer the opportunity to have only 5-star reviews. Of course.
In April 2018 Google clarified its guidelines stating that review gating is not permitted.
“Don’t discourage or prohibit negative reviews or selectively solicit positive reviews from customers.”
In 2019, we also believed that use of review gating by doctors could create issues with a Board of Medicine or Dentistry. The practice of medicine and dentistry are heavily regulated by these Boards. Marketing and advertising are allowed as long as the messages are not false or deceptive. Trapping negative responses from patients to keep them their reviews from posting on a third-party review sites, tilting the table in favor of positive reviews, arguably looks like false or deceptive marketing. A patient relying on third party sites, with no knowledge of filtering, will reasonably conclude a practice delivers stellar performance when, in fact, that may not be the case. That could lead to an allegation of unprofessional behavior, putting one’s license at risk.
There are scores of review-capturing processes that enable review gating. They tout review gating as a desirable feature. Such platforms are often ignorant of how regulated the healthcare space is.
Now, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has spoken.
The FTC announced that online fast-fashion retailer, Fashion Nova had agreed to pay a $4.2 million fine for selectively not publishing negative product reviews. Fashion Nova also agreed it will no longer suppress customer reviews.
The FTC complaint alleged that Fashion Nova had “misrepresented that the product reviews on its website reflected the views of all purchasers who submitted reviews, when in fact it suppressed reviews with ratings lower than four stars out of five. The case is the FTC’s first involving a company’s efforts to conceal negative customer reviews.”
The agency also notified 10 review platforms that they can no longer “avoid collection or publication of negative reviews.” [BTW, the list of these platforms was identified by a request filed under Freedom of Information Act.]
It is the first case focused solely on reviews with such a significant fine, and puts the world on notice that the FTC is finally putting a stake in the ground around abusive review practices. The vote was unanimous and non-partisan (4 – 0) in favor of issuing the complaint and accepting the consent agreement with Fashion Nova.
As Near Media reported, review gating is unethical and now clearly illegal.
The good news is that practices that deliver excellent service and great results need not worry excessively about an occasional negative review. An occasional negative review, amid a sea of positive reviews, makes the positive reviews look authentic and real. The public understands you cannot make everyone happy. The public is more interested in how you solve problems, rather than being perfect. You get points for solving problems.
The FTC is sending a warning shot across the bow. Expect anyone with an ax to grind to think about notifying the FTC. This list includes disgruntled patients whose voices are silenced, unhappy ex-employees, and jilted ex-spouses/lovers. And, yes, competitors. Most practices cannot handle a $4.2M fine, much less the negative publicity surrounding such action.
Finally, don’t be surprised in state Attorney Generals pick up the slack if the FTC limits its own responses. From NY Attorney General Website:
Carmel is a well-known car service based in New York City. The investigation into Carmel found that between May 5, 2016 and July 27, 2016, the company sent 161,000 email messages to Carmel customers requesting feedback regarding their recent ride with Carmel. Customers were asked to evaluate Carmel services by clicking “Perfect” or “Good,” listed with an opportunity for ten dollars ($10) discount off the next ride, or “Bad,” which did not offer any discount. Upon clicking the “Perfect” and “Good” links, the customer was directed to a consumer-review website such as Yelp.com and provided a $10 discount off their next ride upon confirmation of the review. If a customer clicked on the “Bad” button, he or she was directed to a web portal at Carmel with the opportunity to leave feedback. However, in this case, they were not directed or otherwise told to post the review on a consumer-review website and were not offered a discount or any other form of compensation.
Negative reviews were buried and never saw the light of day. In 2016, Carmel paid $75k fine as per its agreement with the NY Attorney General.
What are the tea leaves saying?
A fine in 2016 for review gating plus “paying” for positive reviews was $75k. A fine in 2022 solely for review gating was $4.2M.
to identify whether your system may be non-compliant.
Medical Justice provides consultations to doctors facing medico-legal obstacles. We have solutions for doctor-patient conflicts, unwarranted demands for refunds, online defamation (patient review mischief), meritless litigation, and a gazillion other issues. We also provide counsel specific to COVID-19. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a consultation – or use the tool shared below.
“Can Medical Justice solve my problem?” Click here to review recent consultations…
all. Here’s a sample of typical recent consultation discussions…
- Former employee stole patient list. Now a competitor…
- Patient suing doctor in small claims court…
- Just received board complaint…
- Allegations of sexual harassment by employee…
- Patient filed police complaint doctor inappropriately touched her…
- DEA showed up to my office…
- Patient “extorting” me. “Pay me or I’ll slam you online.”
- My carrier wants me to settle. My case is fully defensible…
- My patient is demanding an unwarranted refund…
- How do I safely terminate doctor-patient relationship?
- How to avoid reporting to Data Bank…
- I want my day in court. But don’t want to risk my nest egg…
- Hospital wants to fire me…
- Sham peer review inappropriately limiting privileges…
- Can I safely use stem cells in my practice?
- Patient’s results are not what was expected…
- Just received request for medical records from an attorney…
- Just received notice of intent to sue…
- Just received summons for meritless case…
- Safely responding to negative online reviews…
We challenge you to supply us with a medico-legal obstacle we haven’t seen before. Know you are in good hands. Schedule your consultation below – or click here to visit our booking page.
Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD
Chief Executive Officer and Founder
Dr. Jeffrey Segal, Chief Executive Officer and Founder of Medical Justice, is a board-certified neurosurgeon. Dr. Segal is a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons; the American College of Legal Medicine; and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. He is also a member of the North American Spine Society. In the process of conceiving, funding, developing, and growing Medical Justice, Dr. Segal has established himself as one of the country’s leading authorities on medical malpractice issues, counterclaims, and internet-based assaults on reputation.
Dr. Segal was a practicing neurosurgeon for approximately ten years, during which time he also played an active role as a participant on various state-sanctioned medical review panels designed to decrease the incidence of meritless medical malpractice cases.
Dr. Segal holds a M.D. from Baylor College of Medicine, where he also completed a neurosurgical residency. Dr. Segal served as a Spinal Surgery Fellow at The University of South Florida Medical School. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa as well as the AOA Medical Honor Society. Dr. Segal received his B.A. from the University of Texas and graduated with a J.D. from Concord Law School with highest honors.
In 2000, he co-founded and served as CEO of DarPharma, Inc, a biotechnology company in Chapel Hill, NC, focused on the discovery and development of first-of-class pharmaceuticals for neuropsychiatric disorders.
Dr. Segal is also a partner at Byrd Adatto, a national business and health care law firm. Byrd Adatto was selected as a Best Law Firm in the 2021 edition of the “Best Law Firms” list by U.S. News – Best Lawyers. With decades of combined experience in serving doctors, dentists, and other providers, Byrd Adatto has a national pedigree to address most legal issues that arise in the business and practice of medicine.
What is the constitutional basis for the government fining people or businesses for filtering out bad reviews? What specific law is violated here? For those of us who look at reviews, most of us are going to specifically look at the bad reviews. Those bad reviews often contain information such as the product didn’t arrive on time, or they could not return a product. Sometimes the reviews don’t even pertain to the particular product that they are posted for. So, inaccurate and inappropriate reviews have to be put into the public forum? Then can we expect that prosecutors will only go after the unfavored businesses, for fines, and leave the favored businesses alone? Some people don’t ever look at reviews. Some people look at the negative reviews to try to find a product to buy. Look at rankings for electric blankets on Amazon, and you will be paralyzed by fear with all of the negative rankings and never buy ANY such product. But does that benefit anyone? What would happen in normal circumstances, is one buys a product and if it doesn’t perform, one would return it, or demand a refund. I fail to see why the government has to get involved in individual transactions. This is not the proper role of government.