What a non-disparagement clause does in a wedding contract
A non-disparagement clause is the line in a contract that tells you what you're allowed to say about the business afterward. In a wedding contract it usually reaches reviews, social posts, and comments to other couples, and it often sits near the bottom of the agreement under a heading like "Client Conduct" or "Mutual Respect."
The clause has an obvious appeal for a vendor. One angry review on a page with a few dozen reviews moves the average. The problem is that a term barring criticism removes the exact information the next couple is trying to find.
Whether a non-disparagement clause is enforceable in a wedding contract turns on how the contract was formed. Federal law speaks directly to one common form: the Consumer Review Fairness Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. §45b, makes a provision in a form contract void when it prohibits or restricts a party's review of the business, imposes a penalty or fee for posting one, or requires the customer to hand over intellectual property rights in review content. A non-exclusive license to use the review is carved out of that last piece.
The qualifier matters. The statute defines a form contract as one with standardized terms, used in selling or leasing goods or services, and imposed on an individual without a meaningful opportunity to negotiate. A wedding vendor's contract that's presented as a template to every couple who books, with no room to negotiate the terms, has that shape. It's the line the statute actually draws.
What it looks like in a wedding contract
The language ranges from soft to blunt. Paraphrased, the versions couples run into look like this:
- "Client agrees not to make any public statement that disparages the Photographer or its work."
- "Client will not post negative reviews on any online platform without first providing Vendor 30 days to cure."
- "Any negative online review shall constitute a material breach, and Client shall pay liquidated damages."
- "Client assigns to Vendor all rights in any review, feedback, or photograph posted about the services."
The FTC's June 2019 enforcement actions under the CRFA involved exactly this pattern outside the wedding industry. A Florida vacation rental company's contract said customers agreed not to defame or leave negative reviews and attached $25,000 in liquidated damages. A Maryland property manager's rental application barred applicants from disparaging the company in any way. The proposed orders required both to tell affected customers the challenged provisions were void.
Some states layer on their own rule. As of 2026, California Civil Code §1670.8 bars a consumer goods or services contract from including a waiver of the customer's right to make statements about the seller, with escalating civil penalties: up to $2,500 for a first violation, $5,000 for later ones, and $10,000 where the violation is willful, intentional, or reckless.
What the law still lets a business restrict
The CRFA doesn't turn a review page into anything-goes territory, and the FTC's business guidance is specific about the remaining room. A company may still refuse to display a review that contains confidential or private information, is libelous, harassing, abusive, obscene, vulgar or sexually explicit, is unrelated to the company's products or services, or is clearly false or misleading. The FTC adds that a consumer opinion the business simply disagrees with is unlikely to meet that clearly-false standard.
Defamation is its own track and the CRFA doesn't touch it. A defamation claim generally turns on a false statement of fact published to a third party, the required level of fault, and reputational harm. Truth is generally a complete defense, and statements of pure opinion are generally protected, though the elements and defenses vary by state. That's why the line between describing an experience and asserting facts carries weight in defamation analysis.
Who enforces it
The statute assigns enforcement to the Federal Trade Commission, which treats a violation as an unfair or deceptive practice under the FTC Act, and to state attorneys general, who may bring civil actions on behalf of residents, with notice to the FTC. Those two enforcement subsections don't name consumers. The statute also provides that nothing in it affects a cause of action that exists or may exist under state law, and some states, California among them, have their own statutes covering review-restricting contract terms.
The statute's definition of a form contract also excludes employer-employee and independent contractor agreements, so the CRFA doesn't reach those.
Red flags to spot before signing
- A dollar figure attached to a review. Liquidated damages or a "review fee" is the penalty-or-fee category the statute names.
- A cure period attached to reviews. "Notify us and wait 30 days before posting" conditions when a customer can publish. Whether a delay requirement lands in the statute's prohibit-or-restrict category depends on the specific terms.
- An assignment of rights in your own review or photos. The statute treats a required transfer of intellectual property rights in review content differently from a non-exclusive license.
- One-way language. The clause binds the couple but leaves the vendor free to describe the client publicly. Mutual wording doesn't change how the statute treats the customer-facing restriction in a form contract.
- A clause buried under a friendly heading. "Mutual Respect" and "Client Conduct" sections are where this language tends to live.
Two questions put the clause on the table before a signature: whether the vendor will strike the provision, in writing, and how the vendor handles a complaint before it reaches a review page.
If you want to know whether this language is sitting in a contract you were sent, our free contract scanner reads the document and flags review-restriction terms alongside cancellation and payment issues. For the money side of a bad vendor experience, how to get a wedding vendor refund covers the sequence couples work through. And Aisle Advisor's own revenue disclosure explains how we make money, and why no vendor can pay to remove or bury a verified review here.
Frequently asked questions
The Consumer Review Fairness Act makes a form-contract provision void when it prohibits or restricts a customer's review of the business, or imposes a penalty or fee for posting one (15 U.S.C. §45b). A vendor's standard contract, offered on the same terms to every couple with no real chance to negotiate, is the kind of form contract the statute describes. The FTC also says businesses may still decline to display reviews that are libelous, obscene, unrelated to the services, or clearly false or misleading.
In a form contract, the statute voids the offending provision itself rather than the whole agreement. In the FTC's June 2019 enforcement actions, the proposed orders required the companies to notify affected customers that their non-disparagement provisions were void. The contract's other terms, including payment and cancellation, aren't voided by that provision being void.
Defamation is a separate legal track from the CRFA, and the CRFA doesn't displace it. A defamation claim generally requires a false statement of fact published to a third party, the required level of fault, and reputational harm. Truth is generally a complete defense and statements of pure opinion are generally protected, though the elements and defenses vary by state. Anyone can file a lawsuit, so whether a claim succeeds is a separate question from whether it gets filed.
The statute is written around form contracts: standardized terms imposed on an individual without a meaningful opportunity to negotiate those terms. A contract handed to every couple as a template fits that description. Where a couple negotiated some terms but the review provision stayed standard boilerplate, the question is more fact-specific, because the statutory test asks about the opportunity to negotiate the standardized terms themselves.
In June 2019 the FTC announced two enforcement actions under the CRFA, against a Florida vacation rental company and a Maryland property manager whose contracts barred negative reviews. One of those contracts attached $25,000 in liquidated damages to a review. The proposed orders required both companies to notify affected customers that the provisions are void, and to report on compliance.