I understand that people get disgruntled about businesses and want to complain about them, but social media "complaining" is different from any kind of public business diss of the past.

Bad internet reviews have tentacles way worse than any pre-internet complaint you could have made against a company. As we know, social media can change, puff up or contort things in unimaginable ways. That's why I don't blame any company who wants to write a "no internet review" clause into its contracts.

New Jersey authorities on Wednesday announced a settlement with a California-based fertility clinic accused of stifling dissatisfaction from its customers by writing a "gag order" into its contracts. It also asked that any online review be submitted to their attorneys and warned that they'd find you if you tried to complain anonymously by tracking you to your IP address.

Attorney General Christopher Porrino said yesterday that customers have "the right to complain publicly about what they feel are substandard services rendered by a company."

The new federal law, known as the "Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016" allows state attorney generals to take action against companies that write such gag orders into their contracts. In my opinion, the "fairness" act is fair to patrons who want to whine, but not to businesses who want to protect themselves.

While it may be true that you have the right to complain publicly, what's to protect a company from libel and/or slander? The internet is pretty lawless, and there's no such thing as a retraction on the internet. That's a genie that can never be shoved back in the bottle.

So here's a compromise: Companies should have the right to build these clauses into their contracts, and as a consumer, you should have the right not to patronize a business that restricts your ability to review it.

More from New Jersey 101.5:

More From New Jersey 101.5 FM