When the Federal Trade Commission recently sued Roca Labs, Inc., it wasn’t only because the company allegedly made bogus claims for its weight-loss products. The FTC also asserted that it was unfair for Roca to include “gag clauses” in its terms of service that forbade customers from saying anything bad about the company or its products and threatened them with legal action and liability for thousands of dollars if they did.

Customer reviews have become an essential shopping tool for consumers, especially since it’s so easy to post and find that information on retailers’ websites and independent review or complaint sites. Consumers can also share information about companies and their products or services through social media, the Better Business Bureau, and even some government websites.

This information, good or bad, can help consumers make wise buying decisions and avoid wasting their money. According to the FTC’s complaint, Roca’s efforts to prevent customers who discovered that its products didn’t live up to its promises from sharing that “truthful, negative information” resulted in other consumers buying the products who wouldn’t have done so if they’d seen it. As CFA reported in its 2010 study of third-party complaint websites, there is also value in consumers simply being able to express their grievances and for companies and consumer agencies to see what kinds of real-life problems people are having, even when consumers are not contacting them about those problems directly.

The Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2015, which CFA supports, would prohibit attempts to muzzle consumers. California enacted a law last year, inspired by a case brought by Public Citizen against another company that used these types of clauses in its terms of service. Everyone benefits when consumers are free to have their say.