Seattle Plastic Surgery Provider Found Guilty of Preventing Negative Online Reviews
Seattle Plastic Surgery Provider Found Guilty of Preventing Negative Online Reviews
A federal judge has ruled that a Seattle plastic surgery provider, Allure Esthetic, and its owner, Dr. Javad Sajan, illegally prevented thousands of patients from posting negative online reviews by forcing them to sign nondisclosure agreements before receiving treatment. The penalty against the provider will be decided at a trial scheduled for September.
The ruling comes after Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson sued Allure Esthetic, accusing the provider of violating a federal law protecting consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about a business. The lawsuit alleged that Allure went to extreme measures, including altering photos, bribing patients, and forcing employees to post fake positive reviews, to control its online reputation on sites like Google and Yelp.
Patients were required to agree to contact the company directly rather than posting a negative review, which was considered to be less than four stars. Additionally, some patients had to waive their privacy rights so that the company could respond to negative reviews with their personal health information, violating HIPAA laws.
The lawsuit also alleged that Allure forced patients who agreed to take down negative reviews to sign a second nondisclosure agreement with a $250,000 fine if they did not comply. The provider was accused of buying fake followers and likes, creating fake profiles for positive reviews, and using fake emails to claim skin care rebates intended for patients.
Attorney General Ferguson’s office had been investigating Allure for about a year before filing the lawsuit, interviewing former employees and patients. Allure Esthetic has offices in Seattle, Lynnwood, and Kirkland.
Allure Esthetic did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling. The trial in September will determine the penalty for the provider’s actions in preventing negative online reviews. Online reviews are crucial for consumers in determining who to trust, and this case highlights the importance of protecting consumers’ rights to share their experiences honestly.