FTC Issues Refunds to Roca Labs Customers in a Victory for Consumers

In a landmark moment for consumers and the right to free speech, the FTC just announced that individuals misled by Roca Labs’ dubious weight loss claims and its attempts to censor criticism will receive $409,000 in compensatory refunds.

The significance of this victory is well illustrated by PissedConsumer holding fast against Roca Labs’ intimidatory tactics. In an attempt to whitewash criticism of the brand, Roca Labs sued PissedConsumer for publishing reviews from customers who had less than flattering comments to share, claiming that these negative reviews amounted to “tortious interference.”

Fighting back, PissedConsumer’s perseverance became a focal point in the fight against abusive non-disparagement clauses. Roca Labs’ overly aggressive attempts to silence its critics, including PissedConsumer, brought about intense scrutiny that may have accelerated its comeuppance. PissedConsumer’s defense, alongside its legal counsel and other contemporaneous lawsuits, helped strengthen Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and served as a clear signal to the FTC to support the development of the Consumer Review Fairness Act(CRFA). In response, the regulatory landscape was reinforced to better protect authentic consumer feedback from being suppressed by legal threats and weaponized gag clauses.

The Background

Introducing a weight loss product marketed as a suitable alternative to gastric bypass surgery, Roca Labs thought they were onto a winner. Yet, as a growing number of negative consumer reviews pointed out, the product didn’t match these claims. In fact, whilst some called the product “glorified Jello”, others were saying it actually made them unwell.

When customers brought its shortcomings to their attention, the brand, refusing to give refunds, first attempted to ‘bribe’ unhappy customers with ‘discounts’ in exchange for waiving their right to pen a bad review, then pushed contracts that tried to actually prevent consumers from writing negative reviews or face significant fines. When customers continued to speak out regardless, in 2014, Roca Labs decided to take legal recourse against its critics, including PissedConsumer and our attorney, Marc Randazza.

In 2015, after 18 months of legal proceedings, the court ruled decisively in favor of PissedConsumer, citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act’s protections against liability for user content. This case exposed Roca Labs’ nefarious practices and set the ball rolling for further developments that would lead to the FTC’s latest decision.

PissedConsumer Fights for Consumer Voices 

Without legal protections, there would be nothing to stop companies from silencing consumers willing to speak up about bad products, bad service, and dishonest business practices. The consumer voice and right to warn others about negative experiences with a brand must not be jeopardized by corporate legal intimidation.

PissedConsumer’s defense was a perfect use case for Section 230. The courts repeatedly rejected Roca Labs’ accusations, asserting that platforms such as PissedConsumer cannot be penalized for publishing authentic customer reviews.

Frustrated by the rejections, Roca Labs pursued further legal attacks, also targeting Marc Randazza, with recriminatory lawsuits. Randazza responded by submitting evidence documenting Roca Labs’ deceptive practices and abusive gag clauses to the FTC. His actions, combined with PissedConsumer’s legal battles with the company, prompted the FTC investigation into Roca Labs’ continuous attempts to censor and manipulate public opinion.

The FTC Steps in with the Consumer Review Fairness Act

The FTC’s investigation confirmed deceptive marketing and unlawful gag clauses, and a complaint was issued against Roca Labs, arguing that the company’s actions were misleading and unfair. The FTC also took an interest in Roca Labs’ strong-arming and coercion against customers and critics through shady clauses and legal actions.

Anti-review clauses were eventually outlawed directly when Congress passed the 2016 Consumer Review Fairness Act, banning gag clauses in consumer contracts, ensuring people can write honest reviews without fear of retaliation or discrimination, and strengthening the FTC’s ability to take action. Then, 2018 saw the courts rule against Roca Labs, leading to the announcement of the refunds and a long-overdue victory for the defrauded customers.

[Roca Labs] engaged in the worst kind of deception. [They] took advantage of disabled people, and then bullied and terrified them into silence… We should all appreciate the good work the FTC did, but not forget that when nobody would stand up to [Roca Labs], Pissed Consumer did, and the public is safer because they had that courage.

-Marc Randazza

Section 230 and the CRFA: What Do They Mean for Consumers?

I am sad and ecstatic at the same time to see that the case that started in April 2015 has finally come to an end, with Roca Labs being rightfully punished and consumers' rights reinstated. Successes like these remind me why we do this as an organization. 

PissedConsumer.com and I are resolute in standing up for freedom of speech and the consumer voice, and we will continue to fight in the consumer’s corner against any attempts to silence them. 

How do Section 230 and the CRFA help us do that?

• Section 230 protects the platforms that host online reviews, shielding genuine consumer feedback and defending it against spurious legal attacks.
• The CRFA criminalizes attempts by brands to shut down criticism through the use of intimidation, threats, or contractual means. 

The freedom to share honest feedback without fear of retaliation is crucial to healthy commerce. Cases like this show that standing up to attempts to censor criticism can prevail, and should encourage consumers to freely express their opinions, no matter what. With Section 230 and the CRFA, key pillars in defending our consumer rights, we have the law on our side.

If you purchased products from Roca Labs before October 2015 and were impacted by the company’s deceptive practices, you may be eligible for a refund. For more information, visit the FTC website or call the FTC Refund Administrator at 1-866-675-3043. Please note: claims must be submitted by October 7, 2025.