SB 637 adds a short new Chapter 22.9 to the California Business and Professions Code that would require any entity that “makes a consumer review platform available in the state” to allow a business to opt out of being the subject of consumer reviews or consumer testimonials on that platform. The statute defines key terms (consumer review, consumer testimonial, consumer review platform, covered business) so the rule reaches rating-only systems and review features embedded in larger sites.
The change is direct and narrow on its face, but it matters because it forces platforms to choose technical and policy approaches to suppress or block reviews about specific businesses for California users. That raises immediate implementation issues (how to identify and process opt-outs, whether to remove existing reviews or block new submissions, how to geo‑target), legal friction with federal content‑immunity doctrines and constitutional speech considerations, and commercial incentives that could reshape how platforms sell listings and moderation services.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prohibits making a consumer review platform available in California unless it provides a mechanism that allows a business to opt out of being the subject of consumer reviews or testimonials. It defines review platforms broadly to include rating-only systems and portions of larger platforms devoted to consumer evaluations.
Who It Affects
Digital platforms that include consumer-review functionality (including embedded review widgets on larger sites), small and large businesses that appear in such systems, reputation‑management firms, and consumers who rely on online reviews for purchase decisions.
Why It Matters
Mandating an opt-out alters the basic supply of user‑generated information about businesses and forces platforms to build opt‑out workflows and technical geofencing. The requirement has legal and practical ripple effects for content moderation, platform business models, and the public availability of consumer information.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 637 creates a short statutory framework that does two things: it establishes definitions for review‑related terms, and it imposes a single substantive requirement — platforms that make consumer-review functionality available in California must let a business opt out of being reviewed or featured in consumer testimonials. The definitions are intentionally broad: a “consumer review” includes ratings without narrative; a “consumer review platform” can be a dedicated site or simply the part of a larger site that displays reviews; and a “consumer testimonial” covers advertising‑style messages that consumers would likely view as reflecting user experience.
Those choices expand the measure’s reach beyond traditional review sites.
The bill does not specify how an opt-out must work. It does not set time limits for processing requests, require removal of past content versus blocking future submissions, nor does it prescribe verification steps for the requesting business.
It also contains no text about enforcement mechanisms, penalties, or private rights of action. That silence means compliance will be driven by platform policy choices unless later interpreted or supplemented by regulation or litigation.Operationally, platforms will face a narrow legal command but a wide set of technical decisions.
They can implement opt-outs by geofencing California users from pages, delisting a business entirely, suppressing review submission forms, or providing business-specific blocks. Each approach has different technical complexity, cost, and effects on third‑party indexing, search results, and user access.
Platforms that serve interstate or global audiences will have to decide whether to apply changes only to California viewers or to alter their global UX to avoid segmentation costs.Although the bill focuses on businesses’ ability to avoid being reviewed, it does not create parallel protections for reviewers or address how to handle disputed or fraudulent reviews. The lack of procedural safeguards — for example, mechanisms to prevent bad‑faith opt-out requests from competitors, or exceptions for public‑interest entities — leaves open difficult implementation choices and foreseeable legal challenges over conflicts with free‑speech principles and federal law governing online content.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute defines “consumer review” to include ratings with no accompanying text, bringing rating‑only systems squarely within the law’s scope.
“Consumer review platform” expressly covers portions of larger online platforms, so embedded review widgets and segmented review features are included.
The core substantive rule (Section 22686) forbids making a consumer review platform available in California that does not permit a business to opt out of being the subject of reviews or testimonials.
The bill does not specify how opt‑outs must be implemented, set processing timelines, require verification, or establish penalties or an enforcement mechanism.
There are no explicit carve‑outs for public agencies, news organizations, or consumer‑protection exceptions — the language applies to any platform making review functionality available in the state.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definition of ‘consumer review’ — ratings count
This subsection defines consumer reviews to include evaluations submitted by consumers and explicitly includes ratings that contain no text. Practically, that sweeps in star‑rating systems and other non‑textual feedback mechanisms. Platforms that previously treated rating widgets as lower‑risk will need to consider them subject to the same opt‑out obligation as written reviews.
Definition of ‘consumer review platform’ — broad coverage
The bill defines a consumer review platform as an online platform, or a portion of a platform, dedicated to enabling consumers to see or hear submitted reviews or testimonials. By covering ‘portions’ of a platform, the bill reaches review features embedded in larger services (marketplaces, mapping apps, social networks) rather than only standalone review sites — expanding the number of services that must offer opt‑out mechanisms.
Definition of ‘consumer testimonial’ — includes promotional content
A consumer testimonial is defined broadly to include advertising or promotional messages that consumers are likely to believe reflect a purchaser’s opinions or experiences. That language potentially captures influencer‑style endorsements or video testimonials hosted on platforms, raising questions about when promotional content is classified as a testimonial subject to opt‑out.
Definition of ‘covered business’ — who must comply
The bill defines a covered business as any business entity that makes a consumer review platform available in the state. This anchors responsibility to the entity operating the platform rather than to individual content hosts or third‑party posters, but it does not clarify whether foreign or out‑of‑state platforms are covered when their services are merely accessible to California users.
Substantive rule — businesses must be allowed to opt out
Section 22686 contains the operative mandate: a covered business shall not make a consumer review platform available in California that fails to allow a business to opt out of being the subject of consumer reviews or testimonials. The provision is short and prescriptive about outcome but silent on procedure: it does not define opt‑out methods, timelines, verification, or exceptions. That gap pushes substantial implementation burden onto platforms and sets the stage for disputes about what meaningful compliance requires.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Technology across all five countries.
Explore Technology in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Small and local businesses that contend with false, malicious, or unmanaged negative reviews — they gain an explicit statutory route to remove or avoid public-facing reviews about their operations.
- Businesses that prioritize brand control or privacy (professional services, medical practices, high‑risk consumer‑facing firms) because the opt‑out reduces public exposure to user feedback.
- Reputation‑management and legal advisors, who may see increased demand for services to help businesses exercise opt‑outs, document requests, and navigate disputes with platforms.
Who Bears the Cost
- Online platforms and tech companies that host or embed reviews — they must design opt‑out workflows, implement geofencing or content removal, and absorb engineering and moderation costs without procedural guidance in the statute.
- Consumers and researchers who rely on publicly available peer reviews for purchasing and public‑interest information — the measure will likely reduce the quantity and visibility of user‑generated evaluations.
- Smaller competitors and new entrants that depend on organic reviews to gain visibility — opt‑outs may allow incumbents to suppress negative signals and tilt discoverability toward paid or curated listings.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is the trade‑off between protecting business reputations and preserving a public marketplace of user information: enabling businesses to opt out reduces reputational harm but also removes information that consumers use to make choices and that regulators and journalists use to spot patterns of misconduct. The bill resolves the choice in favor of business control, but it does so without procedural safeguards, enforcement structure, or accommodation for competing free‑speech and consumer‑protection interests.
The bill solves a single problem — giving businesses a statutory option to avoid being reviewed — but does so without procedural guardrails. It leaves key questions open: does an opt‑out require deleting historical reviews or only blocking new submissions; what identity‑verification standard prevents competitors from abusing opt‑outs; and who enforces compliance and how?
Those gaps mean platforms will adopt divergent practices, producing uneven protections across services and likely triggering litigation to fill the blanks.
There are also real legal frictions. Forcing platforms to remove or block third‑party speech can collide with constitutional protections for expression and federal defenses for interactive computer services.
Practically, the requirement incentivizes workarounds — platforms may geofence California users, adopt universal removal to avoid per‑jurisdiction complexity, or convert review features into paid products. Each option reshapes incentives and can produce unintended consequences, such as reduced transparency, higher costs for businesses that seek visibility, and new opportunities for paid favoritism.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.