> The company will pay $300,000 in penalties and costs to the state. It has also agreed to stop publishing anonymous reviews on Web sites in the voices of satisfied customers and to identify any content created by employees, the statement said.
Emphasis mine. I would think that agreeing to stop the behavior that landed them in court would be implied. It would be mildly interesting to me to find out if this kind of clause is added because it needs to be added.
They always say that. Don't know why, but every time there is a settlement a clause like this is part of it. Even for things way more obviously bad than this.
I would assume the penalties could then be made even more serious, because if they do it again, they're explicitly violating the settlement agreement. So, then they'd be on the hook for violating the contract, as well as a similar deceptive advertising charge.
Emphasis mine. I would think that agreeing to stop the behavior that landed them in court would be implied. It would be mildly interesting to me to find out if this kind of clause is added because it needs to be added.