This reminds me of the TOU of onetimefax.com, which I ran across when the owner of that site complained about a negative review on my site (Avvo.com). The whole thing is worth a read (http://www.onetimefax.com/terms-of-service.php), but here's one particularly lovely bit:
"You or any employees acting and/or but not limited to associates for you are not authorized in any way to make any representations of this company that may harm it. You are not authorized to speak, share with write and/or but not limited to communicate in any way, with any person, persons or any entity about this company even if your not a customer or client. In doing so, you will be stealing proprietary materials. If this so happens, you will be responsible for all our/your reasonable attorneys' fees if any legal actions are to pass. For the protection of this company you will follow the but not limited to the above mentioned rules. No person, persons and/or any entity are not authorized to speak, write and/or but not limited to communicate in any ill will of OneTimeFax.com, EJOAT Enterprises, the EJOAT network and/or any entity of which of any past or future information, opinion and/or but not limited to financial transactions."
Our company (Avvo) faced a very similar lawsuit from attorneys upset over our ratings of attorneys. It was thrown out at the first opportunity, on First Amendment grounds (Browne v. Avvo, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1249 - Dist. Court, WD Washington, 2007).
Debate the useful of these ratings all you want, but from a legal perspective, there's nothing to argue about here: The ratings are Blue Shield's opinion, period.
Mylo, Avvo's ratings of lawyers aren't based on client reviews - they're based on an algorithm that takes into account numerous factors in an attorney's background. Client ratings are only offered as an additional data point.
Most client reviews on Avvo are positive. Could someone nefariously defy our guidelines, claim to be a client and leave a bad review for an attorney they have a vendetta against? Sure. Is that a reason to deny consumers the benefit of thousands of well-intentioned reviews?
Consumers are used to dealing with user/client reviews and assessing the validity and weight to assign to anonymous screeds. Attorneys don't need protection from client reviews any more than Sony or your local trattoria does, and they certainly don't need their licensing agencies denying the public novel means of finding information about attorneys.
And FWIW, Avvo has never - and has never been accused of - extorting those with bad reviews.