When our own Timothy B. Lee stepped into a Philadelphia dentist's office earlier this year, he had an unpleasant experience: the dentist required him to sign over control of all copyright in future online commentary related to that dentist. Here's how Tim described the visit:

When I walked into the offices of Dr. Ken Cirka, I was looking for cleaner teeth, not material for an Ars Technica story. I needed a new dentist, and Yelp says Dr. Cirka is one of the best in the Philadelphia area. The receptionist handed me a clipboard with forms to fill out. After the usual patient information form, there was a "mutual privacy agreement" that asked me to transfer ownership of any public commentary I might write in the future to Dr. Cirka. Surprised and a little outraged by this, I got into a lengthy discussion with Dr. Cirka's office manager that ended in me refusing to sign and her showing me the door.

The contract in question came from Medical Justice, which claims to be "relentlessly protecting physicians from frivolous lawsuits." Over the last few years, the company has pioneered a strange niche in the medical business: providing contractual templates that first barred patients from commenting about their doctors online and later gave doctors the power to veto negative reviews.

Is this legal? The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) filed a complaint today with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) arguing that Medical Justice was itself engaging in "deceptive and unfair business practices" through the sale of these contracts.

The complaint argues that Medical Justice is "engaging in a deceptive business practice by selling contracts which are themselves deceptive to doctors and patients as to whether they are legally enforceable."

The complaint also cites an Ars Technica investigation into Medical Justice's alleged placing of positive reviews to Yelp. The company has "seemingly engaged in a deceptive business practice" by making such posts, says the complaint. (Medical Justice told us when that piece ran that it had submitted the comments, but had done so on behalf of real patients.)

CDT asks that Medical Justice be barred from selling these kinds of contracts to doctors, that it alert doctors who have already purchased them that the contracts are "likely unenforceable and illegal," and that it give up all money earned from the sale of the contracts.

In a blog post, complaint author Justin Brookman calls the entire scheme pointless. "There's no countervailing benefit to these contracts—doctors who think they're being defamed already have remedies under the law, and can sue to unmask (and receive damages from) commenters who make libelous statements," he says. "Medical Justice contracts are merely intended to short-circuit the established legal process for combating unwanted anonymous speech, and instead give doctors the chance to fraudulently curate their online reputation by pruning away inconvenient statements."