‘They’re blackmailing us’: Online retailer bills Utah couple $3,500 for negative review

[diabeticman]

If they go after the employees for saying bad things about where they work NOW companies are going after customers who write negative reviews....


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/29/theyre-blackmailing-us-online-retailer-bills-utah-couple-3500-for-negative-review/


A Utah couple is facing an uphill legal battle after being slapped with a $3,500 fine by an online retailer for posting a negative review of the company years after it failed to ship the products they ordered.

CNN reported on Friday that John and Jen Palmer’s problems with Klear Gear began in 2008, when John canceled a purchase he made through the company after it failed to deliver his order within 30 days. The Palmers then panned the company in a review on the consumer-complaint site Ripoff Review, saying, in part, that it was impossible to reach someone at Klear Gear by phone.

But earlier this year, Klear Gear contacted the Palmers in writing, saying they violated the company’s “non-disparagement clause” and threatening them with the fine if they did not remove the negative review.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Seriously! if this holds up in court we might as well throw our hands up in the air and start calling America a Company-country

[Pretzel_Warrior]

1. This better be thrown out of court

What bullshit. This company is tarnishing it's own brand. Way to go, dipshits!

[Th1onein]

2. We all ought to get together and disparage them thru Twitter and Facebook.

Of course, they're doing a pretty good job of that, all by themselves. Who would buy anything from such a company? This means that they can treat any customer like shit and they can't even tell anyone about it.

[JI7]

3. i don't see how this can be allowed, maybe the business was betting on

the customers being the type that would get scared and just pay it .

[defacto7]

6. You mean extortion?

I hope so. Someone's gong to jail!

[Brother Buzz]

4. Hey numbnuts, ever hear of the Streisand effect?

[defacto7]

5. Bottom line....

We have the right to free speech if we have enough money to defend ourselves, otherwise shut up. We have a right to a public opinion as long as we pay for it.

That's not America. These are mafia rules.

[davidpdx]

8. That is rediculous

I do hope the bad publicity hurts them a hell of a lot more than the $3,500 fine. It also seems to enforce that fine they would have to take the couple to court, that they couldn't unilaterally decide to fine them without asking for a court decision.

Feel free to write something on their Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Klear-gear/159968647377159

[SheilaT]

9. I'm not an attorney, so nothing I say can be construed as legal advice,

but this couple needs to do a little research. I rather suspect that the bill won't hold up.

[Beartracks]

10. They can't be "customers" if Klear Gear never sent them their order.

I presume only customers are "bound" by this so-called non-disparagement clause.

==========================

[TorchTheWitch]

12. No, they're customers because they placed an order

If they were in a physical store they'd be customers even if they didn't purchase anything and were just browsing.

The company has a "non-disparagement clause" in the fine print of their Terms of Use, however, it wouldn't likely stand up in court since it's an unfair contract, and courts normally won't uphold any contract that is unfair. Forbidding customers to voice their opinions about a company's products and service is pretty clearly unfair. Other companies are starting to do the same thing. Read the article and watch the CNN clip there. It's pretty interesting.

This case will also not likely hold up in court because none of the company's contact phone numbers work, which is why the Palmers have not been even able to contact the company about this situation. Any court would really frown on that.

[truedelphi]

14. According to the mid section of the article, the

"non-disparagement" clause only was posted on their website some time after the couple did their disparaging.

And most legal experts don't think the Klear Gear company will win in court, if it goes that far.

[TorchTheWitch]

19. Well, geez, if they didn't even have the clause

until after the Palmers used the site I can't see how the company could possibly win in court though I didn't think they'd likely win anyway. I'm surprised that they're still going on with this madness after it was on the news, too. Damn, and they thought that the Palmers' web post would damage their reputation... they did that all by themselves especially now that MSM has picked up on their nefarious rip off blackmailing scheme.

[aggiesal]

11. So let me get this straight . . .

Klear Gear doesn't have to fulfill their end of the contract,
and the Palmers do?

And since the Palmers canceled their order,
why is there a contract at all?

[TorchTheWitch]

13. They're still customers since they placed an order

However, you're right that the company didn't fulfill IT'S part of the contract as they failed to deliver the order and also failed to in a timely manner to rectify the problem of why they failed to deliver the order (in fact, they didn't notify the customers at all much less in a timely manner). The Palmers placing an order and later canceling it still makes them customers, which is who companies are supposed to be catering to rather than trying to screw them with this horrid blackmail scheme.

I'd assume that any company with one of these outrageous "non-disparagement" clauses in their Terms of Use is a really crappy company and even more of a crappy company when their contact phone numbers don't work that has no intention of making their customers happy by fulfilling THEIR end of any transaction fairly, timely and courteously. As far as I'm concerned, that's a company that has no business being in the sales business at all and in fact actually INTENDS to rip off its customers.

[socialist_n_TN]

30. Welcome to the world of capitalism....

It's ALWAYS about the profit.

[4lbs]

15. Well.... According to Citizens United, Klear Gear is a "person".

And that negative review by the Utah couple hurt that "person"'s feelings.

So, that "person" is suing for the equivalent of emotional distress and feeling all wah-wah.

Is Klear Gear in need of $3500 for a therapist to make them feel all happy-happy-joy-joy again?

[cthulu2016]

20. Citizens United has nothing to do with this

The legal person-hood of Klear Gear for any purpose relevant here is very old. (Corporate personhood is a very old concept that, for instance, allows a corporation to sue somebody or be sued by somebody. Only 'personal' legal entities can sue or be sued.)

Limitations on commercial "disparagement" were much greater back in the day than they are today.

This particular case is without merit, of course.

[Faryn Balyncd]

16. The BIG FISH criminals are Equifax, TransUnion & Experian not the illusory drop-shipping sleazebag

.... who operates under the names of "KlearGear" from a mail-forwarding service in Michigan, (whoever he or she is), and who has a website using names of people whose existence is difficult to verify, and who extorts people using "contract" terms which were inserted by the fraudster retroactive to a purchase order which was never fulfilled, with the active enabling of corporations who claim to be in the business of rating credit-worthiness (which presumably has some correlation with not being a scam artist).

Fraudster operations are a dime a dozen.

But the willful enabling of fraud by the omnipresent credit rating corporations Equifax, TransUnion & Experian is a crime of huge and on-going importance.

The big fish criminals at Equifax, TransUnion & Experian need to be held accountable, or they will skin us all alive for the slice of the profits they make enabling corporate predators, (both small fish sleazebags and Wall Street giants).

[kcr]

21. Yes, this.

It would be a lot easier to simply tell these fraudsters to take a hike, except you have to worry about your credit.

[MindPilot]

17. How, exactly does a company "fine" a customer?

Their leverage ends at having a collection agency make some annoying phone calls.

The customer cancelled the contract for non-performance by Klear Gear. No contract, no breach. Klear Gear might have a case for liable, but that would really be a reach.

[CorrectOfCenter]

18. I have absolutely no legal background, but it seems like an open-and-shut case.

If any judge rules in favor of this predatory bullshit, it would be a gross injustice.

[Dr. Strange]

22. Public Citizen is working with them.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Palmer-Demand-Letter.pdf

[Coyotl]

23. Always read the fine print.

If you agree to something, my advice is to know what you agree to. Contract law is very straight forward. You sign, you agree, you pay the consequences.

[Faryn Balyncd]

24. That's good advice.

In this case, it appears that the fine print did not even exist at the time she placed her order, yet Equifax, TransUnion & Experian by default took the criminal's word that she had signed away her right to speak truthfully.

Here's a case where a bank did not read the fine print which gave terms they would not have agreed to had they read it. Do you think the contract will be upheld in court?

[bluestate10]

25. No only should the charge get thrown out, the couple should sue for expenses. They will

win.

[rickford66]

26. What about the "free market" ?

How will the poor performing companies be driven from the market by consumer choice if we have no means to measure performance?

[dickthegrouch]

27. It would be nice if

the attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the court, by trying to enforce a retro-actively applied condition, should cause 100 fold damages automatically assessed against the perpetrator. 350000 would be a nice compensation for the Palmers and a good deterrent for the miscreants.

[Progressive dog]

28. This sounds like extortion,

Klear Gear reported the failure to pay the $3500 fine as an unpaid bill to the credit reporting agencies. A company can't impose restrictions on speech, no matter what their website says. The company can sue for libel, but only a court can decide whether they have been libeled and what damages are due.

[Alkene]

29. What does this mean for review sites, like Ripoff Review and Yelp? n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

31. This is the TPP's courts in micro........

nm