Woman gets $3,500 fine and bad credit score for writing negative review of business

Originally Posted by bcr229

The black mark didn't hit their credit report until mid-2012 after the email from KG to the Palmers demanding that they remove the bad review was sent out, not 2009 when Jen Palmer posted the bad review. While it certainly should have been noticed sooner, it wasn't sitting out there for four years either.

I've heard it both ways. She pretty much did an AMA on reddit this week in one of the larger threads and even from her the timeline is all kinds of wonky.

Originally Posted by webslave

Jump to conclusions much?...But I also have NO debt whatsoever...So no, I have NEVER checked a credit report on myself, and I dare say that I never will. Never saw the need, and still don't.

Ok. It's great that you don't have current debt, but you skimmed over the other important reason - identity theft. You're a shiny naive target. Perfect credit score, tons of information online and readily available, never checks credit score to see if anyone is opening any cards under your name. Simple, fast cash to the less than scrupulous.

And it's really easy to say "oh, we save" and "if I can't buy it now, I don't buy it." But stuff happens, and sometimes there is not enough health or homeowners insurance to keep people from relying on loans.

Originally Posted by deedeeiam

Ok. It's great that you don't have current debt, but you skimmed over the other important reason - identity theft. You're a shiny naive target. Perfect credit score, tons of information online and readily available, never checks credit score to see if anyone is opening any cards under your name. Simple, fast cash to the less than scrupulous.

And it's really easy to say "oh, we save" and "if I can't buy it now, I don't buy it." But stuff happens, and sometimes there is not enough health or homeowners insurance to keep people from relying on loans.

So what? Just because I get a credit card statement saying I owe some money I didn't spend doesn't mean they will get any money out of me. That would be the credit card company's problem, not mine. THEY issued the credit card, not me. THEY failed to adequately determine who was applying for it, not me. Unless the shipping address shows the merchandise being delivered to me, they can squeal all they want about THEIR mistake.

Me thinks you worry too much.....

Originally Posted by WebSlave

So what? Just because I get a credit card statement saying I owe some money I didn't spend doesn't mean they will get any money out of me. That would be the credit card company's problem, not mine. THEY issued the credit card, not me. THEY failed to adequately determine who was applying for it, not me. Unless the shipping address shows the merchandise being delivered to me, they can squeal all they want about THEIR mistake.

Me thinks you worry too much.....

Wow, you really don't have any grasp on identity theft if you think that's the scenario you'd end up dealing with.

Originally Posted by deedeeiam

Wow, you really don't have any grasp on identity theft if you think that's the scenario you'd end up dealing with.

I guess I just feel that I am fortunate in that no one else would really want to be me...

Utah Couple Fined $3,500 by Online Merchant KlearGear Retains Lawyer, Turns Tables

KlearGear.com didn't deliver Palmer's online order of a desk ornament that was less than $20, so it cancelled the transaction in Dec. 2008. Jen Palmer, now 40, wrote a negative review on private business review site RipoffReport.com, saying KlearGear.com had "horrible customer service practices."

...

Then last summer, her husband, John, a senior network engineer, received an email from KlearGear.com demanding $3,500 pursuant to a non-disparagement clause that it claimed was in its "Terms of Use" on its website.

...

The Palmers say they asked RipOffReport to take down the negative review, but the site has an arbitration process that requires the involvement of the business. The couple say they shared this information with KlearGear.com to no avail.

"There is an option to post updates to the report at no charge to anyone," Ed Magedson, founder of RipOffReport told ABCNews.com. "For example, if Kleargear.com reconsiders its decisions, Jen Palmer could post an update to tell other consumers how the situation was resolved."

When the Palmers refused to pay the amount, KlearGear.com reported their "debt" to one or more credit reporting agencies. When the Palmers disputed the debt with several credit reporting agencies, KlearGear.com continued to maintain that the debt was owed and then demanded a $50 "dispute fee" because they attempted to dispute the debt, the couple says.

Cases like this one are why I will never try to get out of jury duty.

The Utah Couple who were “fined” $3,500 for writing a negative comment online about a small online merchant named KlearGear.com has formally threatened to sue the firm, and is asking for $75,000 to avoid litigation. Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen is representing the couple, John and Jen Palmer of Layton, Utah.

Public Citizen lawyer Scott Michelman sent a “demand letter” to KlearGear on Monday, saying the firm could avoid litigation if it paid $75,000 to compensate the couple for the “hardships and distress” suffered during the past 18 months. It also demands that the firm ensure that the couple’s credit report is cleared up, and that the firm stop using kind of non-disparagement clauses that led to Palmers’ trouble.

(I explained the Palmers’ plight in detail here, and blamed the credit bureau system for the size of the problem.)

The Palmers say they ordered items 18 months ago from KlearGear thet were never delivered. When they complained about the firm on an online message service, KlearGear invoked a non-disparagement clause which indicated the firm could levy a $3,500 fine against consumers who speak poorly of the firm online. When the Palmers did not pay the penalty, the couple alleges, KlearGear sent notice of the unpaid bill to the nation’s credit bureaus, which ultimately damaged their borrowing ability.

In the letter, Michelman details some of the harms experienced by the Palmers, including: a delay in a car loan, a limitation in the couple’s ability to refinance their mortgage, multiple credit card application denials, and an ongoing hindrance to sale of their home and the purchase of another one.

Michelman said the couple will file suit by Dec. 16 if the two sides do not meet a resolution.

“KlearGear’s conduct is part of a troubling trend of businesses trying to deter negative reviews by muzzling their customers. Another example is Public Citizen’s case against a New York dentist who tried to make her patients agree, as a condition of treatment, that they would not criticize her,” wrote Michelman in a blog post accompanying notice of the demand letter. ”TechDirt has reported about the use of such a clause in vacation rental agreements.”

Yes, I know, necro thread. I found it doing a search on something else, then I wondered whatever became of the whole mess.

Long story short, the couple sued and won a $300,000 default judgement against KlearGear. Collecting may be another issue though, as it looks like the company is a sham/front for an overseas company.

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=kleargear

Good find all the same.