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

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

KlearGear.com Review on Ripoff Report

This is insane. Since when can a business fine you for telling the truth about their craptastic service? Also, the (cancelled) contract this business had wasn't even with the woman, it was with her husband. Finally the review was written years before these tards changed their TOS to include a "no bad reviews" policy (which may not even be legal).

That's so freakin harsh, I've left a lot of negative reviews on various sites and stuff, but it's constructive criticism, anything we say is a chance for YOU to get better as a company.

Damn, I'd be poor if I got charged for the amount of reviews I leave.

There's a lot more to this story though. They essentially thought it was stupid (which it was for multiple reasons), but they got a letter saying it was going to be reported to the credit bureaus and they just...did nothing. Like it would magically go away. And they never bothered to check their credit score before applying for a loan.

Got a link or source for this story?

Just search the company in news.google and you'll get a ton of different ones

In 2009, Jen Palmer’s husband bought her some Christmas gifts from KlearGear.com. When the merchandise still hadn’t arrived a month later, PayPal closed the transaction and refunded her money.

Palmer tried to contact the company to inquire about the order, but couldn't get in touch with anyone. Frustrated, she wrote a critical review of the company on RipoffReport.com and moved on.

But as KUTV reports, KlearGear.com resurfaced three years later and has turned Palmer’s life upside down, slapping her with a $3,500 fine and reporting her to the nation’s three major credit agencies.

"This is fraud," Palmer told the station. "They're blackmailing us for telling the truth."

Here’s what happened. Tucked away in the agreement language almost no one ever reads, was a clause stating that anyone who buys something from the website agrees to never publicly criticize the website.

The exact language reads:

"In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts kleargear.com, its reputation, products, services, management or employees."

However, on some review sites individuals claim that the clause only went into effect in 2013, meaning that Palmer should be exempt from the fine policy. Interestingly, review sites also contain a number of mixed to negative customer reviews but only this one mention of the company actually issuing a fine to a customer.

And the actual language from the clause has since been removed from Kleargear's website.

In fact, the company may be facing some heat for bragging about it's own reviews. The Better Business Bureau has issued an alert against KlearGear saying the company has falsely claimed to have received an A+ rating from the BBB. "As of November 28, 2012, the BBB became aware that the company's website is displaying a BBB Accredited Business logo and BBB Rating A+," reads a statement on the BBB website. "However, the company is not an accredited BBB business and the BBB rating is not A+."
As of November 28, 2012, the BBB became aware that the company's website is displaying a BBB Accredited Business logo and BBB Rating A+; however, the comapny is not a BBB accredited business and the BBB rating is not A+. - See more at: http://www.bbb.org/western-michigan/....w85vkPeA.dpuf
As of November 28, 2012, the BBB became aware that the company's website is displaying a BBB Accredited Business logo and BBB Rating A+; however, the comapny is not a BBB accredited business and the BBB rating is not A+.

Still, someone from the company contacted Palmer’s husband via email and told him he had 72 hours to remove her critical review from the site Ripoff Report, or face the $3,500 fine. Her review read in part, "There is absolutely no way to get in touch with a physical human being" at the site, adding that they have, "horrible customer service practices."

Nonetheless, Jen Palmer actually contacted Ripoff Report but that site demands $2,000 to remove a post.

Naturally, Palmer refused to pay the fee. Then, she found out that not only had Klear Gear imposed its arbitrary fine, but they had reported the “failure to pay” status to the major credit bureaus.

And the credit bureaus haven’t been helpful either, refusing to remove the mark from her husband's credit score. Jen Palmer says that she and her husband are now receiving rejection letters from lenders as a result of the negative mark on their credit score.

So, the Palmers now find themselves at the mercy of three unresponsive entities: the website that fined them for exercising their First Amendment rights, the review site that refuses to remove her post and the credit bureaus, which are taking the side of the website over a customer who may be the victim of corporate fraud. In the meantime, KUTV has put the Palmers in contact with a media relations representative at Experian, in an attempt to resolve the situation.

"I have the right to tell somebody else these guys ripped me off," Palmer said.

000000

Originally Posted by deedeeiam

There's a lot more to this story though. They essentially thought it was stupid (which it was for multiple reasons), but they got a letter saying it was going to be reported to the credit bureaus and they just...did nothing. Like it would magically go away. And they never bothered to check their credit score before applying for a loan.

Danielle, I completely disagree.

They arbitrarily decide to fine one of their customers from years earlier 3,500
because they didn't like what she posted.

Then they attached it to her credit file. Failure to pay a fine a company makes up then sends to a credit agency. They are under no obligation to respond. The act seems criminal to me.

It isn't a bad debt and I hope she sues and win.

I think it is abuse. They can sue but to send a statement to the credit agency that this is a bad date "failure to pay" seems criminal to me.

http://www.ibtimes.com/kleargearcom-...nline-retailer

A couple who wrote a negative review of an online retailer has been hit with a $3,500 fine and had their credit score dinged. According to KUTV in Salt Lake City, several years ago, Jen Palmer’s husband ordered several products from KlearGear.com, which specializes in novelty trinkets. But PayPal canceled the transaction when the items failed to arrive after 30 days.
Woman Fined $3,500 For Negative Online Review


Palmer tried to call the company for an explanation, but was never able to reach anybody. Eventually, she wrote a bad review of her experience with KlearGear at RipOffReport.com.

"There is absolutely no way to get in touch with a physical human being," the review reads, according to KUTV. The negative review also mentions "horrible customer service practices."

Three years later, Jen Palmer’s husband received an email from KlearGear, demanding the review be removed or they would be fined $3,500. According to KUTV, it turns out that Palmer and her husband violated a "non-disparagement" clause hidden in the terms of sale.

"In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts kleargear.com, its reputation, products, services, management or employees," the clause reads.

“Should you violate this clause, as determined by KlearGear.com in its sole discretion, you will be provided a seventy-two (72) hour opportunity to retract the content in question,” the clause reads. “If the content remains, in whole or in part, you will immediately be billed $3,500.00 USD for legal fees and court costs until such complete costs are determined in litigation. Should these charges remain unpaid for 30 calendar days from the billing date, your unpaid invoice will be forwarded to our third party collection firm and will be reported to consumer credit reporting agencies until paid.”

As KUTV reports, upon receiving the email from KlearGear.com, Jen Palmer contacted RipOffReport.com to have the post removed, but they told her there was a charge of $2,000 to remove negative reviews.

When Palmer and her husband failed to pay the fine within 30 days, their credit score was dinged. According to KUTV, the couple are now getting rejection letters from lenders after applying for a loan to buy a car or fix the furnace in their home.

"This is fraud," Jen Palmer said. "They're blackmailing us for telling the truth. … I have the right to tell somebody else these guys ripped me off.”

There are multiple negative posts about KlearGear.com on RipOffReport.com, KUTV said. Additionally, the company got an “F” rating in 2010 from Better Business Bureau for “not delivering products purchased online in a timely manner.” Today they have a “B” rating.

"I think this is outrageous that a company like this would force a consumer to relinquish their first amendment rights to speak about their product as a condition of sale," First Amentment attorney Jeff Hunt told KUTV. "I've never seen anything like it."

Danielle, I completely disagree.

They arbitrarily decide to fine one of their customers from years earlier 3,500
because they didn't like what she posted.

Then they attached it to her credit file. Failure to pay a fine a company makes up then sends to a credit agency. They are under no obligation to respond. The act seems criminal to me.

It isn't a bad debt and I hope she sues and win.

I think it is abuse. They can sue but to send a statement to the credit agency that this is a bad date "failure to pay" seems criminal to me.

Also, the policy this company has wasn't in effect when this review took place. I hope the family takes it as far as they can and puts this company into ruins. Just my opinion.

To add

The Better Business Bureau has issued an alert against KlearGear saying the company has falsely claimed to have received an A+ rating from the BBB. "As of November 28, 2012, the BBB became aware that the company's website is displaying a BBB Accredited Business logo and BBB Rating A+," reads a statement on the BBB website. "However, the company is not an accredited BBB business and the BBB rating is not A+."
As of November 28, 2012, the BBB became aware that the company's website is displaying a BBB Accredited Business logo and BBB Rating A+; however, the comapny is not a BBB accredited business and the BBB rating is not A+. - See more at: http://www.bbb.org/western-michigan/....w85vkPeA.dpuf
As of November 28, 2012, the BBB became aware that the company's website is displaying a BBB Accredited Business logo and BBB Rating A+; however, the comapny is not a BBB accredited business and the BBB rating is not A+.

Kleargear goes into social media hiding

http://boingboing.net/2013/11/18/kle...ocial-med.html

Remember KlearGear.com? It's the novelty company that charged a woman $3500 and ruined her credit record after she complained to ripoffreport.com about Kleargear's poor service. Since the news broke last week, KlearGear has protected its Tweets and canceled its Facebook page.

In addition, even though KlearGear has a "TRUSTe Certified Privacy" emblem on its home page, TRUSTe tweeted this morning that "@KlearGear is NOT @TRUSTe certified."

And over at Popehat.com, Ken White reports that KlearGear.com had been displaying a BBB Accredited Business logo and BBB Rating A+. The BBB says that KlearGear.com is "not a BBB accredited business and the BBB rating is not A+."

According to Inc.com, KlearGear's revenues for for 2012 were $47.5 million.

Seems like I'm not the only that knows this is a crime on the company's part. Fake company.

New From KlearGear: Free Speech, Only $3,500 Plus Shipping And Handling
Nov 15, 2013
By Ken White.
Irksome, Law, WTF?

By popular demand — which is a polite way of saying yes, I heard about this, for the love of God stop sending me emails about it — it's time to talk about KlearGear, an online company that sells "desk toys" and gadgets and tchotchkes and such. Tim Cushing at Techdirt has the story.

KlearGear is not having a good week in the social media. That's because KlearGear attempted to enforce a jaw-droppingly repulsive and unethical fine-print-condition-of-sale to retaliate against a customer who complained about bad service.

The customer is Jen Palmer. She and her husband bought some bauble from KlearGear. It never came. They tried to reach customer service, and never could. So they left a negative comment about KlearGear on a gripe site. Three years later, KlearGear threatened them, saying they had violated a non-disparagement clause buried in those terms of use you never read before clicking "yes" when buying something online or using a website:

Non-Disparagement Clause

In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts KlearGear.com, its reputation, products, services, management or employees.

Should you violate this clause, as determined by KlearGear.com in its sole discretion, you will be provided a seventy-two (72) hour opportunity to retract the content in question. If the content remains, in whole or in part, you will immediately be billed $3,500.00 USD for legal fees and court costs until such complete costs are determined in litigation. Should these charges remain unpaid for 30 calendar days from the billing date, your unpaid invoice will be forwarded to our third party collection firm and will be reported to consumer credit reporting agencies until paid.

The link to that language is from a web archive, because KlearGear has now sent it to the memory hole upon public scrutiny. Tim Cushing at Techdirt points out that, according to the Internet Archive, the clause didn't even exist when Jen Palmer clicked "yes" and bought her bauble from KlearGear. That suggests that KlearGear made a demand for money to Jen Palmer based on a contract she never signed. There's a word for that: fraud.

Could Jen Palmer defend a lawsuit on the basis that KlearGear can't prove that she agreed to the non-disparagement clause, because it wasn't on the site when she clicked "yes"? Yes she could. Could she also defend a lawsuit based on a variety of doctrines and defenses available when companies attempt to enforce bizarre hidden clauses in form contracts — sometimes called "contracts of adhesion" — against consumers? Yes. But a lawsuit isn't at the heart of KlearGear's despicable tactic. Ruining the credit of its critics is:

The clause goes on to say if a consumer violates the contract they will have 72 hours to remove your post or face a $3500 fine. If that fine is not paid, the delinquency will be reported to the nation's credit bureaus.

Once again — if KlearGear asserts falsely that someone accepted a contractual term, and asserts a debt based on that false statement, and reports that debt to credit agencies, that's fraud. It's not just a civil wrong, it's a crime.

I tried to get a comment from KlearGear. I tweeted their Twitter account. I left a message on their Facebook page. I repeatedly called "Rob Key," their "Media Relations" person, at the number they provided; it was constantly busy over two days. I called the main number on their website; the recording always says that a customer representative is unavailable on this time and to check the website. It's almost as if Jen Palmer's online criticism — that it's impossible to talk to a live person at KlearGear — is true.

KlearGear's non-disparagement clause is probably an effort to salvage a reputation hammed by bad results like an "F" grade from the Better Business Bureau in 2010, earned through shitty service.

Kleargear.com claims to offer products to "make your home and desk more fun with our desk toys, cool gadgets, stress relievers, games, cube decor, geek toys, and unique computer accessories." However, consumers across the country tell BBB that dealing with this company is anything but fun. BBB has issued an F rating to San Antonio-based Kleargear.com for failing to respond to consumer complaints. Click here to view the company’s current BBB Reliability Report™.

Consumer disputes received by BBB allege Kleargear.com does not deliver products purchased online in a timely manner and, in some cases, fails to deliver any product at all. Consumers further allege that attempts to contact the company go unanswered. In the past three years, 95 of the 123 disputes forwarded by BBB staff to Kleargear.com have gone unanswered, though some consumers later notified BBB they did eventually receive their products.

KlearGear's BBB rating has since improved. However, the Western Michigan Better Business Bureau reported in 2012 that KlearGear was falsely displaying a positive BBB rating on its web site:

As of November 28, 2012, the BBB became aware that the company's website is displaying a BBB Accredited Business logo and BBB Rating A+; however, the comapny is not a BBB accredited business and the BBB rating is not A+.

The BBB contacted the company regarding these issues and this matter is pending the company's response.

As of November 28, 2012, the BBB discovered that some pages of the company's website display the BBB Accredited Business Logo and state "BBB Rating A+", when neither is true.

The BBB contacted the company at the Michigan mail drop address instructing the company to immediately remove the incorrect BBB logo and reference from their site.

This matter is currently pending.

Companies, through the people who run them, can make errors of judgment. They can correct those errors, and consumers can make rational decisions that the company is again worthy of their business.

This is not such a situation.

KlearGear's non-disparagement clause is a contemptible, unethical, and un-American. I say that whether or not KlearGear is defrauding customers by citing the clause to customers who didn't even agree to it. You should not — you cannot — trust a company that hides in its small print a clause saying you can't criticize it for bad service. Only a dishonest and amoral company would insert such a clause into its terms of use. Only amoral and dishonest people, deserving of our contempt — owners, officers, employees, and company lawyers — would create and attempt to enforce such language.

KlearGear has begun to reap what it has sown. Techdirt, Simple Justice, Consumerist, and more sites have written about it. KlearGear deserves to fail as a business based on this conduct, and hopefully will. But that's not enough. Somebody needs to use public records to identify the owners and decision-makers behind KlearGear who countenanced this conduct, and any lawyers who participated in the threats to consumers. Their identity should be published, and they should suffer social consequences. Their communities, and their future potential employers or customers, should see them for what they are: scum.

Do you think KlearGear should suffer consequences for its actions? You can help by spreading the story.

I think everyone needs to go after that third party collection agency. This is a fraud. The family needs to sue them too.