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

[bcr229]

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).

 

[Snakey]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Mooing Tricycle]

Got a link or source for this story?

 

[deedeeiam]

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

 

[Dennis Hultman]

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...n-grandville-mi-38143064#sthash.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

 

[Dennis Hultman]

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...after-writing-negative-review-online-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."

 

[Dennis Hultman]

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.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

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/kleargear-goes-into-social-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.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

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.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Fake Company?

http://www.blagnet.net/2013/11/18/my-review-of-kleargear-com/

Tim Cushing of Techdirt.com wrote about the now-infamous case of the Utah couple who were fined $3500 for writing a negative review of KlearGear.com. They refused to pay, which prompted KlearGear to follow through on its threat to send their debt to a collections agency, thereby ruining that couple's credit rating. Read his short article; the details of the depth of KlearGear's depravity are hard to believe, but they serve a salutary reminder that not all malicious, psychopathically predatory monsters find their way into government service. Also read Ken White's post about it at Popehat.com.

The purpose of this post is merely to help spread the word about KlearGear's immorality and criminality, in the hope that others will do the same, resulting in the existence of so many web pages about their pure evilness that these pages will overwhelm the positive or neutral search results for KlearGear.com, so that anyone who ever seeks to learn anything about KlearGear will discover what depraved, predatory psychopaths ran that place (and provided it legal services). Basically, I aim to help amplify the Streisand effect as much as possible.

I found these comments in the aforementioned Popehat discussion interesting:

Attempting to research KlearGear and determine ownership. So far, I've only been able to find the following, on the BBB page for the company:

Contact Information
Principal: Mr. Randall Prescott (Legal)
[...]
Found someone else associated:

On LinkedIn, Rob Key appears to be the CMO of KlearGear.

Further investigation of Rob Key turns up this PR article, which lists his contact information as:

Rob Key
pr (at) kleargear (dot) com
Phone (616) 965-2426
Fax (616) 965-2427
[...]
BBB says their legal dept. is here:

7122 Oaklawn Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229-3021

which turns out to be Chenal Corp.:

http://chenalcorp.com/

seems shady so far…

Edit – BINGO! Paydirt!

http://edgar.secdatabase.com/2115/150017010000001/filing-main.htm

[...]
Adding to my last comment, which is in the moderation queue, and per this article, Lee Gersten is the president of KlearGear (can't find contact info on him), and Rob Key is the CMO and press contact.

You can contact Rob at:
email [email protected] or [email protected]

From Rob Key's email format, it might be a good guess that Gersten can be contacted at [email protected] .
[...]
Also, their "media relations" page mentions:

Rob Key
Media Relations
KlearGear.com
2885 Sanford Ave SW Suite #19886
Grandville, MI 49418
Phone (616) 965-2426
Fax (616) 965-2427

I wonder how busy he is today…if he exists.
[...]
More contact info for Robert Key from

http://finance.paidcontent.org/paidcontent/news/read?GUID=22106787

Robert Key
[email protected]

http://www.chenalmedia.com

(310) 362-0245

chenal media, chenal brands, and chenal corp appear to all be related.
[...]
there appears to be a real connection between Chenal Brands, Inc. and Kleargear as noted by several commentators above. (see these press releases)

The CEO of that company appears to be Will Bermender (see: linkedin page and businessweek profile)
[...]
Additional Sleuthing -

KlearGear.com (a wholly-owned subsidiary of catalog and e-commerce conglomerate Havaco Direct Inc.)

"Guys love gadgets, and KlearGear.com has over a thousand gadgets, tools, office toys, and home and office decor ideas for any techie dad," stated Will Bermender, President of KlearGear.com. "
[...]
From various press releases from Havaco and KlearGear:

[email protected] +1-214-432-7923
[...]
Look up kleargear on Pipl.com
Will Bermender – http://www.pinterest.com/kleargear/

Will Bermender, Los Angeles, CA, US, Texas, US – Executive Chairman at Chenal Media, Board …

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/2/928/b67

Will Bermender

https://www.facebook.com/will.bermender.7

Will Bermender (peoplesmart)
Age: 43
Location: San Antonio, TXMaple Grove, MNOsseo, MNFarmington Hills, MI

http://www.spokeo.com/search?q=William+Bermender&sao9=t105#:13838247801

William Franklin Bermender
Chenal Valley Dr, Apt 2304 (no coincidence, not included in search)
Old address, latest address is san antonio texas
[...]
Havaco Direct, Inc is the corporate name of Klear Gear. It is a Delaware corporation.

File Number: 3745438 Incorporation Date / Formation Date: 12/29/2003
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Entity Name: HAVACO DIRECT, INC.
Entity Kind: CORPORATION Entity Type: GENERAL
Residency: DOMESTIC State: DE
REGISTERED AGENT INFORMATION
Name: THE COMPANY CORPORATION
Address: 2711 CENTERVILLE RD STE 400
City: WILMINGTON County: NEW CASTLE
State: DE Postal Code: 19808
Phone: (302)636-5440
[...]
These domains are apparently associated, but not all have websites and some seem to have expired:
SunglassesPro.com
EggHeaders.com
GeekOutfitters.com
TwistedPlayground.com
KleargearComplaints.com
BuySomeCrap.com
bermender.com
chenalcorp.com
wwwkleargear.com
turnaroundleader.com
WillBermenDer.com
GeekShirtShop.com
TwistedGoodies.com
MixxKicks.com
chenalco.com
havaco.com
TaggerPal.com
[...]
Interesting. Kleargear's Suite # is 19886 in both California and Michigan locations. This is also the suite # associated with parent company Chenal Media, but it only shows up if you look at a cache of chenalmedia.com. (http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...oJ:chenalmedia.com/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

Amusingly, Total S.A.'s legal page says, "If you wish to create a hypertext link to this Web site, you must obtain prior written authorisation from the Company using the contact details stipulated at the end of this document." Right. Good luck enforcing that.

Anyway, as was mentioned previously, the Chenal Media website is actually the Total S.A website. Check the source code of the page (view-source:http://chenalmedia.com/). It redirects to http://total.com/en. So does http://www.chenalco.com/

Total S.A. is a french oil and gas company. So is Chenal Media pretending to be Total S.A., did somebody buy their website and redirect it, or did Total S.A. buy those websites and redirect them in order to [insert complicated and opaque justification].

They also have a ChenalCorp.com website, but it will not pull up. The cached version doesn't have much information. http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...SoJ:chenalcorp.com/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Is it possible that this is a money-laundering operation? What would explain the almost invisible, or possibly non-existent, employees/executives and unusual operations other than something shady?
[...]
The fake photos raise a question — It is theoretically possible there is no one named "Will Bermender," "Lee Gersten," "Randall Prescott," "Rob Key," or "Megan Tolcher" actually associated with this company. If someone is uploading fake photos to represent those names, it's possible the identities were stolen, too.
[...]
I guess we can conclude that Chenal is for sure a fake company and being the parent company to Kleargear, it too is fake. Perhaps Kleargear is one of these internet sites set up for the sole purpose of stealing identities.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Exposing Criminal Fraud - William Franklin Bermender - UPDATED
The Ripoff Report has provided more details.

Tom Riskin of Inhaniel and listed as a Chenal Media investor is mentioned here: http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/prnewswire/search?q=Tom+Chenal and had created a report profile here http://www.slated.com/people/13599/

The photo listed as Tom Rifkin has been stolen. According to Wikpedia this is Professor Kurt Remele and is licensed CC-BY-SA-3.0, which means using it without attribution is illegal.

Megan Torcher another excecutive of Chenal Media and Chenal Brands is another identity created with a stolen photo. The photo of Megan Torcher is actually a picture of German business womam Manuela Better

http://www.pfandbriefbank.com/en/the-company/management/manuela-better.html

________________________________________________


The following is an investigative piece posted on RipOff Report.

"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."

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/EXPOS...liam-Bermender-Han-Reinett-Tom-Rifkin-1100482

 

[Dennis Hultman]

"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."

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Very long interesting blog on this topic.

http://neer-do-well-hall-of-infamey.blogspot.ca/

 

[deedeeiam]

Danielle, I completely disagree.

Dude...how do you disagree with facts? I didn't even give an opinion. Here's on though...

The company was stupid and criminal for abusing the credit bureau system. However, these people were stupid too. If someone sends you a legal notice with the information they're going to provide to the credit bureau, you better make darn sure you're covering your butt. You don't have to respond to them, but if you want to protect yourself...then yes, you can't just sit on your butt.

Had these people had any common sense or self preservation, they would have noticed it on their credit report. There should be remedial common sense classes for anyone over 25 that isnt running their credit report annually. It sat on their credit report for 4 years. 4!

I will say on this:

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."

I'm still amazed that people don't know you're supposed to CLICK ON THE ICON and verify that it takes you to a page on TRUSTe's site with the company information. Same with BBB and Verify. If you can't click it, it's fake...or you just really shouldn't be doing business with them because they're clueless.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Dude...how do you disagree with facts? I didn't even give an opinion. Here's on though...
.

I was disagreeing with point that I thought you were making that it was OK that they attach such a fine to their credit report. Apparently I read the previous statement to fast and wrong.

I absolutely did after looking at the previous post again.

 

[WebSlave]

There should be remedial common sense classes for anyone over 25 that isnt running their credit report annually.

I guess that means me, as well. I have NEVER run a credit report on myself, EVER. I would expect that a LOT of people do not. Seriously, why should I?

As for this issue that is the topic of this thread, sure seems suspicious about this company. Unfortunately, it's going to be darn difficult for the victims to sue them if they can't actually identify the owner(s). But sure seems stupid of that company if they were running a scam to make such a boneheaded mistake that got them into a pretty harsh spotlight. Did they SERIOUSLY ever expect anyone to read that garbage about the fine, much less pay it? It was guaranteed to just become nothing more than picking up a hornet's nest and shaking it.

 

[deedeeiam]

You have a website - a business- and you've never checked your credit report? Hopefully, people don't trust you directly with funds and always use at least paypal their CYA.

Your credit report can show you any inquiries people are making toward your financial stability. It can show where you've had identity theft that you may not even be aware of yet. It directly effects your ability to get good interest rates when dealing with loans. You've never cared about that? It must be nice to have unlimited funds...

 

[Lucille]

It must be nice to have unlimited funds...

Many people do not take out loans because they have planned ahead for expenses and saved. Many people get loans without looking at their credit history and get the rates they expect. That certainly does not mean they have unlimited funds.

 

[WebSlave]

You have a website - a business- and you've never checked your credit report? Hopefully, people don't trust you directly with funds and always use at least paypal their CYA.

Your credit report can show you any inquiries people are making toward your financial stability. It can show where you've had identity theft that you may not even be aware of yet. It directly effects your ability to get good interest rates when dealing with loans. You've never cared about that? It must be nice to have unlimited funds...

No, I don't have unlimited funds. Jump to conclusions much?

But I also have NO debt whatsoever. Credit card statements are considered as a 30 day loan that gets paid off upon receipt. Actually if it wasn't for the high costs of the multitude of insurances and taxes, I could actually do a lot more fun and frivolous stuff while retired.

There is NOTHING I expect to need a loan for. If I can't afford to buy it outright, then I suppose I just don't need it. Or at least not TODAY. I've pretty much always lived that way, and not very likely to change now. My retirement savings is holding up pretty well, and the income from my websites is a definite plus. As long as things hold relatively stable until Connie and I die, this will work just fine.

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.

Heck, speaking of which, a LONG time back I was at some store because Connie saw some dishes that she was craving, so I went there to buy them for her as a Christmas present. The store clerk asked me if I would mind opening up a charge account with then, so heck, why not? I gave them all the info and then walked around the store twiddling my thumbs while they processed the application. In a bit I noticed the clerks looking over at me and whispering among themselves, so I walked on over and asked them if there was a problem. They laughed and apologized, saying that they had never seen a credit rating as high as mine before. Was news to me.... I didn't feel I did anything special to earn it. I just pay my bills.

 

[bcr229]

The company was stupid and criminal for abusing the credit bureau system. However, these people were stupid too. If someone sends you a legal notice with the information they're going to provide to the credit bureau, you better make darn sure you're covering your butt. You don't have to respond to them, but if you want to protect yourself...then yes, you can't just sit on your butt.

You have to read through all the various articles and blogs to get the full timeline and story, but it looks like there was never a proper legal notice sent, just an email from KG to the Palmers demanding that the report Jen had posted in 2009 be removed. Anything involving a $3500 fine should have been sent certified mail - email is never considered appropriate notice.

Had these people had any common sense or self preservation, they would have noticed it on their credit report. There should be remedial common sense classes for anyone over 25 that isnt running their credit report annually. It sat on their credit report for 4 years. 4!

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.