Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By Joe_Shmoe

Thread: Woman Hit With $3,500 Fine And Bad Credit Score After Writing Negative Review Of Online Retailer

  1. #1
    littleroundman is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    18,887 Woman Hit With $3,500 Fine And Bad Credit Score After Writing Negative Review Of Online Retailer Woman Hit With $3,500 Fine And Bad Credit Score After Writing Negative Review Of 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, which specializes in novelty trinkets. But PayPal canceled the transaction when the items failed to arrive after 30 days.

    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

    "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, its reputation, products, services, management or employees,"
    the clause reads.

    “Should you violate this clause, as determined by 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, Jen Palmer contacted 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 on, 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."
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

  2. #2
    Joe_Shmoe's Avatar
    Joe_Shmoe is offline Senior Scambuster
    Join Date
    Sep 2012

    Re: Woman Hit With $3,500 Fine And Bad Credit Score After Writing Negative Review Of Online Retailer

    BBC News - Bad review couple win compensation

    Bad review couple win compensation

    Online retailer KlearGear has been ordered to pay $306,750 (£180,00) to a couple it has had a long-running dispute with over a bad review.
    Jennifer Palmer posted a review on criticising KlearGear customer service, after her husband ordered two items that never arrived.

    KlearGear later asked her to remove the post and threatened a $3,500 fine.

    The case was resolved in a default judgement after KlearGear failed to respond to the legal action.

    The couple's lawyers told technology news site Ars Technica that collecting the money could prove problematic.
    "Now we're going to be figuring out where KlearGear's assets are and how we can collect them," they said.
    Customer serviceThe row stretches back to December 2008 when John Palmer ordered two items, worth less than $20, as a gift for his wife.

    The items did not arrive and after repeated calls to the company the couple were told that the items had never been paid for and had been cancelled.

    In response Mrs Palmer posted a review claiming "there is absolutely no way to get in touch with a physical human being" and describing KlearGear's "horrible customer service practices".

    Three years later, Mr Palmer received an email demanding that the review be deleted within 72 hours or a fine of $3,500 would be levied as he was in violation of the firm's "non-disparagement clause".

    Although the Palmers never sent the money, KlearGear attempted to get it via a debt collection service, which the couple allege damaged their credit rating.

    Commonsense victory?Ars Technica, which has been following the case in detail, said that Descoteaux Boutiques, KlearGear's Paris-based parent firm had contacted it.

    Emails from Vic Mathieu director of corporate communications claimed that Mr Palmer had been "belligerent towards our customer care staff and threatened to defame KlearGear if he did not receive free merchandise".

    Partner at law firm Harbottle and Lewis, Andy Millmore said that it was a partial victory for common sense.

    "I should be able to say something fair and reasonable about a firm I have bought goods from," he said.
    "It shouldn't have taken three or four years at massive legal cost to reach that conclusion."

    If Simon Stepsys or Mark Ghobril are involved it's 100% a SCAM!

  3. #3
    ribshaw's Avatar
    ribshaw is offline Nigerian Ministry
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Internet Cafe Nigeria

    Re: Woman Hit With $3,500 Fine And Bad Credit Score After Writing Negative Review Of Online Retailer

    Many companies play fast and lose (but not really) with the language hidden in those disclosures we all agree to but never read.

    These links highlight almost a mirror image of the story above.

    Are Companies Voiding Your Right to Sue After You 'Like' Them on Facebook? - ABC News

    Have You Signed Away Your Right to Sue? | Mother Jones

    You Can't Sue Us! Some of the companies that use arbitration clauses in contracts with employees or customers

    Hooters • Applebee's • kfc • Friendly Ice Cream Corporation • Circuit City • Neiman Marcus • Nordstrom • Hallmark Cards • Merrill Lynch • Citigroup • First usa • Ameriquest • Discover • Blue Cross Blue Shield • Aetna • Kaiser Permanente • AT&T • Ford • Daimler AG • Toyota • Clear Channel • General Electric • Halliburton • Bechtel • Rent-a-Center

    Litigation Arbitration Landing page
    "It's virtually impossible to violate rules ... but it's impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time." Bernie Madoff


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42