Slashdot Mirror


Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review

sabri writes "Jen Palmer tried to order something from kleargear.com, some sort of cheap ThinkGeek clone. The merchandise never arrived and she wrote a review on ripoffreport.com. Now, kleargear.com is reporting her to credit agencies and sending collectors to fetch $3,500 as part of a clause which did not exist at the alleged time of purchase. 'By email, a person who did not identify him or herself defended the $3500 charge referring again to Kleargear.com's terms of sale. As for Jen being threatened — remove the post or face a fine — the company said that was not blackmail but rather a, "diligent effort to help them avoid [the fine]."' The terms and conditions shouldn't even apply, since the sales transaction was never completed."

21 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. A "Cheap ThinkGeek Clone?" by Press2ToContinue · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh Slashdot - you're so edgy. Calm down.

    --
    Sent from my ENIAC
    1. Re:A "Cheap ThinkGeek Clone?" by synapse7 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think I come to this site out of long term habit more than anything else.

  2. Hello Streisand Effect by rossz · · Score: 5, Funny

    kleargear will soon discover how the internet works.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
    1. Re:Hello Streisand Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      They already are. They're removing all comments from their facebook page.

    2. Re:Hello Streisand Effect by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really they should discover how their State's Attorney General works.
      I'm a strong advocate for Corporate Death Sentences and banning corporate officers from owning or running another corporation for X years.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:Hello Streisand Effect by kermyt · · Score: 5, Informative

      And now they have disallowed all commants on their FB page.

    4. Re:Hello Streisand Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But not their posts.

      Hundreds of negative things here, but instead of one-word posts, the clause should be posted.

      BUYER BEWARE
      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.

    5. Re:Hello Streisand Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      And now their FB page has been deleted.

  3. Diligent Efforts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All this diligent effort to quash her negative review or help them avoid supposed fines - too bad none of that effort couldn't be put to satisfying the customer in the first place or correct their mistake.

  4. Hint taken. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Never ever buy anything from kleargear.com. They might ruin your credit for it.

    In fact... lets just pop that right into the hosts file right now. Just in case i forget.

    Just another shady fly by nite rip off site. Lets get this woman some donations so she can sue the shit out of them.

    1. Re:Hint taken. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      like hell it can't.

      since that kleargear fine hit our (actually, it was my husband's report, not mine) credit, we've been consistently denied for various financing... incluing trying to get our furance replaced when it died on us last month. we had to get a second car for my husband's new job, and it took them a month to find a bank willing to finance us all because of this bullshit charge on our credit.

  5. Unconscionable Contract clause by imp · · Score: 5, Informative

    First, it's not clear a contract was established. And even if it was, unilateral changes generally are unenforceable. And even if it were there when the attempted purchase was attempted, this is an unconscionable contract clause, against public policy (1st amendment, etc) and should be thrown out.

    This person's best bet is to dispute the credit reports, counter sue for whatever they can think of to recover legal fees.

    If it were me, I'd just send them a letter telling them to go F themselves and I'll see you in court. Bring it. My lawyer, however, would likely wish that I not do that.

    1. Re:Unconscionable Contract clause by Spazmania · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Contracts of adhesion (unilateral contracts) are generally enforceable but they are "interpreted against the drafter" meaning that any ambiguity is interpreted in favor of the customer.

      Click-through contracts are less likely to be enforceable than something bearing a physical signature. Add a little unconscionability and no court in the land would uphold that contract. If there even was a contract.

      The magic word you're looking for, though, is Libel. These jokers deliberately published a false statement of fact to the credit reporting agencies with the intention of damaging the individual's reputation. That's a cha-ching if you take 'em to court.

      However, this part of the story doesn't quite ring true for me. The credit reporting agencies don't like to accept reports without an SSN. Too high a risk they get applied to the wrong person. So how did folks paid via paypal get enough information to attach a complaint to the person's credit report? Maybe I just don't know enough about how the reporting agencies work but for darn sure there's nothing on my credit report from anyone who didn't have my SSN.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  6. Re:in sue happy america by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's how the system is supposed to work. I'm assuming you went to small claims court, right? Small claims courts can't offer injunctive relief (i.e., a court order compelling her to keep the animal off your property), all they can do is offer monetary relief, and you didn't have any monetary damages.

    Frankly I think that's a pretty silly thing to sue over and it must have made you really popular in the neighborhood. There's a ton of effective ways to keep cats out of your yard, ranging from harmless (garden hose) to nasty (anti-freeze), hardly seems like something worth dragging the courts into.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  7. Re:Give them a call! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Don't bother with regular mail. it appears to be a mail forwarding facility: http://www.mailboxforwarding.com/form1583.php

  8. Re:in sue happy america by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Informative

    The only people who get rich by going to court are the lawyers.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  9. CFPB by Nick · · Score: 5, Informative

    She needs to go to http://cfpb.gov/ right away and report this. It'll come off her credit reports ~30 days or so later. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was setup for exactly this kind of thing.

    --
    Fuck Ajit Pai
  10. Just hold on now by Jiro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If everything is as described, sure, the woman has been mistreated. But on the other hand, she's using Ripoff Report. Slashdot has done an article about a case involving Ripoff Report before, and they themselves absolutely refuse to remove even false information, and then charge people money to dispute it. It's at least as bad as the company she's fighting.

    Look it up. Here, I'll help you. Read the very links described here: "She contacted Ripoffreport.com to ask that the post be removed but Ripoffreport.com won't let her without paying $2000 she says."

    Or go read some of the comments in the earlier article describing how Ripoff Report behaves. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/29/1929228/court-rules-website-doesnt-have-to-remove-defamatory-comments

  11. Re:Well.. by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Are you kidding? With the right lawyer (or DA, or even consumer protection agency), it's a great way for her to eviscerate kleargear.com for fraudulent practice.

    The stupid 'you can't say we ripped you off even if we do, nyah nyah' clause that kleargear.com chucked into their site is patently unenforceable. It's like my dumbassed last employer who tried to force everyone laid off to sign a 'non-disparagement' clause, holding their severence pay ransom unless they did. (one phone call to my own lawyer right there in the office stopped that BS cold.)

    By the way, it wouldn't take much to dispute the "fine" with the reporting agencies, either.

    As for the negative publicity? Is the old fuckedcompany.com still running? I don't feel much like tickling the company proxy here to find out...

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  12. Re:Well.. by SCPRedMage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's only "unenforceable" from a legal standpoint, but before it ever even sees a courtroom, it's already intimidated enough people to raise the company's BBB rating from an F to a B, and ruined other people's credit; the couple from TFA have been turned down for loans due to the credit hit they've taken because these guys sent that $3500 "penalty" to collections.

    Why pay court costs for a judge to enforce your schemes when you can get the credit bureaus to do it for free?

    --
    My sig can beat up your sig.
  13. Re:in sue happy america by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Where I grew up, shooting a kid with a shotgun (loaded with rock salt) was considered an object lesson about property rights, and we'd have been shocked if anyone went to jail for it. How times have changed.

    I remember at 12-13 yo in the mid-'70s, the family lived for a time (father in civil service-transfers were fast-track grade advancement) in south-central MS near the eastern MS/western AL border. There was this old farmer that raised huge patches of watermelons and strawberries that all the kids knew would shoot at you with this old break-action double-barrel 12ga loaded with rock-salt shells (though he couldn't see at distance worth beans) if he spotted you in his fields (and sometimes actually grazed the occasional slow/careless kid with a piece or two, usually one kid a season).

    Everybody in the surrounding area knew this and him, including the police & sheriff. That was the way things had been for as long as many if not most who lived there could remember, even as they were kids.

    Nobody even thought to call the police. They'd have simply told you that "...you ought-not to be a-trespassin' on no private prop-perty. Ev'rbody know the ol' man'll light bee-hines wit rocksalt if'n he catches ya in is fields! Ya'll'll get hurt ya keep it up, an' if we gotsta carry ya'll to the horsepital, we'd be 'bliged to charge ya'll wit trespass." (there *were* signs).

    The old boy sat in a rocking chair on his porch and typically never even stood to shoot. The range was like anywhere from 60 to 100-plus yards. He also loaded these shells of his really light on powder charge. If you had on jeans all you'd get is a nice welt if you were closer.

    The only two times I remember any blood having been drawn or any skin penetration or other injury (other than self-inflicted) occurring was when the two kids in question didn't pay attention, had gotten far too close, and were wearing shorts. Only one small piece barely penetrated skin both times, though from the way they'd each screamed at the time, I'm sure it burned like hell.

    The first "strawberry-heart" medal-winner popped out the little salt fragment with his own thumbnails, wiped it hydrogen peroxide, stuck a band-aid on it, and carried on. Next season, the other medal-winner's piece of salt was so small it had dissolved before the kid had stopped running, and left but a single drop of blood, a welt, and a painful memory.

    I was always careful to stay at the edge of his range, kept real low, and never stayed long or ate/took very much on the occasions I was pressured to join in. We didn't hurt the old man's harvest. He had these huge fields, but a lot of what grew he never picked and it rotted in the fields.

    I do "distinctly* remember what the sound of rock salt sounds like whizzing around/past you from a 12ga, some making weird "ricochet"-type whining, moaning, or buzzing sounds, striking vegetation around you, etc.

    Nothing like it to get those legs really moving!

    It's downright motuh-VAY-shunul! :D

    CoD!?!? Bah! Back in *my* day, we went out unarmed and deliberately got shot at with *real* guns just for *fun*!!! :D

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.