Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Woman Fined For Bad Review Striking Back In Court

Posted by Soulskill on from the jury-to-be-fined-for-unfavorable-verdict dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Here's an update to the earlier Slashdot story about KlearGear.com 'fining' a couple for a bad review left four years earlier on RipoffReport: Not only did KlearGear report this as a bad debt to credit reporting agencies, but KlearGear is hiding behind a DomainsByProxy domain name to making finding their real identities harder. Now Public Citizen is representing the couple and is going after KlearGear for $75,000. The TV station that broke this story, KUTV, now reports that RipoffReport will likely be on the couple's side. The BBB and TRUSTe say their logos were used by KlearGear.com without permission, and credit reporting agency Experian is also investigating."

17 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. Good by jason777 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hope they put them out of business. What a scumbag company.

    1. Re:Good by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I don't normally wish doom to a private company, but in this case...

      Yea, based on the facts as offered, they can go rot...

    2. Re:Good by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Question for anyone who knows: how the hell did KlearGear report a debt to a credit reporting agency in the first place? The credit reports are indexed by SSN, and they only have other identifiers like credit card numbers to go by if you don't have that. They paid by PayPal. Doesn't PayPal hide your credit card number from the merchant? With just a name, how did they report it? Does anyone know?

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    3. Re:Good by jonfr · · Score: 5, Informative

      They say on the front page that they are experiencing unexpected and sharp increase in volumes of orders. That means they are delaying all shipping for 48 business hours. Since working hours are around 8 hours normally, this means 6 days delay at least on shipping when people order from this website. But that is something they should not do, since it is unlikely they are going to get what they did order.

      They are also faking reviews and other such things. Claim and information on the fake reviews can be found in the comment on the site I am linking to.

      Details: http://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/www.kleargear.com

    4. Re:Good by tysonedwards · · Score: 5, Informative

      Easy... They had the person's full name and address, probably more relevant contact information.

      Think of it this way... a call to Equifax, Experian or Transunion to submit a complaint saying "This person placed a very large order with us, but then reversed payment after the fact. Here is their name, address, phone number, email, dog's middle name, ..."

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
  2. Fret not by smittyoneeach · · Score: 5, Funny

    All of the company staff will get IRS jobs. They've shown the proper mindset.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    1. Re:Fret not by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ding Ding Ding Ding

      You have identified the fundamental problem with our system of government.

      Couple the principle of free shit with that of lack of term limits and fiat money and I am amazed we have gotten this far.

  3. Waiver of rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The main claim is that the puchase was a contract that imposed the condition of "never acting to harm KlearGear". That could encompass pretty much anything you do. Did you consume a resource that resulted in higher costs to them, did you loan the item to a friend and the friend did not like it. So many accidental ways to breach the "contract"

    We the people need the right of fair dealing. We can't have weird contractual conditions imposed. I am not a lawyer so don't know how to put it.
    Normal actions, including criticism should not result in violations.

    1. Re:Waiver of rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I seem to recall it beeing seedier than even that.

      IIRC, at the time the transaction was said to take place, KlearGear had not yet even PENNED that clause in their contract, and as such any such term was never a term even presented to the customer at the time of said transaction.

      In the venerable wors of Darth Vader: "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it further."

      Essentially KlearGear is claiming a breach of contract that was never even presented to the customer, as grounds for their dickishness.

      If true, the woman's lawyers are going to can their spammy asses.

    2. Re:Waiver of rights by jmac_the_man · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Constitution doesn't grant ANY rights. The Bill of Rights recognizes is a non-exhaustive list of rights of the natural rights of free people. These rights predated the Constitution, and people are entitled to them with or without the Constitution.

      As the USOC [sic - the Supreme Court???] recognized, the first amendment only grants the right from government restrictions on free speech. Other entities such as... schools are not required to grant you the right to free speech.

      Again, the government didn't GRANT you the rights listed in the first amendment (because the rights were there already), but the government is required to RESPECT the rights that you already had. This applies to all governmental institutions, which includes most schools.

      Please stop treating the Constitution like a religious document. It is not.It is very limited and very specific.

      It's obvious you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

    3. Re:Waiver of rights by mysidia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      IIRC, at the time the transaction was said to take place, KlearGear had not yet even PENNED that clause in their contract, and as such any such term was never a term even presented to the customer at the time of said transaction.

      That is even worse for KlearGear; as it changes the violation from harassment, FCRA violations (for reporting a false loan, from which no goods or services were exchanged) and FCBA violations --- into fraud.

      Changing your "terms" after the fact, and pretending as if your new terms apply to a previous sale, so you can extort your customer, is fraud.

    4. Re:Waiver of rights by meerling · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Courts have already declared that those kinds of 'agreements' (this includes EULAs) can not remove rights, no matter what the agreement says.
      They're allowed to talk about it, and in a negative fashion, so long as they stick to facts and their opinions. (NDAs are a bit different.)
      For that matter, the clause saying you can't badmouth them apparently didn't exist at the time those people interacted with that company. So the company is trying to retroactively change the agreement, which is illegal.
      The threats the company sent, sure look like blackmail, or at least some form of illegal attempt to influence imo. (ianal)
      Don't forget that the company never delivered the contracted goods, so the contract was invalidated by them for failure to fulfill the contract. Heck, even the credit card company agreed to that and revoked payment.
      That company also used the logos of the Better Business Bureau and TRUSTe improperly, without permission, and I believe, illegally. I know of know other reason to fake having endorsement by such "trust" organizations as those for any reason other than to run a con. Add that with the companies attempts at avoiding contact and keep as many details secret as they can, and you really have to wonder about their motives. In my case, it's more of a just how extensive and widespread their guilty actions are rather than a more common question of their guilt.

      By the way, if that company were to legally prevail, it would be a horrible precedent. It would probably by about 3 seconds before most companies had the same kind of B.S. 'agreements' employed. You wouldn't be able to say or do anything bad about any company lest you be 'charged' a huge penalty. You probably couldn't even recommend a competitors product or store to a friend, since that would be an action that negatively affects a company. And when it comes to abusing laws, it's it's not a matter of if, it's only a matter of when.

    5. Re:Waiver of rights by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That must be the most ill-conceived post I've seen in /. on all my years here, and that's saying something. Just because you can't prevent anyone from doing something (murder, rape or holding a speech) doesn't make it a "right". Punishing someone after the fact does take the "right" away, you really think saying something then facing an execution squad is free speech? As for "natural" rights, I consider that a joke. Try arguing your "right to life" with a hungry lion, rights only exists between entities that recognize those rights. If your government doesn't recognize freedom of speech, the difference between having it and not having it is entirely philosophical.

      Most people, even those who like to pretend they only care about negative rights care about positive rights. If you say something and the government wants to hang you from the nearest tree but the law won't let them that's a negative right. If you say something and the community wants to hang you from the nearest tree but the police or the law won't let them that's a positive right. What's really your "freedom" of speech worth if the Taleban will kill you for it and nobody will care? Not very much.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Waiver of rights by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Contracts restrict the first amendment right to free speech (which only applies to the government) all the time. A non-disclosure agreement is a perfect example.

      The problem in this case is that KlearGear failed to fulfil their part of the contract (didn't deliver the goods), but then are trying to say the other party is still bound by the contract terms. You cannot hold the other party accountable to a contract while you willfully ignore it. There is no longer a valid contract because KlearGear broke it. The negative reviews are basically the woman saying KlearGear broke the contract.

  4. Re:Rip Off Report by __aarzwb9394 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you have an interest that you need to declare?

  5. Re:Just wait for more EULA's and the TPP / ACTA by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing trumps basic consumer law and contract fairness.

    Too many people forget this.

    The EULA's can say what they like. If it's deemed unreasonable, especially if it's one-sided, courts will just ignore those portions of it.

    I think commenting your own opinion on a product/service you used can't really ever be deemed unreasonable until it becomes harassment, and that's relatively easy to determine and prose cute for.

    Fact is, all this company have done is said they'll sue their own customers unless they never have a problem and/or never tell anyone about it. It's a perfect way to lose customers.

    They can claim anything they like, but that doesn't mean that a court will back them - especially not when they breached the contract themselves first (thus making all the other party's obligations under that contract null and void).

    Just because someone says "But you signed/agreed to this", it doesn't mean that you are bound by it. It's a complete fallacy. It just means that you have to prove it's unreasonable rather than, in the case of not signing it, do nothing.

    There was a lot of cases about whether automatic "if you park here, you are agreeing to pay a £100 'fine'" signs put up by private landowners. Loads of people ignored them and paid fines. And then courts said that it was unreasonable and not legal. And now those landowners are having to pay all that money (and expenses) back.

    A contract has to be fair and reasonable, or it's not a contract at all. And yet you can still be held by your side of the contract (e.g. providing the damn service you were required to) while having all your provisos (e.g. NDA's or termination clauses) rendered void. It all depends on the balance of contract law.

    But, honestly, don't agree to such things in the first place (this person says they didn't, for instance), and don't let people get away with such things when they can't keep their own side of the agreement.

  6. asdf by BradMajors · · Score: 5, Informative

    "KlearGear is hiding behind a DomainsByProxy domain name to making finding their real identities harder.

    KlearGear.com Legal Department
    2939 Wilson Ave SW
    Grandville, MI 49418-3502
    Phone (866) 598-4296