An Online Retailer Fined a Couple $3,500 for Writing a Negative Review

Analyzing the top news stories across the web
Dec. 18 2013 3:41 PM

Kleargear Fined a Couple $3,500 for a Negative Review, Then Dinged Their Credit Score

1387398171

Kleargear.com

This post originally appeared in Business Insider.

Advertisement

An online retailer is being sued after fining a couple $3,500 for a negative review and then dinging their credit score when they didn't pay the fine. The lawsuit, which is seeking damages of at least $75,000, accuses KlearGear.com of defaming customers John and Jen Palmer, inflicting emotional distress, and violating the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

"Companies like KlearGear.com that engage in abusive consumer practices need to be deterred," said Scott Michelman, an attorney with the Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, which is filing the lawsuit on behalf of the Palmers.

John Palmer had purchased a desk toy and a keychain on Kleargear in December 2008, according to the lawsuit. When the order failed to arrive within several weeks, John's wife, Jen Palmer, says she tried to contact the company to find out what happened.

She couldn't contact anyone by phone but she eventually reached a representative by email, who told her the order had never been paid for, the lawsuit claims.

Palmer then posted a negative review of the company on RipoffReport.com, in which she accused Kleargear of having "horrible customer service practices."

"There is absolutely no way to get in touch with a physical human being," the review from February 2009 says.

More than three years later, John Palmer got an email from Kleargear demanding that the review be removed within 72 hours or he would be fined $3,500. The email reportedly cited Kleargear's terms of sale, saying it included a non-disparagement clause that prohibits customers from "taking any action that negatively impacts" the company.

"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," the clause read, according to TechDirt. "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."

Kleargear appears to have removed the clause from its terms of sale within the last couple months but it appeared on the website as recently as August 2013. The lawsuit claims the clause was not included in the terms of sale when the Palmers' order was placed. 

When John Palmer explained that he didn't write the negative review, but that his wife had, a KlearGear representative stated in an email that "[i]f you disparaged KlearGear to another person who published negative content, you have still breached the terms of our sales contract," according to the lawsuit. 

Jen Palmer contacted RipoffReport to remove her post, but the website told her there is a $2,000 charge for taking down reviews. When the Palmers didn't pay Kleargear the $3,500 fee within 30 days, the company contacted credit bureaus, which dinged their credit score, the lawsuit says.

"The consequences to the Palmers have been quite serious," Michelman said. "They have been denied credit, they have had loans delayed, and through a three-week period in October they had no heat in their home because their furnace broke and they couldn't obtain a loan to purchase a new one."

Business Insider was unable to reach anyone by phone or email at Kleargear.

TODAY IN SLATE

Foreigners

More Than Scottish Pride

Scotland’s referendum isn’t about nationalism. It’s about a system that failed, and a new generation looking to take a chance on itself. 

What Charles Barkley Gets Wrong About Corporal Punishment and Black Culture

Why Greenland’s “Dark Snow” Should Worry You

Three Talented Actresses in Three Terrible New Shows

Why Do Some People See the Virgin Mary in Grilled Cheese?

The science that explains the human need to find meaning in coincidences.

Jurisprudence

Happy Constitution Day!

Too bad it’s almost certainly unconstitutional.

Is It Worth Paying Full Price for the iPhone 6 to Keep Your Unlimited Data Plan? We Crunch the Numbers.

What to Do if You Literally Get a Bug in Your Ear

  News & Politics
Weigel
Sept. 16 2014 7:03 PM Kansas Secretary of State Loses Battle to Protect Senator From Tough Race
  Business
Moneybox
Sept. 16 2014 4:16 PM The iPhone 6 Marks a Fresh Chance for Wireless Carriers to Kill Your Unlimited Data
  Life
The Eye
Sept. 16 2014 12:20 PM These Outdoor Cat Shelters Have More Style Than the Average Home
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 15 2014 3:31 PM My Year As an Abortion Doula
  Slate Plus
Slate Plus Video
Sept. 16 2014 2:06 PM A Farewell From Emily Bazelon The former senior editor talks about her very first Slate pitch and says goodbye to the magazine.
  Arts
Brow Beat
Sept. 16 2014 8:43 PM This 17-Minute Tribute to David Fincher Is the Perfect Preparation for Gone Girl
  Technology
Future Tense
Sept. 16 2014 6:40 PM This iPhone 6 Feature Will Change Weather Forecasting
  Health & Science
Medical Examiner
Sept. 16 2014 11:46 PM The Scariest Campfire Story More horrifying than bears, snakes, or hook-handed killers.
  Sports
Sports Nut
Sept. 15 2014 9:05 PM Giving Up on Goodell How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.