Website KlearGear extorts customer out of $3,500

BikeJunkie

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2013
1,390
0
0
http://news.yahoo.com/woman-gets--3...ng-negative-review-of-business-233833012.html

Short version:

1. Husband purchased items from KlearGear.com
2. Items never arrived, company unresponsive to inquiries
3. Wife posts to RipoffReport.com
4. KG(B) cites terms agreed to when items purchased that customers aren't allowed to speak negatively about KG(B), levies $3,500 "fine"
5. KG(B) reports husband to all 3 credit bureaus

Sounds to me like they have an iron clad case against this mob. And as one person pointed out in the comments section, even though the terms are ludicrous (and probably unenforceable), because the items were never delivered as promised, the "contract" never took effect.

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...grandville-mi-38143064#sthash.w85vkPeA.dpufAs 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.
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,998
126
This seems to have sparked a grass roots campaign to hammer KlearGear on all the review sites. They're getting abused on RipOffReport, ResellerRatings and SiteJabber. Site Jabber has 40+ lowest possible score reviews for them in the last 3 or 4 days.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
LOL sutpid company does something like that thinking they will get away with it? the people that they charged then doubles down and does there best to make sure that everyone knows how fuckign bad kleargear is.

now they are getting trashed EVERYWHERE. wouldn't suprise me if the first people sue the shit out of the too.


what a stupid move.
 

MagnusTheBrewer

IN MEMORIAM
Jun 19, 2004
24,122
1,594
126
No, they're simply following the "no publicity is bad publicity " marketing meme. Another online store selling crap. Who da thunk it?
 

trmiv

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
14,670
18
81
Wait ripoffreport wanted $2000 to remove her review? Sounds like two companies were trying to fuck her over.
 

Imp

Lifer
Feb 8, 2000
18,828
184
106
Been hearing about this more and more. Not only are companies seeding good reviews, they're threatening legal action (or a "fine" in this case) if people write bad reviews. Of course, most people can't or don't want to afford a lawyer.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
I *hate* articles like this.

You read it and it takes the approach that those terms of service are valid and enforceable.

"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."

This person should be exempt from the fine policy because the policy is illegal (I'm 98% sure), not by when the policy went into effect. Any business that does this is immoral, unethical, and likely involved in other illegal activities. Why dignify them with this type of article?
 

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,501
12
0
Been hearing about this more and more. Not only are companies seeding good reviews, they're threatening legal action (or a "fine" in this case) if people write bad reviews. Of course, most people can't or don't want to afford a lawyer.

There are actually companies you can hire now that actually go out and attempt to remove bad reviews from the web.

Businesses have been seeding positive reviews for a long as reviews have existed. Attacking their own customers for bad publicity though is an unethical business practise IMO. The best way to avoid them is to simply offer a good product. Not sending lawyers after folks. It's way too easy to sue anybody for anything these days.
 

trmiv

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
14,670
18
81
The crazy thing is the credit agencies. It's that easy for some shitbag company to ding your credit for $3500???
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
The crazy thing is the credit agencies. It's that easy for some shitbag company to ding your credit for $3500???

The credit agencies are OK ~90% of the time. The other 10% makes them utterly horrible. The processes and procedures just suck and they have very little accountability. One of them was caught selling SSNs to a known scammer. That got swept under the rug pretty quickly.
 

BikeJunkie

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2013
1,390
0
0
The credit agencies are OK ~90% of the time. The other 10% makes them utterly horrible. The processes and procedures just suck and they have very little accountability. One of them was caught selling SSNs to a known scammer. That got swept under the rug pretty quickly.

They have zero accountability and you're at their complete mercy in situations like this.

I would like to see the victim sue the absolute shit out of KlearGear. There are so many things wrong here it's sickening, the least of which is that the company lashed out at a person who was not involved in their supposed "contract" (which as cubby said is fucking laughable and totally unenforceable).

This needs a state or federal attorney involved...
 

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,982
11
81
They have zero accountability and you're at their complete mercy in situations like this.

I would like to see the victim sue the absolute shit out of KlearGear.
And the credit agencies. People in positions of power ought to fear the consequences of abusing that power.
 

goog40

Diamond Member
Mar 16, 2000
4,198
1
0
Wait ripoffreport wanted $2000 to remove her review? Sounds like two companies were trying to fuck her over.

I bet they offer that option to companies that try to have bad reviews others wrote about them removed as well. The irony.
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,998
126
This needs a state or federal attorney involved...

Seems likely. Now that the story has a little traction some crusading consumer advocate reporter will do a piece and that will attract the attention of some state Attorney General that wants to be Governor (that's all of them) and needs some free publicity.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,852
146
The credit agencies are definitely moving to be crooked fucks and they absolutely do not care about their customers. If I'm not mistaken one of them is being investigated for having a hand in malware attacks (basically they pay to have companies rip people off so that then they'll pony up for credit protection).
 

MetalMat

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2004
9,687
36
91
I'm confused. It said that paypal closed the transaction and refunded her money. Did they do this before or after she attempted to contact the company?
 

AznAnarchy99

Lifer
Dec 6, 2004
14,695
117
106
I bet they offer that option to companies that try to have bad reviews others wrote about them removed as well. The irony.

The Ripoffreport is not a good site either. They will take anyone's story for money. One of my professors is a lawyer and he had a client who had a falling out with a business partner. That partner then went to ripoffreport and paid them to keep up a story about how the client had terrorist ties in Thailand and to not do business with them.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,852
146
There are actually companies you can hire now that actually go out and attempt to remove bad reviews from the web.

Businesses have been seeding positive reviews for a long as reviews have existed. Attacking their own customers for bad publicity though is an unethical business practise IMO. The best way to avoid them is to simply offer a good product. Not sending lawyers after folks. It's way too easy to sue anybody for anything these days.

Yep, its why Google nuked the feedback on their stuff. They researched it and found that a ridiculous amount (like 70% or more) of the positive feedback was not legitimate. Even in the instances where it wasn't the company itself or a company paid to post the positive feedback, it was instances where the company coerced the customer to leave it. There was lots of illegal stuff, but most people wouldn't know and if a company basically says they'll fuck you out of hundreds of dollars, they'd probably figure they'd just cave and do it instead of deal with shit like this as it'll cost them money any way they go (even if they get a ruling to get the cost of their legal fees it doesn't mean they'll actually get the money).

I believe other research has said at least 50% of the feedback online for basically anything and everything is fake, and that it might be a lot higher due to other things (like employees posting fake feedback at home and other things so that they look more like random real people).

I *hate* articles like this.

You read it and it takes the approach that those terms of service are valid and enforceable.

"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."

This person should be exempt from the fine policy because the policy is illegal (I'm 98% sure), not by when the policy went into effect. Any business that does this is immoral, unethical, and likely involved in other illegal activities. Why dignify them with this type of article?

That's the thing, they might not be illegal which is all sorts of fucked up. I think some places actually view this as a means for businesses to protect themselves for when the opposite happens (customer goes crazy and tries to smear them). Much like how a lot of companies started slipping in "anti-class action" language in their user agreements. The legality is all over the place, and people get fucked because it might be legal where the company is and the company will take them to court there when the person lives half the country away and likely can't mount a legal defense, or any number of other bullshit tactics.

They definitely should do follow up by researching the legality and get advice from some experts on what to do if it happens.

Here's a kinda similar story:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-company-posts-dirt-on-complaining-passenger/

Oh, and on this specific case, since the company never delivered the items, yeah I don't see how they have any case, they didn't honor the contract on their end.
 
Last edited:

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
It's a perfect example of a company acting stupidly. Did they not realize that if their bluff fails the couple can just say screw you I will destroy you? The hit on their business now is WAY more than $3500. way way way.

I doubt that the terms and conditions are legally defensible. Telling somebody they lose their right to speak out negatively about your product if doing so honestly...surely this is not legal.
No, they're simply following the "no publicity is bad publicity " marketing meme. Another online store selling crap. Who da thunk it?
That adage is for celebrities. It is certainly not for businesses. Bad publicity is bad publicity for a business. Nobody is more inclined to go to your website because you screw people over. That said, the website if you go to it now claims it's receiving a lot of volume recently.
 
Last edited:

Imp

Lifer
Feb 8, 2000
18,828
184
106
There are actually companies you can hire now that actually go out and attempt to remove bad reviews from the web.

Businesses have been seeding positive reviews for a long as reviews have existed. Attacking their own customers for bad publicity though is an unethical business practise IMO. The best way to avoid them is to simply offer a good product. Not sending lawyers after folks. It's way too easy to sue anybody for anything these days.

Yep. F*cked up. I want to start a minor project/business that can make me money, but there is a patent troll sending out "pay me" letters to random people now. Their patent is so simplistic, it essentially covers turning a device on and using it -- they did not invent the device that has been around for decades.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
The credit agencies are OK ~90% of the time. The other 10% makes them utterly horrible. The processes and procedures just suck and they have very little accountability. One of them was caught selling SSNs to a known scammer. That got swept under the rug pretty quickly.

Another reason why trying to live by credit is stupid.