Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Unfair treatment from bad people  (Read 782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline poche

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16730
  • Reputation: +1218/-4688
  • Gender: Male
Unfair treatment from bad people
« on: November 16, 2013, 04:21:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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/business-reviews/novelties-retail/kleargear-in-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.

    http://news.yahoo.com/woman-gets--3-500-fine-and-bad-credit-score-for-writing-negative-review-of-business-233833012.html
    Logged

    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16730
    • Reputation: +1218/-4688
    • Gender: Male
    Unfair treatment from bad people
    « Reply #1 on: November 26, 2013, 11:44:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • .....Utah Couple Fined $3,500 by Online Merchant KlearGear Retains Lawyer, Turns Tables
    By SUSANNA KIM | Good Morning America – 5 hours ago
    ......Good Morning America - Utah Couple Fined $3,500 by Online Merchant KlearGear Retains Lawyer, Turns Tables (ABC News)

    ....Email0Share127
    Share0Print......After an online merchant fined a Utah couple $3,500 for writing a negative review and caused a financial nightmare for more than a year, a public service lawyer has agreed to take the case and fight back with demands for $75,000 in compensation.

    When Jen Palmer of Salt Lake City didn't receive a Christmas gift that her husband ordered for her online, she wrote a negative review of KlearGear.com and moved on with her life. But the company fined the Palmers $3,500, citing bizarre fine print on its website.

    "No one would have expected this from doing perfectly normal, everyday and perfectly legal things," Scott Michelman, staff attorney with Public Citizen who is representing the Palmers, told ABCNews.com.

    KlearGear.com didn't deliver Palmer's online order of a desk ornament that was less than $20, so it cancelled the transaction in Dec. 2008. Jen Palmer, now 40, wrote a negative review on private business review site RipoffReport.com, saying KlearGear.com had "horrible customer service practices."

    "It's been five years," Palmer, an executive assistant, told ABCNews.com. "Once we put the review up we pretty much forgot about it. It was no different than writing a review, good or bad, about any company. We just figured we'll share our story and hopefully it warns anybody else."

    Then last summer, her husband, John, a senior network engineer, received an email from KlearGear.com demanding $3,500 pursuant to a non-disparagement clause that it claimed was in its "Terms of Use" on its website.

    "We were blown away," Jen Palmer said, recalling that her husband asked her who KlearGear.com was when he received the email. "We were floored. We couldn't believe that somebody would even attempt to do this. The threat of doing it was scary enough, but the extent to which they did it blew my mind."

    The Palmers say they asked RipOffReport to take down the negative review, but the site has an arbitration process that requires the involvement of the business. The couple say they shared this information with KlearGear.com to no avail.

    "There is an option to post updates to the report at no charge to anyone," Ed Magedson, founder of RipOffReport told ABCNews.com. "For example, if Kleargear.com reconsiders its decisions, Jen Palmer could post an update to tell other consumers how the situation was resolved."

    When the Palmers refused to pay the amount, KlearGear.com reported their "debt" to one or more credit reporting agencies. When the Palmers disputed the debt with several credit reporting agencies, KlearGear.com continued to maintain that the debt was owed and then demanded a $50 "dispute fee" because they attempted to dispute the debt, the couple says.

    KlearGear.com did not respond to a request for comment.

    Unable to afford an attorney to dispute the debt, the Palmers said the mark on their credit history affects their ability to obtain loans, most recently for a financing plan for a new furnace. As a result, last month the couple and their 3-year-old son were without heat for three weeks until they saved the $1,900 to buy a furnace.

    "Utah in October gets very cold pretty quickly," Jen Palmer said.

    Besides the debt to KlearGear.com, Palmer said she and her husband have maintained a good credit history.

    "We really try to live within our means. We don't live on credit," she said.

    After the Palmers took their story to a local television station, the nonprofit advocacy group Public Citizen volunteered to represent the couple, sending a letter on Monday to KlearGear.com, threatening to file a lawsuit against the e-commerce site unless it fixes the situation with a deadline of Dec. 16.

    In Michelman's letter, he writes that the Palmers asked KlearGear.com to inform the three major credit reporting agencies that their debt was in error, to compensate the Palmers $75,000 and not to include its "non-disparagement clause" going forward.

    Michelman said the $75,000 compensation amount is in the high range of a typical award for acts in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

    "There's no excuse for what KlearGear did," Michelman said. "We want to prevent consumers from being taken advantage of with regard to their credit."

    The harm imposed on the Palmers wasn't just theoretical, Michelman points out in the letter, detailing the numerous times the denial of credit affected their lives. In addition to the inability to obtain financing for a new furnace, the Palmers experienced a delay of a car loan, denial of a credit card, and the inability to sell their home and purchase a new one. The Palmers also say the negative credit report has deterred them from seeking to refinance their home or secure a home equity loan for roof and window repairs.

    "Obviously we would like this resolved sooner than later," Jen Palmer said. "It has gone on long enough. It never should have happened in the first place. I don't want to conjecture their thought process. We want this resolved as quickly and peacefully as possible."

    Michelman said it's not the first time he has seen a business try to muzzle its critics through the use of non-disparagement clauses or legal devices to stop customers from writing negative reviews. One method he has seen is a company assigning over to itself copyright of a customer review. Earlier this year, Public Citizen represented a customer in Greenville, S.C., who was sued by an eBay seller after she gave the seller a low-star rating.

    Michelman said these companies' terms are so "unconscionable" that a court will likely not enforce them, which often happens when a term is imposed on a party that has no choice but to agree to it.

    "So these contracts are 'take it or leave it.' They are not negotiated between parties of equal bargaining power," he said. "A consumer going to a website to buy a product may not see or read through the terms of service by clicking 'I agree.'"

    Michelman also said that the "non-disparagement" clause was not even on the website when John Palmer placed his order in 2008.

    "That's another reason KlearGear's conduct in this situation is unsupported and incredibly unfair to the Palmers," Michelman said.

    http://gma.yahoo.com/utah-couple-fined-3-500-online-merchant-retains-195914084--abc-news-money.html
    Logged
    Pages: [1]
    « previous next »