Woman Fined For Bad Review Striking Back In Court 249
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."
asdf (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
Re:Good (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 [sitejabber.com]
Re:Waiver of rights (Score:3, Informative)
Where did you read that?
The 10th Amendment.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
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,
Kleargear is maildrop, claims 2% tornado donations (Score:4, Informative)
The Kleargear.com address at 2885 Sanford Ave. SW in Grandville MI is really a mail forwarding/disguised address popular with companies doing horrible things to people, and is run by a company called Mailbox Forwarding, Inc.: The mail-forwarding service is not unfamiliar to the BBB. “Over the years, we’ve had many issues with businesses that use that address” [mlive.com]
Here's another address for them, thanks to this press release through United Business Media's PRNewswire [prnewswire.com]. If they try to retract it, here's a copy at The Sacramento Bee [sacbee.com]:
Christophe Monette, CEO of Kleargear parent Descoteaux Boutiques, has been pleasantly surprised...
Margaux Banet
2885 Sanford Ave SW #19886
Grandville, MI 49418
United States
Descoteaux Boutiques
ZAC Paris Rive Gauche
118-122 Avenue de France
75013 Paris
France
And this press release also says "Kleargear is donating 2% of net sales between November 17th and December 17th to The American Red Cross in support of our friends and neighbors affected by Sunday's devastating tornado outbreak across the Midwest." Who wants to bet any of their money gets to anyone who's ever seen a tornado? Best to check on the legitimacy of these charity solicitations of course. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette has been making charity fraudsters one of this pet projects lately: See "A Michigan Crackdown On Charity Fraud" [blogspot.com]. I'll bet Schuette's office would be more than happy to hear about any problems from companies that happen to officially give their state of residence as Michigan and claim to help Michigan tornado victims. The Michigan Attorney General has a specific phone number for Questions About Charities [michigan.gov].
Of course, maybe the French address is fake too. They're a bit pickier about that in France though, I think. Anyone have the contact info for the corporation regulators or charity regulators in Paris?
Also: The BBB gave Kleargear.com an F rating, [bbb.org] before Kleargear.com inserted this ruin-your-customers-lives clause in their terms and then faked the A+ rating on their website. For those of you who can't see popups on the BBB site: 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 company is not a BBB accredited business and the BBB rating is not A+. The BBB contacted the company regarding these issues and this matter is pending the company's response. As of November 28, 2012, the BBB discovered that some pages of the company's website display the BBB Accredited Business Logo and state "BBB Rating A+", when neither is true. The BBB contacted the company at the Michigan mail drop address instructing the company to immediately remove the incorrect BBB logo and reference from their site. This matter is currently pending.
Re:Waiver of rights (Score:5, Informative)
Also, "The Federalist Papers". A must read for anyone who wishes to understand the thinking behind the creation of our Constitution.
Re:Waiver of rights (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Waiver of rights (Score:5, Informative)
The contract clause is unenforceable for multiple reasons. The first amendment has a bearing on one of them.
First there is no contract, The goods were never delivered, KlearGear failed to perform its obligation, there was never an exchange of a consideration. Therefore no contract.
Second, the original agreement was with the husband, the comments were made by the wife.
Third, the contract terms were added after the original agreement as is demonstrated by the Way Back Machine archives
Fourth, even if there had been a contract it would be a contract of adhesion. The seller defines the terms and the buyer has a weak negotiating position. In such cases civilized jurisdictions (i.e. not necessarily a corrupt jurisdiction) generally strike out clauses that are surprising or contrary to normal practice absent clear proof that the buyer was aware the term existed. A line of text in a fifty page contract in 6pt type is not normally enforceable.
Fifth, the term in question was unconscionable which means that it offends the basic principles of commerce and/or society. Constitutional precedent and in particular the first amendment is frequently used to establish that a clause is 'unconscionable'. Kleargear is not 'violating' the first amendment but the courts are not going to enforce a contract term whose purpose is to take away constitutionally protected rights.
Sixth, even if all the above were not so, the claim for $3,500 is a liquidated damages clause and thus invalid. As a matter of public policy, corporations are not allowed to set fines.
Seventh, the amount was clearly in dispute. Thus the reporting to Experian was in breach of the fair credit reporting act.
I am sure that there are weaker claims out there, but I can't think of one offhand.
Re:Waiver of rights (Score:4, Informative)
Oh and there is an eight:
The claim to be rated by the better business bureau has been shown to be false. KlearGear makes several such claims that have been shown to be false for the purpose of gaining business. That meets the legal definition of fraud. In addition to creating the possibility of criminal sanctions, fraud voids a contract.