Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the hidden-so-well-it-didn't-exist dept.

Businesses 519

sabri writes "Jen Palmer tried to order something from kleargear.com, some sort of cheap ThinkGeek clone. The merchandise never arrived and she wrote a review on ripoffreport.com. Now, kleargear.com is reporting her to credit agencies and sending collectors to fetch $3,500 as part of a clause which did not exist at the alleged time of purchase. 'By email, a person who did not identify him or herself defended the $3500 charge referring again to Kleargear.com's terms of sale. As for Jen being threatened — remove the post or face a fine — the company said that was not blackmail but rather a, "diligent effort to help them avoid [the fine]."' The terms and conditions shouldn't even apply, since the sales transaction was never completed."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A "Cheap ThinkGeek Clone?" (5, Funny)

Press2ToContinue (2424598) | about a year ago | (#45436923)

Oh Slashdot - you're so edgy. Calm down.

Re:A "Cheap ThinkGeek Clone?" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437027)

Indeed, there's so much hate they can't even link the domain.

Re:A "Cheap ThinkGeek Clone?" (4, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45437063)

I was going to comment that Dice hasn't done anything to ruin thinkgeek yet, but they don't actually own that one.

Re:A "Cheap ThinkGeek Clone?" (5, Funny)

synapse7 (1075571) | about a year ago | (#45437507)

I think I come to this site out of long term habit more than anything else.

Well.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45436971)

That's a good way to lose business.

in sue happy america (2)

ruir (2709173) | about a year ago | (#45437005)

can't just she go to court for harassment and get rich?

Re:in sue happy america (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year ago | (#45437033)

anybody can sue anybody for anything. it doesn't mean you'll win, and even if you do your winnings may pale in comparison to your legal costs.

Once I sued my neighbor because her cat kept defecating in my potted plants. Judge said that I couldn't show any actual monetary damages, so that was the end of that.

Re:in sue happy america (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437065)

Really? Why not shoot the cat? This is America, no?

Re:in sue happy america (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437113)

Because it's been somebody's companion for 10 years? Because it's the one thing that makes their kid smile? Because killing is not proportionate to the offense?

You really can't train a cat to stop defecating in a place that's really ripe for burying poop. All you can do is put a scent around it, which the neighbor could have paid for.

Re:in sue happy america (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437191)

You needed one of these: http://norris.org.au/cattack/

I built it over the summer, it was heaps of fun and worked really well. Though...it took me so long that by the time it was finished the garden had grown up! Always next season!

Re:in sue happy america (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437139)

That's 50+ years in jail. If it was a person, there wouldn't be a problem.

Re:in sue happy america (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437225)

That's 50+ years in jail. If it was a black person, there wouldn't be a problem.

FTFY.

http://news.sky.com/story/1165923/detroit-girl-shot-dead-while-seeking-help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

Re:in sue happy america (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437423)

Nah, that's mildly racist. In Texas they let you shoot Hispanics, too.

Re:in sue happy america (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about a year ago | (#45437125)

That's how the system is supposed to work. I'm assuming you went to small claims court, right? Small claims courts can't offer injunctive relief (i.e., a court order compelling her to keep the animal off your property), all they can do is offer monetary relief, and you didn't have any monetary damages.

Frankly I think that's a pretty silly thing to sue over and it must have made you really popular in the neighborhood. There's a ton of effective ways to keep cats out of your yard, ranging from harmless (garden hose) to nasty (anti-freeze), hardly seems like something worth dragging the courts into.

Re:in sue happy america (1, Funny)

farble1670 (803356) | about a year ago | (#45437215)

Once I sued my neighbor because her cat kept defecating in my potted plants

you'd be amazed how many problems a BB gun will solve.

Re:in sue happy america (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437461)

No, that's a way to get yourself not just sued, but criminally prosecuted, and with good reason.

Re:in sue happy america (1, Offtopic)

cusco (717999) | about a year ago | (#45437575)

BB gun != air rifle

My BB gun doesn't even injure pigeons, just scares the crap out of them. We go hunting for pigeons with my brother-in-law's air rifle.

Re:in sue happy america (3, Informative)

meerling (1487879) | about a year ago | (#45437751)

True, and to earn the hatred of all cat owners.
Besides, a hose, supersoaker, or the like works well.
On the other hand, if you don't want to sit around waiting to soak the local felines, just go buy some of the scent based repellents. There are a number of them for sale in pet stores, and a bunch of old fashioned recipes you can make yourself.
Killing or maiming someones pet is just going to get you in so much shit the cat poop would seem to be gold nuggets in comparison.
(I know one person that ended up moving over the harassment he got when he shot a neighbors cat. Also, every potted plant and his entire lawn died. It's assumed that one or more persons put herbicide on all of them.)
Same thing with dogs. Actually, any family pet.

Re:in sue happy america (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437307)

I'm sorry, but what did you expect the neighbour to do? Are they meant to magically make a sentient being not want to poo in the freshly dug soil that evolution has made it want to poo in?

Re:in sue happy america (1, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about a year ago | (#45437511)

Keep your cat indoors. Problem solved. It's more humane for the cat (indoor cats live longer in general), better for the neighborhood wildlife, and makes it impossible for your cat to suffer traumatic injury from automobiles, dogs, etc. The cat may not like it as much, but there's a reason why you're the owner of the animal.

And yes, I am a cat owner. Rescued one of the neighborhood strays. She still wants to go outside, but it's not happening. Her quality of life is higher and I don't have to worry about her never coming home for reasons forever unknown.

Re:in sue happy america (2)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year ago | (#45437565)

As long as you satisfy all of the natural instincts that your cat has that she would otherwise satisfy for herself outside, then it's fine to keep a cat indoors. Otherwise, it's not very humane and it sounds a little selfish on your part.

Re:in sue happy america (1, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about a year ago | (#45437773)

Stopping my cat from assisting in the destruction of the local ecosystem is selfish? Keeping her away from traffic, aggressive dogs, and asshole humans is selfish? Preventing her from getting fleas and ticks is selfish?

Every cat owner I know who lets their cats go outside has lost at least one of them. The shitty part is they almost never find out why. Did the cat get run over? Did it become a meal for a larger animal? Was it taken in by the crazy cat lady down the street?

A cat's natural instinct is to kill as many small animals as possible while producing as many kittens as she can. We stop them from satisfying these urges all the time and I've never heard it called inhumane. I think the medical care, limitless supply of food, and shelter she doesn't have to compete for is a good trade off, from her point of view, particularly given the alternatives. There's a reason why cats domesticated themselves....

Re:in sue happy america (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437679)

humane, quality of life

I don't think those mean what you think they mean. Your cat is, by your own admission, pretty miserable. You wouldn't subject a person to this kind of treatment and call it humane, why is it an exception for pets? Extending life expectancy is not providing a higher quality of life, in fact they're often on opposite ends of the spectrum. (Do you want to eat bacon or live longer? The joke is on the guy who spends an extra 20 years on the wrong end of life, waiting to die while not being able to chew bacon even if he wanted to.)

People fear death so much that it results in all kinds of fallacies.

Re:in sue happy america (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#45437553)

Or they could just be expected to keep the animal on their own damned property... in most places, cats aren't allowed to roam unleashed off your property any more than dogs - it just isn't enforced as much because cats have less of a chance of causing bodily harm (in other words, they're really good at hiding the body).

Re:in sue happy america (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437321)

Once I sued my neighbor because her cat kept defecating in my potted plants.

I suspect the cat thought its shit belonged on your property, since you seem to be such a pile of shit. Suing your neighbor over this? Really?

Re:in sue happy america (2)

swb (14022) | about a year ago | (#45437365)

Should have hired a professional gardener to re-do the pots. Then you would have had a proven monetary damage.

Re:in sue happy america (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437459)

Or put together a small electric fence around the plants. Just save the receipt for the parts.

Re:in sue happy america (2)

cusco (717999) | about a year ago | (#45437597)

Electric fences work wonders for keeping racoons and herons out of goldfish ponds. On the other hand, it also keeps your spouse from doing any weeding at all in that part of the garden.

Re:in sue happy america (1)

mmell (832646) | about a year ago | (#45437039)

Sure - but I'll bet their lawyers can beat up her lawyer. Welcome to America, land of the free (unless you can afford something better)!

Re:in sue happy america (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437221)

Not with the popehat signal being lit on her behalf, they can't.

Re:in sue happy america (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#45437175)

can't just she go to court for harassment and get rich?

Do you have a lawyer who will take that case for what you can afford to pay them? If so, sure. Else, haha no.

Re:in sue happy america (5, Informative)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#45437283)

The only people who get rich by going to court are the lawyers.

Hello Streisand Effect (5, Funny)

rossz (67331) | about a year ago | (#45437017)

kleargear will soon discover how the internet works.

Re:Hello Streisand Effect (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437101)

They already are. They're removing all comments from their facebook page.

Re:Hello Streisand Effect (5, Informative)

kermyt (99494) | about a year ago | (#45437301)

And now they have disallowed all commants on their FB page.

Re:Hello Streisand Effect (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year ago | (#45437181)

Really they should discover how their State's Attorney General works.
I'm a strong advocate for Corporate Death Sentences and banning corporate officers from owning or running another corporation for X years.

Re:Hello Streisand Effect (2)

leereyno (32197) | about a year ago | (#45437275)

Too bad that idea can't be applied to government(s) and the kleptocrats who corrupt it.

Re:Hello Streisand Effect (4, Funny)

Fjandr (66656) | about a year ago | (#45437583)

Indeed. I'd like to see some corporate death sentences handed down.

Re:Hello Streisand Effect (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#45437625)

Why not just simplify things with corporate death sentences and death sentences for corporate officers? So much less paperwork and risk of 'silent partner' activity.

Re:Hello Streisand Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437303)

DM;GA "doesn't matter; got advertising"

This advertising stunt is worth millions to the company in question.

(Hint: In a year or two, you won't remember this event; you'll only remember that you know the name of the company. Business plan: piss a couple of people off enough to make national news; reap MASSIVE profits by letting news agencies give you free advertising.)

Re:Hello Streisand Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437481)

I don't need to remember the event. Google will remember it for me and it'll show up as the second or third result when you search for the company name, unless they do something even more embarrassing in the interim. Hell, I bet it'll show up in the autocomplete right in the search box.

(866) 598-4296 (4, Informative)

frovingslosh (582462) | about a year ago | (#45437783)

Their phone number is (866) 598-4296. They will pay for the call for you to call them and tell them what you think.

Diligent Efforts (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437067)

All this diligent effort to quash her negative review or help them avoid supposed fines - too bad none of that effort couldn't be put to satisfying the customer in the first place or correct their mistake.

Hint taken. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437069)

Never ever buy anything from kleargear.com. They might ruin your credit for it.

In fact... lets just pop that right into the hosts file right now. Just in case i forget.

Just another shady fly by nite rip off site. Lets get this woman some donations so she can sue the shit out of them.

Re:Hint taken. (0)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#45437251)

This kind of fine cannot ruin your credit score, even if it actually went to a collection agency.

Re:Hint taken. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437367)

You're assuming collection agencies and credit reporting agencies are competent or care about anything except money. With either one, you claim someone owes you, they'll happily take it. Credit reporting agencies will happily add it to your report (good luck actually getting it removed). Collection agencies will harass you until your lawyer writes to them.

Re:Hint taken. (1)

tibit (1762298) | about a year ago | (#45437629)

LOLWUT? Any collection effort is an instant drop from say 800 to 750. If it drags on, you'll easily go below 700. For much less than $3500.

sounds like online gangsters (2)

swschrad (312009) | about a year ago | (#45437071)

blacklisting those punks.

Unconscionable Contract clause (5, Informative)

imp (7585) | about a year ago | (#45437075)

First, it's not clear a contract was established. And even if it was, unilateral changes generally are unenforceable. And even if it were there when the attempted purchase was attempted, this is an unconscionable contract clause, against public policy (1st amendment, etc) and should be thrown out.

This person's best bet is to dispute the credit reports, counter sue for whatever they can think of to recover legal fees.

If it were me, I'd just send them a letter telling them to go F themselves and I'll see you in court. Bring it. My lawyer, however, would likely wish that I not do that.

Re:Unconscionable Contract clause (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45437209)

Well, honestly, contacts shouldn't ever be something done in bulk like this anyways. The idea that a contract could be "Standardized" is silly. It is clearly not the result of a mutual discussion and agreement, but instead is an imposition by one party on the other.

Re:Unconscionable Contract clause (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#45437223)

Unless she doesn't value her time, or 'Kleargear' has absolutely no clout to speak of, she'll have a delightful time clearing up the matter with the credit reporting agencies...

Re:Unconscionable Contract clause (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about a year ago | (#45437701)

Apparently she has tried to dispute the negative filing. The trouble is that credit bureaus then ask the company that filed the claim if it's legit. If they say it is, then the claim stays. Which is exactly what happened.

Re:Unconscionable Contract clause (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about a year ago | (#45437325)

First, it's not clear a contract was established.

Looks to me like if there was a contract at all, kleargear breached it first by failing to deliver the items ordered.

-jcr

Re:Unconscionable Contract clause (5, Interesting)

Spazmania (174582) | about a year ago | (#45437339)

Contracts of adhesion (unilateral contracts) are generally enforceable but they are "interpreted against the drafter" meaning that any ambiguity is interpreted in favor of the customer.

Click-through contracts are less likely to be enforceable than something bearing a physical signature. Add a little unconscionability and no court in the land would uphold that contract. If there even was a contract.

The magic word you're looking for, though, is Libel. These jokers deliberately published a false statement of fact to the credit reporting agencies with the intention of damaging the individual's reputation. That's a cha-ching if you take 'em to court.

However, this part of the story doesn't quite ring true for me. The credit reporting agencies don't like to accept reports without an SSN. Too high a risk they get applied to the wrong person. So how did folks paid via paypal get enough information to attach a complaint to the person's credit report? Maybe I just don't know enough about how the reporting agencies work but for darn sure there's nothing on my credit report from anyone who didn't have my SSN.

Re:Unconscionable Contract clause (4, Funny)

OglinTatas (710589) | about a year ago | (#45437353)

Let your lawyer craft the letter. He would be able to couch it in unimpeachable legalese and would still be able to include your general sentiments.

It would probably be worded along the lines of: "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram."

Re:Unconscionable Contract clause (4, Funny)

ModernGeek (601932) | about a year ago | (#45437411)

Your lawyer? Any real slashdotter would represent himself all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States and change every other precedent set before them.
Just ask one, every true slashdot user knows more about the law than anybody else in the legal community.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, more importantly I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advise and should not be construed as such.

Re:Unconscionable Contract clause (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437617)

how about reporting them to the police for intimidation or extortion i.e demanding money with menaces, Rico (sure they ship across state lines)
.

Then you can find civil offenses.

Re:Unconscionable Contract clause (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#45437727)

First, it's not clear a contract was established. And even if it was, unilateral changes generally are unenforceable. And even if it were there when the attempted purchase was attempted, this is an unconscionable contract clause, against public policy (1st amendment, etc) and should be thrown out.

Yeah, I was about to post pretty much the same thing, but I'd go one step further. I would argue that such a contract term would be unconscionable and illegal even without the first amendment issue, because a restraint of only negative reviews is contrary to the public interest, creating a false positive impression of a business that is unjustified by its actions. Such a contract effectively constitutes a fraudulent act of false and misleading advertising by the business via its customers, and as such, the contract term is illegal. An illegal contract term is unenforceable per se.

Make no mistake. It is perfectly legitimate for a contract to say that you cannot write any reviews of the business. It is not legitimate for a contract to dictate that only positive reviews are allowed. There is no question whatsoever that this woman will win in court handily unless her lawyer is completely incompetent unless the business also makes similar threats against anyone who writes a positive review.

That said, before she even calls a lawyer, this should be brought to the attention of the anti-fraud division in her state's AG's office for possible criminal prosecution of the site's owners and management, under "conspiracy to commit fraud".

Re:Unconscionable Contract clause (2)

Bogtha (906264) | about a year ago | (#45437737)

The First Amendment is not relevant here. The First Amendment restricts Congress from passing laws that restrict freedom of speech. It doesn't restrict people from making contracts to restrict freedom of speech. That happens all the time and is perfectly legal.

Activating Mecha-Streisand (1)

SenorPez (840621) | about a year ago | (#45437095)

Of course, based on the fact that their e-commerce portal looks like something out of 1998, I'd guess that they're not the most heavily-trafficked site.

Welp this will not end well (3, Interesting)

Malenx (1453851) | about a year ago | (#45437097)

streisand effect ... Streisand Effect ... STREISAND EFFECT... HOOOO!!!

"the sales transaction was never completed" (4, Insightful)

themushroom (197365) | about a year ago | (#45437103)

Which is the whole reason why there's a bad review. Seems Kleargear would want to fix that transaction before spending buttloads on dubious litigation, and win the customer back. But they'll discover how both the Internet AND retail business works soon.

Re:"the sales transaction was never completed" (4, Insightful)

N0Man74 (1620447) | about a year ago | (#45437297)

Indeed. The sale was never completed.

"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."

If there was never a completed sale, then do the sale terms even apply even if they hadn't of changed them later?

If the glove wasn't bought, she owes them... not?

Re:"the sales transaction was never completed" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437775)

They should rephrase that. How about something like:
"To ensure fair and honest public feedback... you are only allowed to say nice things about us or we'll fine the shit out of you, harass you, and damage your reputation."

ThinkGeek? You mean the cheap DX.com clone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437107)

I guess if you're a moron who likes to overspend for gitchy crap, and shipping, you might shop at ThinkGeek.

Re:ThinkGeek? You mean the cheap DX.com clone? (2)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a year ago | (#45437171)

Clearly ThinkGeek has better advertising since I've never heard of DX.com

Re:ThinkGeek? You mean the cheap DX.com clone? (2)

jandrese (485) | about a year ago | (#45437313)

dx.com is DealExtreme. Say what you will about ThinkGeek's prices, when you order something from there it ships promptly and ends up at your door shortly thereafter. They also have good customer service. DealExtreme on the other hand has a somewhat more challenged reputation.

Re:ThinkGeek? You mean the cheap DX.com clone? (0)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#45437291)

It's always funny when these sorts of comments are posted anonymously - like we aren't going to figure out the poster has some vested financial interest in whatever silly little fly-by-night company is being shilled in the anonymous post.

Re: ThinkGeek? You mean the cheap DX.com clone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437445)

If you wanna talk about financial interest... Thinkgeek is owned by the same company as Slashdot...

It sucks, but she should be able to get something (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437111)

Since this is baiting slashdot lawyering, I'll say that they are generally causing her grave stress and have fraudulently claimed debts against her. So I believe she and some lucky lawyer will be able to split the houses of the owners of the site within a few months. That is if they are smart enough to settle and not face felony charges that she can easily bring plus win a lawsuit or two.

Give them a call! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437151)

You can also reach us by phone or snail mail at:

  You should give them a call, let them know what you think.
KLEARGEAR.COM
2885 Sanford Ave SW Suite #19886
Grandville, MI 49418
Se Habla Español
Phone (866) 598-4296

Re:Give them a call! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437243)

Don't bother with regular mail. it appears to be a mail forwarding facility: http://www.mailboxforwarding.com/form1583.php [mailboxforwarding.com]

Dear KlearGear.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437199)

Dear KlearGear.com:

Please, oh please(!), try this shit with me. I really need the money and wiping you off the internet would not only be profitable, but highly satisfying as well.

Love,

  AC

P.S. I hear that you eat bags of dicks. Keep it up.

Re:Dear KlearGear.com (1)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year ago | (#45437329)

Please, oh please(!), try this shit with me. I really need the money and wiping you off the internet would not only be profitable, but highly satisfying as well. Love, AC

And those of us with real names and addresses should admit that we do not actually have the resources to fight a court battle with a company, regardless of how right we might be.

Re:Dear KlearGear.com (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#45437719)

I do know a lawyer friend who's looking for some good unusual marketing...

It's quite simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437201)

If the package was signed for, she's at fault. Otherwise the seller is at fault. The seller is at fault until the package enters the possession of the buyer. The shipper can leave the package on the front door step of the buyer's house, but unless the buyer (or agent, family member, etc) signs something saying that the package is received, the buyer can claim not to have received it. I've tried selling stuff on Amazon before and had dirtbags claim the package wasn't delivered to their PO Box. Without requiring a signature, I lost. My understanding is that it's not just Amazon and Ebay that enforce that; it's either law or pretty darn close to it. Note that delivery confirmation is not enough. You must have a signature. Sure, some delivery companies forge signatures but at least that can be proven later.

Next Headline: (4, Funny)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year ago | (#45437213)

"Slashdot Submitter sabri Facing $3,500 Fine"

After submitting an article in which kleargear.com was referred to as "some sort of cheap ThinkGeek clone", Slashdot user sabri will be facing several thousand dollars in fines. The stupid asses at kleargear.com don't seem to realize that this sort of thing only gets them bad press. [Editors note: The remainder of this comment has been removed as kleargear.com is threatening Dice Holdings if defamation of their good name continues on our properties.]

My KlearGear.com Review (3, Funny)

MonkeyPaw (8286) | about a year ago | (#45437235)

Recently I purchased several items from KlearGear.com. Based on their purchase agreement, I can not post negative comments on the Internet about my experience. With that in mind, here is my KlearGear.com review;

" --- "

Thank you,

I can now thank the Streisand effect... (1)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | about a year ago | (#45437263)

for not buying anything at kleargear.com. Thanks!

Non-Disparagement Clause (3, Insightful)

loonycyborg (1262242) | about a year ago | (#45437269)

If it were in any way legal or enforceable it would be in ToS everywhere.

IANAL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437271)

..but, clearly Jen should have a team of them for the damage they are inflicting to her credit and her well-being.

I wonder if mobsters use this same vebage (1)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about a year ago | (#45437311)

"We didn't murder that guy. We made a diligent effort to help them avoid a worse fate"

I bet whoever made that statement from Kleargear thinks they're really clever. Once this goes in front of a judge they'll quickly learn - not so much.

CFPB (5, Informative)

Nick (109) | about a year ago | (#45437315)

She needs to go to http://cfpb.gov/ [cfpb.gov] right away and report this. It'll come off her credit reports ~30 days or so later. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was setup for exactly this kind of thing.

Re:CFPB (1)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about a year ago | (#45437425)

They really need to rename that Bureau. When I first read your comment, I was trying to figure out how calling the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would help.

Re:CFPB (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about a year ago | (#45437705)

That's why it's named like that. It's an evil lefty commie thing that the government should never subsidize, like Big Bird.

Just hold on now (5, Interesting)

Jiro (131519) | about a year ago | (#45437335)

If everything is as described, sure, the woman has been mistreated. But on the other hand, she's using Ripoff Report. Slashdot has done an article about a case involving Ripoff Report before, and they themselves absolutely refuse to remove even false information, and then charge people money to dispute it. It's at least as bad as the company she's fighting.

Look it up. Here, I'll help you. Read the very links described here: "She contacted Ripoffreport.com to ask that the post be removed but Ripoffreport.com won't let her without paying $2000 she says."

Or go read some of the comments in the earlier article describing how Ripoff Report behaves. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/29/1929228/court-rules-website-doesnt-have-to-remove-defamatory-comments [slashdot.org]

Re:Just hold on now (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437533)

Look it up. Here, I'll help you. Read the very links described here: "She contacted Ripoffreport.com to ask that the post be removed but Ripoffreport.com won't let her without paying $2000 she says."

Now we know why klearclear.com needs the $3500.

Fair Credit Reporting Act (1)

AlienSexist (686923) | about a year ago | (#45437363)

Such abusive actions on the part of a merchant whereby they involve credit agencies could violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Statutory and punitive penalties may apply. It all depends on the appropriate characterization of the customer/merchant relationship, if the merchant is considered a creditor, and the permissibility of the merchant filing a report to the credit bureaus under the circumstances.

Don't forget an earlier story where a court ruled [slashdot.org] that Zappos Terms of Service Agreement was invalid because it "didn't force customers to click through to it."

kleargear.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437375)

I never bought anything from them. And thanks to today's Slashdot article, I never will.

Shut Up Already About the Streisand Effect (4, Insightful)

dmomo (256005) | about a year ago | (#45437381)

The Streisand Effect is not a rule. It's a rarity. For every story that gets attention this way, there are millions that do not.

When I see a post on Slashdot about censorship backfiring, without fail, someone will blurt out "Streisand Effect" as if it is an inevitable thing that happens when censorship occurs on the Internet.

The trouble here is that assuming this is a rule and not a rare edge case brings with it the danger of promoting the idea that censorship is not able to occur on the Internet. ...as if it is inherently censor-proof. The sad thing is, censorship is very real. The stories that allow us to cry "ha ha Streisand Effect" are the exception. They are interesting and attention worthy, or simply lucky.

I'm glad when the effect occurs, but don't kid yourself.

The term is "robbed", not "fined." (1)

jcr (53032) | about a year ago | (#45437397)

A fine is a monetary penalty assessed by a legitimate authority. What clear gear is threatening to do is to commit fraud against the customer they failed to serve.

-jcr

ripoffreport is supposed to be anonymous... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437435)

ripoffreport is known to be a scam. people post complaints and then you get charged to have them removed. They must be selling your IP address or something to the vendor. Its the only way she can get found out.

note to self: use a proxy whenever I post complaints about a company online so they can't find me. done.

Battletoads (1)

carbuck (1728596) | about a year ago | (#45437455)

Sounds like someone needs to make a few calls and see if they have Battletoads in stock

There are a lot of scams out there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437467)

Let me tell you one of them ...

You see an advertisement on TV. They say you have 2 weeks -14 days - for a FULL REFUND if you are not satisfied for ANY reason!

You order.

They sit on it for 13 days and then ship it to you.

You don't like it - and ship it back.

They won't refund your money and deep in the terms and conditions and privacy policy - they signed you up for a subscription of their ripoff.

Most banks will not stand behind you because you "agreed to their terms".

Suck it!

The product - Colon cleaning and religious items. Go figure.

ALL TV infomercials are ripoffs. ALL telemarketers are ripoffs and ALL email marketing are ripoffs.

Period - don't want to hear exceptions because I don't want to explain why you're an idiot or liar.

Another reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437515)

Never use your real name on those series of tubes that is called the Internets.

How could this affect her credit? (1)

Cyfun (667564) | about a year ago | (#45437579)

Am I the only one wondering how in the fuck some random company was able to just make up a charge out of thin air and then destroy her credit over it?

Re:How could this affect her credit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437731)

That's how credit reporting agencies work (there's only a few). Any claim someone makes over someone owing them money gets reported. Getting that removed is the hard part. The agencies don't even try to care.

ripoffreport.com is part of the problem (3, Informative)

wwalker (159341) | about a year ago | (#45437581)

While I have absolutely no sympathy for all the hate that the keangear asshats will get from this, I just wish that ripoffreport.com would get their share of it. Did you know that if you pay them money, they will happily turn all the negative reports about your business into positive? They call it "Corporate Advocacy Program", but the real name of it should be "blackmail and extortion". Absolutely anyone can post anything about any business, be it true or a complete lie, and the business owner has absolutely no way for defending themselves. Except if you pay ripoffreport.com a few hundred bucks and then all negative reports go away. And they even claim that they will help place the newly positive reviews "at the top of search engines", whatever the hell that means. See, they do it to benefit the consumer and to assure the complete satisfaction, and not at all to blackmail small businesses and extort money from them:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/CorporateAdvocacyProgram/Change-Report-From-Negative-To-Positive.aspx [ripoffreport.com]

Is this for real? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45437667)

Well, as all I read was this /. article I have to say that it is one of the worst written, and totally silly arse that I've read in a while.
The person obviously doesn't know the first thing about law, nor common sense.

How can /. post articles of such massive bowel movement?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?