remove bad review or pay $3500...oh, it costs $2000 to remove it

14 replies
A lady's credit is being ruined due to a review she left online.
#$3500oh #bad #costs #pay #remove #review
  • Profile picture of the author DABK
    Interesting situation. Never heard of KlearGear before but I surely stay away from them.

    Originally Posted by KingOfContentMarketing View Post

    A lady's credit is being ruined due to a review she left online.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8705544].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Aaron Doud
    I can't believe that is staying on her credit report. The company is not only opening themselves up to a lawsuit (why does this stuff never happen to me?) but may actually be breaking the law.

    Their Facebook page is gone and their twitter is now private. These guys now have a PR nightmare on their hands. Basically I think the company is toast once the lawyers start ambulance chasing this woman. Too bad she didn't sue before going to the news. She would have gotten more money but now they have a chance to liquidate.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8705650].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sandalwood
      Originally Posted by Aaron Doud View Post

      I can't believe that is staying on her credit report. The company is not only opening themselves up to a lawsuit (why does this stuff never happen to me?) but may actually be breaking the law.

      Their Facebook page is gone and their twitter is now private. These guys now have a PR nightmare on their hands. Basically I think the company is toast once the lawyers start ambulance chasing this woman. Too bad she didn't sue before going to the news. She would have gotten more money but now they have a chance to liquidate.
      Aaron,

      I read this story this morning. A real shame what is happening to this couple because they dealt with what appears to be a scumbag company.

      I am NOT a fan of the credit bureaus but to be fair all they can do is report the info given to them. The remedy comes after the info is proven incorrect, fraudulent or a pure lie.

      The version of the story I read was on Yahoo and the author summed it very well in the last paragraph. Here is her almost immediate remedy given the publicity she has received:

      The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau

      It was created by the Dodd-Frank legislation and is exercising its muscle. Most people are unaware of the CFPB and its powers.

      Anyway, it is worth her time to contact them.
      Signature
      Get 30% or More Retirement Income If you are serious about your retirement, you'll love this product.

      The Money Ferret Finance Article Directory
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8706592].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
      Originally Posted by Aaron Doud View Post

      I can't believe that is staying on her credit report. The company is not only opening themselves up to a lawsuit (why does this stuff never happen to me?) but may actually be breaking the law.

      Their Facebook page is gone and their twitter is now private. These guys now have a PR nightmare on their hands. Basically I think the company is toast once the lawyers start ambulance chasing this woman. Too bad she didn't sue before going to the news. She would have gotten more money but now they have a chance to liquidate.
      Eh.. They aren't breaking the law. She actually took part of a potential defamation suit when she stated her review as fact, by saying it is impossible to get a live person on the phone. They could sue her simply for saying that. She could have phrased it like, I have tried and tried to get a live person on the phone at the company but have had no success, and I FEEL that it is impossible.

      This is going to happen more and more... you are going to see this a lot more often. The amount of libel and defamation suits filed on the behalf of companies has already increased by 300% in 2013 (statistics were in July so who knows what it is right now).

      I disagree about reporting it to a credit agency but I'm not quite sure that is illegal.

      ""This is fraud. They're blackmailing us for telling the truth.""

      "there is absolutely no way to get in touch with a physical human being," and that they have "horrible customer service practices."

      It kind of sucks for consumers because you naturally want to state your opinion as fact, but if it really isn't fact and you don't say it is your opinion, you're the one that can end up hurt.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8706824].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Aaron Doud
        Originally Posted by iAmNameLess View Post

        Eh.. They aren't breaking the law. She actually took part of a potential defamation suit when she stated her review as fact, by saying it is impossible to get a live person on the phone. They could sue her simply for saying that. She could have phrased it like, I have tried and tried to get a live person on the phone at the company but have had no success, and I FEEL that it is impossible.
        I don't know the exact rules for reporting a debt to the credit bureaus but there are rules and laws to be followed. This is not a debt but an noncollectable fine. The company tried to bypass the legal system and as I stated they may have in fact broken the law themselves. At the least they opened themselves up to a slam dunk lawsuit from this lady.

        This is going to happen more and more... you are going to see this a lot more often. The amount of libel and defamation suits filed on the behalf of companies has already increased by 300% in 2013 (statistics were in July so who knows what it is right now).
        While more companies may be suing as long as the reviews don't cross the line into lying they are fine. She and others like her are protected by the "common man" argument. That being would a common man post what she said and understand what she meant. They can try to sue her for saying it was impossible to get a person but as long as she did not lie she will be protected even if her statement might in and of itself not be 100% true (no one is impossible to get in touch with but a common person would use that term when talking about a hard to get in touch with company).
        I disagree about reporting it to a credit agency but I'm not quite sure that is illegal.
        Nor am I because I do not know the laws behind what can and cannot be reported to a credit bureau but it's clear that that this is not a debt owed so should not have been reported. Rather that breaks the law is unknown but the system is set up to avoid blackmail like this so it is possible they did. Regardless this action by the company has opened them up not only to much worse PR but in fact has opened them up to being sued. She now has true damages so she can sue. They at best can argue they were damaged by her. Her case is clearly the stronger one on pure merit. Add in a jury and they are screwed.

        ""This is fraud. They're blackmailing us for telling the truth.""

        "there is absolutely no way to get in touch with a physical human being," and that they have "horrible customer service practices."
        These statements are all fine due to the "common man" rule. She believes what she stated and they are factual if not perfect statements. There is nothing that this company can or should have done.

        It kind of sucks for consumers because you naturally want to state your opinion as fact, but if it really isn't fact and you don't say it is your opinion, you're the one that can end up hurt.
        While that is true nothing she said, at least of what I have seen, crosses that line. Now if she were a reporter and held to a higher standard perhaps but as a "common man" she is fine. Libel is not a pure black and white issue. Certain groups are held to a higher standard of 100% truth than others.

        Also the part in their terms of service they are using to justify this is unenforceable and had they used a real lawyer to write them they would have known that. Such clauses get tossed out by the courts all the time. To get such a gag order to be enforceable takes a much better contract than a simple TOS. Hell TOS in general are unenforceable as the courts know that people do not read them.

        It's sad this lady had to go through this but in the end the company will be held liable in this case in my opinion. I can't see any other outcome as they have no case law, that I am aware of, to stand on. All the case law is in her favor and a jury will give her a very nice compensation. Though I doubt it will come to that as they will settle out of court the moment their lawyer gets the lawsuit.

        Stuff like this is what happens when asshole businessmen try to be armchair lawyers. It's why so often on here when giving advice on "legal" issues we all tell people to consult a lawyer to be sure. And of course in this case I am not a lawyer. I am merely someone who has an interest in these matters and has followed a few cases/stories to form an informed opinion based on what I know about the case law. I'd be willing to bet I was right but I would not bet anything major.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8706963].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
          Originally Posted by Aaron Doud View Post

          I don't know the exact rules for reporting a debt to the credit bureaus but there are rules and laws to be followed. This is not a debt but an noncollectable fine. The company tried to bypass the legal system and as I stated they may have in fact broken the law themselves. At the least they opened themselves up to a slam dunk lawsuit from this lady.

          While more companies may be suing as long as the reviews don't cross the line into lying they are fine. She and others like her are protected by the "common man" argument. That being would a common man post what she said and understand what she meant. They can try to sue her for saying it was impossible to get a person but as long as she did not lie she will be protected even if her statement might in and of itself not be 100% true (no one is impossible to get in touch with but a common person would use that term when talking about a hard to get in touch with company).
          Nor am I because I do not know the laws behind what can and cannot be reported to a credit bureau but it's clear that that this is not a debt owed so should not have been reported. Rather that breaks the law is unknown but the system is set up to avoid blackmail like this so it is possible they did. Regardless this action by the company has opened them up not only to much worse PR but in fact has opened them up to being sued. She now has true damages so she can sue. They at best can argue they were damaged by her. Her case is clearly the stronger one on pure merit. Add in a jury and they are screwed.

          These statements are all fine due to the "common man" rule. She believes what she stated and they are factual if not perfect statements. There is nothing that this company can or should have done.

          While that is true nothing she said, at least of what I have seen, crosses that line. Now if she were a reporter and held to a higher standard perhaps but as a "common man" she is fine. Libel is not a pure black and white issue. Certain groups are held to a higher standard of 100% truth than others.

          Also the part in their terms of service they are using to justify this is unenforceable and had they used a real lawyer to write them they would have known that. Such clauses get tossed out by the courts all the time. To get such a gag order to be enforceable takes a much better contract than a simple TOS. Hell TOS in general are unenforceable as the courts know that people do not read them.

          It's sad this lady had to go through this but in the end the company will be held liable in this case in my opinion. I can't see any other outcome as they have no case law, that I am aware of, to stand on. All the case law is in her favor and a jury will give her a very nice compensation. Though I doubt it will come to that as they will settle out of court the moment their lawyer gets the lawsuit.

          Stuff like this is what happens when asshole businessmen try to be armchair lawyers. It's why so often on here when giving advice on "legal" issues we all tell people to consult a lawyer to be sure. And of course in this case I am not a lawyer. I am merely someone who has an interest in these matters and has followed a few cases/stories to form an informed opinion based on what I know about the case law. I'd be willing to bet I was right but I would not bet anything major.
          There have been 3 cases in the city I live in, relatively small, that the business owner has sued and won because of reviews that were not properly stated.

          A company I did reputation management for, that said the owner was a fraud, was awarded $50,000 judgement and had other lawsuits that awarded roughly $350,000 in total damages with improperly stated reviews.

          If you say someone committed fraud, is a scam artist, scammed you, etc. you're opening yourself up to a lawsuit.

          When giving a review as a consumer, it has to be honest, and truthful otherwise you can most definitely be sued for defamation and likely lose. You can say that you FEEL a certain way, but without that insinuation you're asking for trouble.

          For example Aaron... lets say you sold a website to someone for $2,000... they didn't like it and put up a review on Yelp that said they were ripped off by you or your company because their website has too much javascript that causes load times to increase. The work looks like it was done by a high schooler and they recommend people stay away from doing business with you if they want a REAL website.

          1.) They can't say they were ripped off.
          2.) The work looks like it was done by a high schooler, is a matter of opinion.
          3.) Recommending people to stay away if they want a real website, they can't do that because it obviously is a real website if it is online.

          Lets say your website converts at 5%. Each person that views your yelp profile, is a potential buyer. If you get views each week on your yelp profile, you're losing an average of 1 sale a week. If your average sale is $3,000... then on average in a 3 month period, you have lost $36,000 in revenue. That is the formula used in cases like this, so you sue for 2 options, 1.) $36,000 judgement and the defendant ordered to rewrite the review properly. 2.) $36,000 + whatever potential damages, suffering, anxiety, etc.

          Anyway... I know this is off topic to the original post... The point is though, you have to be careful with reviews because it is very easy to sue and win. I think we both know that this company will most certainly sell off its' assets to their new corp or llc, to avoid any lawsuit by her. They won't liquidate, since in most states the incorporating parties accept full liability when dissolving the corporation so the thing that makes sense is to keep it open but sell off the assets to a newly formed corporation or LLC and keep the other one as a shelf.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8707420].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author sandalwood
            In post 12 IAmNameless, in part, states:

            "There have been 3 cases in the city I live in, relatively small, that the business owner has sued and won because of reviews that were not properly stated."

            Given this is true, don't all biz owners now have the tool they need for rep mgt? All of those yelp reviews with nasty things said about a biz should become fertile grounds for any number of ambulance chasers or so it would appear.

            Also, I would be curious to see how each of the 3 suers framed and stated their complaint. That is the meat of the matter. Since they won, they evidently followed the complaint procedure to a T as well as the rules of the court and rules of evidence. I'd love to read each one.

            That doesn't mean they would fly in every jurisdiction but they would still be worth the time it takes to read them.

            BTW, at what level did they sue? Small claims, justice, district, municipal, superior?
            Signature
            Get 30% or More Retirement Income If you are serious about your retirement, you'll love this product.

            The Money Ferret Finance Article Directory
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8707724].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ron Lafuddy
    The issue is really about having the right to leave an online review.

    It's heading into the courts and will be legislated at some point.

    My bet would be on the side with the deeper pockets. It's a safe bet.

    In the meantime beware, what you do online, stays online.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8706706].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    Freedom of speech violation by the company.

    Slander of the consumer's credit by the company.

    Their clause saying the consumer can't do what she did,
    will likely be viewed as something like a contract of adhesion
    (too one sided and written by the party the agreement favors).

    So, I think the company has a very weak position and have really harmed themselves.

    Dan
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8706780].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
      Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

      Freedom of speech violation by the company.

      Slander of the consumer's credit by the company.

      Their clause saying the consumer can't do what she did,
      will likely be viewed as something like a contract of adhesion
      (too one sided and written by the party the agreement favors).

      So, I think the company has a very weak position and have really harmed themselves.

      Dan
      Well, you have to understand freedom of speech is limited. You can not use your freedom of speech as an excuse to harm someone else's freedom even if it is a corporation. It definitely isn't a freedom of speech violation by the company, the company legally is the victim of libel because she poorly stated the review.

      It wouldn't be slandering the consumers credit either. She would have a right to dispute that on her report, and there may end up being some type of case she could have there but it is questionable.

      In most states it is legal, but there is a limit to the amount of fines you can report to a credit bureau. For example... if the state of California allows a maximum of $1,000 to be reported in fines, they would be able to go to court and have that redacted. It's a tricky situation. If she disputed the mark on her report, and asked for the company to validate the debt, they would have to clear it from her credit report since it really isn't a debt that has been filed as a judgement. It wasn't legit money owed... so she would probably have it cleared pretty easily.

      If the company is based in a different state, they could easily file small claims against her, if she doesn't show up then its a judgement, and can be fully reported on her credit report. Without a judgement being filed, they can not keep it on her report if she asks them to validate the debt.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8706844].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Bratcher
    I think the problem isn't that the actions of the company are illegal. Quite the opposite, the fact that this is legal and may well hold up in court is the real problem.

    My hope is that any court involved would either find the contract null and void because it was never fulfilled (customer never received what they ordered) or simply rule the contract unconscionable which it almost certainly is.
    Signature
    “The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me.” – Ayn Rand
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8706881].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    I think the company would have to have a court judgment endorsing the fine and then non-payment by the consumer before they can legally slam the consumer's credit reports.

    It is weird that the consumer did not stop after PayPal cancelled the transaction.
    At that point, she had no damages. No product and no money lost - except maybe
    PayPal fees if any.
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8706897].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author globalpro
    Unless I am missing something, here's what I see.

    Company:

    "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."
    Customer:

    As KUTV 2 News reports , Jen claims that in 2008, after she had ordered a “number of trinkets,” from KlearGear she waited 30 days but never got the ordered items and PayPal canceled the payment.
    Should be that simple. Sales contract was invalidated.

    One thing is for sure, now that it's in the 'court of public opinion', she will get it resolved. Fraudulent companies and credit companies/bureaus are not real high on the public's list of favorites.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8711449].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author NewParadigm
    Almost every business runs across miserable vindictive customers who's sole purpose in life is to drag everyone else down to their level. However, suing them is a tricky endeavor, PR wise.

    I'm waiting for the class action suit against yelp itself by business owners withholding "filtering" so many legit good reviews and advancing many of the negative views, while their sales team hounds the business to sign up for 500 a month marketing.
    Signature

    In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8711569].message }}

Trending Topics