Couple Fined For Negative Online Review Win Lawsuit, Await Restitution
As Get Gephardt was first to reported last November, Jen Palmer was angry after products her husband John ordered from the website, kleargear.com, never arrived and they couldn't get answers from the company.
"You can't get a hold of anyone [at kleargear.com]," Jen said. "You can't get anybody on the phone. You can't get anybody live. None of the extensions work."
Jen said as much on the internet complaint board, ripoffreport.com, way back in 2008. Years later, it turned out to be a costly negative review for her husband John.
Kleargear.com says that by Jen posting the review, John violated a "non-disparagement" clause that is buried in kleargear.com's terms of sale. The penalty for doing so was a $3500 fine that John was ordered to pay.
"This is fraud," Jen said. "They're blackmailing us for telling the truth."
When John and Jen refused to pay, kleargear.com sent the account to a collection agency and John's credit rating was destroyed. The move made it impossible for John and Jen to refinance their home, buy a car or even get credit to repair a broken heater in their home. Still, John and Jen remained defiant.
"At this point it's already blackmail," she said. "There is no way were going to bend to [pay the fine]."
Months later, that refusal to bend has finally paid off. The Washington D.C. based Public Citizen Litigation Group saw John and Jen's story on KUTV.com and contacted Get Gephardt asking to be put in touch with the Palmers.
Public Citizen Lawyer Scott Michelman helped the couple sue kleargear.com in federal court. Kleargear.com didn't respond the lawsuit. Court records show that the Palmer's complaint was sent to several physical addresses for kleargear.com including a Michigan address where it "apparently reached someone at KlearGear.com," because it was twice, "returned by the U.S. Postal Service as 'refused,'" according to court documents.
Thursday's judgment declares that John Palmer does not now, and never did, owe KlearGear.com or any other party any money based on KlearGear.com's 'non-disparagement clause.' It also holds KlearGear liable on all of the Palmers' claims, which were for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, for defamation, for interference with prospective economic relations, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
A hearing has been set to determine damages, at which time the judge will hear from John and Jen about the harms they have suffered.
"This step does not end the case entirely, because the judge must still determine the amount of KlearGear's liability. But today's order does resolve most of the disputes in the case," said Michelman.
As for the non-disparagement clause on kleargear.com's website, it disappeared shortly after the original Get Gephardt report aired but has since returned. Consumers who choose to do business with kleargear.com and are unhappy with that service are again forbidden from telling anybody about it by the company. Kleargear.com says that the fine for doing so is $3500.
Also named in the lawsuit was the collection agency that reported John as a deadbeat to the nation's credit bureaus, Fidelity Information Corporation. In February, the $3,500 fine against John was dropped by Fidelity Information which also restored John's credit score. As a result, John and Jen dismissed the collection agency from the suit.
By Matt Gephardt
(Copyright 2014 Sinclair Broadcasting.)
Couple Fined for Negative Online Review win Lawsuit, Await Restitution | KUTV.com
Free Graphics, IM eBooks, PLR Articles, and much, much more!!!
An investment in knowledge pays the best interest
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