Woman gets $3,500 fine and bad credit score for writing negative review of business

LinasK

Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
26,674
Reaction score
22,835
<cite class="byline vcard">By Eric Pfeiffer | Yahoo News – <abbr title="2013-11-15T23:38:32Z">19 hrs ago
</abbr></cite>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.
more at link: http://news.yahoo.com/woman-gets--3...ng-negative-review-of-business-233833012.html
 
How can that language be legal in the 'terms'?
 
This is why I don't do PayPal. Google the nightmares people have had with them.
 
It looks like Paypal did the right thing and refunded their money. It sounds like the website they purchased from is where the fine print came into play.
 
I don't see how this was Paypal's fault. They did the right thing refunding the money. Three YEARS later the company comes back and throws a tantrum.
 
How can that language be legal in the 'terms'?

It probably isn't enforceable, imo. What it sounds like based on the fact that she has been "fined" and her credit score dinged is that the company sued for non-payment and got a default judgment against the buyer -- either because she ignored the collection letters and lawsuit, or because she moved or something and was served by "publication" which she never saw. Since it was a collection matter, non-payment and entry of a default judgment against her would automatically have dinged her credit pretty hard.

jmo
 
The company sued her for non-payment of merchandise they never delivered? That does not make sense.
 
there's no way a judge will enforce that

there's a thing in law that even if it's in the contract, it still has to be reasonable

companies can't just write anything they want into a contract and expect the law to back them if those conditions are outrageous, which IMO, this is

I hope to see an update on this one
 
btw, I can't find a working website for that co. (which doesn't surprise me) - can anyone else?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
2,081
Total visitors
2,220

Forum statistics

Threads
590,019
Messages
17,929,078
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top