Days after California Governor Jerry Brown signed a new state law outlawing the practice of using non-disparagement clauses to penalize consumers who complain about business transactions, a few members of the U.S. House of Representatives have introduced a similar piece of legislation that would ban this questionable practice in all states. [More]
The saga of the harmless little negative online review that resulted in a $3,500 “Non-Disparagement Fee” continues, with a Utah court ordering the owners of KlearGear.com to pay damages of $306,750 to the couple who wrote that review. But whether the company will ever pay up is another story. [More]
Last week, a federal court in Utah issued a default judgment in favor of consumers who had been slapped with a $3,500 “non-disparagement fee” from e-tailer KlearGear.com because they wrote something negative about a failed transaction online. The company failed to show up to court to defend itself, but now claims it will fight that judgment because mail about the case was sent to the wrong address. [More]
For months, we’ve been telling you about KlearGear.com, the online retailer that was trying to collect a $3,500 fee from unsatisfied former customers over a negative review because of a “Non-Disparagement Clause” inserted into the site’s Terms of Sale after the customers made the purchase. The customers have been trying to fight the ridiculous anti-consumer fee (which shouldn’t apply to them anyway, as they never agreed to it at the time of purchase), and finally sued the company after having their credit tainted by a bogus debt. Now a federal court has sided with the couple and tossed out the $3,500 fee. [More]
Remember the husband and wife who were told they had to pay $3,500 and suffered credit damage after posting a negative review of a company online? Of course you do, because it’s all ridiculous for numerous reasons — all which have been pointed out in a letter from Public Citizen Litigation, which is representing Jen and John.