Kleargear.com? In my opinion their website smells like sour milk and old Chuck Taylors.
Just when you think corporate asshats can't get any asshattier, they lower the bar of asshattery even lower. Asshats! I fucking hate them and their anal headgear.
That'll be $35,000, buddy!
Wow. This sounds like a setup for a particularly unbelievable episode of Leverage.
Can kleargear.com sue me for writing, here, that they should be put out of business?
Looks like they took the termsofuse.html page off of their site... Still available via the wayback machine.
Edit: the disparagement clause wasn't there in 2008 when she made the purchase... (at least wasn't there in the December 2008 "capture" -- I didn't look at any other dates)
Just RTFA, they mention that the clause wasn't there in 2008.
Not that I agree that this is legitimate in any way but if it was, wouldn't their failure to deliver on the sale and the eventual cancellation of the charge null the agreement which was based there being a sale?
Terms of Sale and Use / Legal
Use of this site, and the terms and conditions for the sale of any goods and services, is governed by the following Terms & Conditions. By using this Web site you acknowledge that you have read the Terms & Conditions and the disclaimers and caveats contained in this Web site, and that you accept that use of the Site will be bound by the terms thereof.
By typing that reply you agreed to my terms of existence which say you owe me 1 million dollars.
It would seem that the "Terms of Sale" include shipping the merchandise that's been ordered, and shipping the quality of merchandise that's been ordered, and that because Kleargear.com failed to perform their half of the contract, they not only don't get to enforce their ridiculous non-disparagement term, but they also are libeling the person whose credit they dinged. Whether it's worth suing them for it or not depends on whether they're likely to have any assets to seize; companies who act like that are often in death-spiral desperation so there may be nothing there, and people who treat customers like that typically have trouble retaining customers.
I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a waiver today.
She actually tried to comply with Kleargear's order to remove the posting, but RipOff Report (apt name) would only do so if she paid them $2000...Edit -- this is a bit misrepresented in TFA:
RipOff Report's policy is to never remove a posting, however, they do have an arbitration process to certify the facts of the posting:
Companies can also pay $2,000 to have a third-party arbitrator establish statements of fact in postings. Ripoff Report will redact any wrong facts but leave in everything else such as critical opinions.
I thought you were making a sick joke until I read the article. There's nothing about this story that isn't sickening. And that Kleargear went through with their blackmail and actually ruined the woman's credit is pretty appalling, given that there was absolutely nothing legal about their demand.
Adhesion contract with click-wrap agreement? Unconscionable terms with public policy issues? Truth an inherent defense to libel? IANAL, but I can't imagine a court anywhere enforcing this.
EDIT: Also, nothing in her review is even actionable as libel.
EDIT2: Also, contract not completed, Kleargear is in breach.
I mean this is such an egregious example of fuckishness that I can't even get my thoughts straight. KlearGear needs to go DOWN.
KlearGear.com President and Chief Geek Will Bermender
Their Facebook page couldn't take all the criticism, so they took it down. Sweet glorious justice.
IANAL, but how in the world is this not wire fraud? I mean sure, maybe wire fraud is some kind of catch-all law, but it sounds like blatant unrepentant wire fraud... Making up terms after a sale and demanding thousands of dollars that you report to a credit agency?
None of that matters. Even the tiniest corporation can fuck up your credit at will, and while it's possible to correct, it's a pain, and there are no consequences to them whatsoever. Does this remind you of DCMA?
No intent. They screwed up and refused to fix it. It would be hard to prove fraud without that element.