KlearGear Told To Pay $306,750 For Bogus Attempt To Shakedown Customer For Bad Review

from the but-can-they-collect? dept

We’ve been covering the story of Kleargear for a while now. As you may recall, the company sneakily put a $3,500 “non-disparagement clause” in its online terms of service, saying that you agreed to pay that much if you gave the company a negative review. Jen Palmer left a negative review over some stuff that her husband, John, bought that they never actually got. This happened long before the non-disparagement clause existed. Despite that (and the dubious enforceability of such a clause anyway), Kleargear demanded the $3,500. And when the Palmers rightly refused to pay up, it sent the amount to a collections agency and messed up the Palmers’ credit, causing significant hardship for the couple. At this point, Public Citizen stepped in to sue KlearGear. For a while KlearGear played a disappearing game. It didn’t respond to Public Citizen’s initial letter, then it ignored the lawsuit (and put back the non-disparagement clause on its website after briefly taking it down). Based on that, the Palmers got a default judgment against the company.

Then, suddenly, a “representative” of the company named Vic Mathieu magically appeared spouting all sorts of nonsense and trying to defend everything the company had done. Of course, neither KlearGear nor it’s apparently French-based owner Descoteaux Boutiques actually did anything in court, and thus, the court has ordered KlearGear to pay up to the tune of $306,750 in both compensatory and punitive damages.

Of course, collecting on that award may take some work. It’s still not entirely clear who is behind Kleargear, statements from Vic Mathieu notwithstanding. It’s possible that the company is really owned by this French company, which will make collection difficult for a variety of reasons. Or that whole thing may be a sham in itself, meaning that no one knows who’s actually involved at all. Chances are, the Palmers are unlikely to see much money here. Still, what amazes me is that Kleargear itself is still in business. I’m somewhat surprised the company didn’t just up and move to a different domain. But, instead, it’s still there. One hopes that people doing some shopping do some searches first on the company to find out about its practices.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: kleargear

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “KlearGear Told To Pay $306,750 For Bogus Attempt To Shakedown Customer For Bad Review”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
35 Comments
Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

It's a Shame...

…that folks need the assistance of such as the Public Citizen, the EFF, the ACLU, your local TV stations Consumer assistance, etc.

It is also a shame that regardless of the courts verdict in this instance, their credit rating was harmed by an overseas fraudster, as well as the years (?) of hardship, and there is not much that can be done about that, especially since it is likely they will not see dime 1 of that judgement.

The credit reporting system is dead broke. Folks make up sh*t and report it, and the system just accepts it. Something is wrong in Skokie.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: It's a Shame...

Really I consider the credit rating system a form of fraud in the first place. Namely it is one of the top ten biggest it is all about how good of a cash cow you are which has no business being mixed with ability to pay. In fact it is the complete fucking opposite, since if you don’t spend money you can pay it off far better!

Dan Hazelton says:

Troublinh

KlearGear.com has claimed, now, to have been founded and run from three different US States – though at least one of them (Michigan) has no listing of the company in its records.

If you check the wayback machine, you’ll see that, until around February 2012 (only a few months before the non-disparagement clause was added) the company claimed to be from Texas, then until some time this year they claimed to be from Michigan (inc.com has them listed as one of Michigans fastest growing companies!) and now they claim to be from Delaware.

This is most definitely *NOT* common behavior for a fully legal company, nor is the way that the parent company DBS acting in any form normal for a fully legal company.

sneaking.ninja says:

meanwhile

meanwhile in europe, kleargear are gonna get in truble if they keep this up mainly due to newly european law that just got into effect, if they truly are a french company

the new law basicly forces them to tell european customers that hidden $3,500 in the terms lol

The Directive on Consumer Rights (2011/83/EC)
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/files/crd_arc2014_factsheet-consumer_general_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/rights-contracts/directive/index_en.htm

bugmenot (profile) says:

Search for KlearGear reviews? Why do that?

Naaa, they’ll just sign a “Forget about me Google” form and the bad reviews will magically go away. It’ll be easy for them to sell to the next customer since there are no bad comments — EVER.

OMG: Why the EU courts didn’t leave google alone and go after the actual source site? THEN if google doesn’t update its index in a reasonable time (months, not seconds), THEN you go after google.

It’s just like fortune tellers and members of government: count or inflate the number of times you’re right but completely ignore and discount the number times you’re wrong. (“Oh, I misspoke; I mean you just didn’t hear me correctly to start with. You should be more accurate with your reporting.”)

William Silverstein (profile) says:

Re: Source site location.

The source site location may not be in the EU. If the site is in the USA and the people running the site does not have business in the EU, they don’t really have to deal with that directive.

Earlier this month, an EU citizen demanded that references to him be removed from this web site. That did not work too well, as you can read at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140617/06515127602/techdirt-receives-its-first-right-to-be-forgotten-request.shtml

andypandy says:

track them identify them

I think that there are people out there who could track these fraudsters very easily, all it takes is someone who understands the working of the internet”not me” to track them down and get the owners identity and his/her details so that there is someone to go to and to get there money from, I am sure with a 20%-50 fee for anyone finding and getting the fraudsters to pay up would encourage many internet “hackers” to find them.

I can see it in the near future, bailiffs arriving at their front door and presenting them with a court order to repossess everything they have including homes,cars,boats etc.

Now that is when we need to have police with cameras recording the people who are involved.

Quiet Lurcker says:

Re: collection agency

And offer them a sweetheart deal: Deny it and or fight, and get cleaned out to the tune of 150% of any nominal damages that might be due. Or, acquiesce, and only pay 95% of any damages. Finally (and here’s the sweetheart bit) admit wrong-doing, pay 50% of nominal damages; hand over the names and addresses of whoever referred the matter to you in the first place; for all similarly situated cases, drop the matter, report your error to the credit bureaus, spend $X (a fairly large amount) per person to clear up their reputation; and insert terms into their contract that from now on any client who tries the same stunt will pay out the full costs and fees of litigation, reputation clearance, etc. etc. for the agency AND the person being collected against.

jen (profile) says:

Re: collection agency

the debt collection agency was named in the original lawsuit as one of the defendants. however, UNLIKE kleargear, they stepped up and responded. we basically told them “tell the credit bureaus this debt is false, turn over everything you have on kleargear’s whereabouts, or you get sued too.” fortunately, they did the right thing and realized the debt was bogus. they were very helpful in cleaning up john’s credit report.

since they came through, we dropped them from the suit and continued after kleargear for their bad actions.

alternatives() says:

Still, what amazes me is that Kleargear itself is still in business. I’m somewhat surprised the company didn’t just up and move to a different domain.

Who says it hasn’t done that? Plenty of Internet retailers out there – why couldn’t it have taken the good selling base, switched banks, add some new crap with an updated code base and picked a new location?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...