Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review

popehat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review

#21

Post by joshdance »

tokenadult wrote: post #11

As the blog post kindly submitted here points out, the company's conduct appears to be fraudulent, and there isn't the tiniest chance that the woman who made a legitimate factual statement about the company in an online review will have to pay even one cent to the company. Good on Popehat and other sites for spreading the word about how scummy that company is. (By the way, the title of the submission here is misleadi…

Do they have the ability to "report" her to a credit agency? Seems like an empty threat to me.

Re: Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review

#22

Post by throwaway420 »

guyht wrote: post #3

Reviews are a tough spot. On the one hand, reviews can be very damaging to businesses, so it is important that some measures are in place to ensure that the review is honest and genuine, and on the other hand its important that consumers can openly review a product/company without being scared of reprisals. Clearly, in this case, KlearGear are in the wrong, but I also think that there are cases where legitimate busin…

> I also think that there are cases where legitimate businesses have been seriously damaged by competitors, or just difficult customers writing unfair bad reviews.

This is a big problem for small businesses and people alike, but the actual solution to this is the opposite of what most people's first instincts would be. Ironically, it's the existence of laws against libel/slander that makes fake reviews and false negative content online such a big deal for people going forward.

Because these laws exist, people are conditioned to believe that most of what they read online is true because otherwise legal action would be taken and it would get removed. But few people and small companies have the resources to track down every false review or fake negative comment and find out who did it and make legal challenges.

If you're an average small business, you don't have an easy way to mount a serious challenge against a site like RipOffReport when an unknown competitor starts writing nasty fake reviews about you online that you never shipped a product or whatever. If you're an average person, you have very little recourse if somebody goes and falsely writes that you have an STD on a site like Dirtyphonebook or whatever. People and companies with large amounts of resources are protected by libel/slander laws, but the average person or small company isn't really.

In a society with no laws against libel and slander, people would be a lot more skeptical about the veracity of negative comments that they see online and do a lot more research before buying a product or believing some negative comment was false.

We can talk a lot about better reviews and reviews of reviews but all of these are susceptible to the same issues.

Re: Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review

#23

Post by corresation »

AnIrishDuck wrote: post #14

Ugh... if a HN title ever needed a change (the current one is "Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review"), it's this one. Jen Palmer is not facing a $3,500 fine any more than I'm "facing" the threat of being struck by a meteor on my birthday. She'll pay this horrible company a dime the day Eskimos need to worry about tigers, and I actually can think of a good analogy. This title seems intended to gin up out…

They reported it to credit bureaus, destroying their credit. They should be sued and penalized for that (in normal dealing that would be fraud if not extortion), however the threat and consequence is very real.

http://m.kutv.com/article?id=106632

Re: Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review

#24

Post by x0054 »

It is my understanding that the company has actually sold the fraudulent $3,500 debt to a debt collector. The woman in this case has an excellent defamation case against the companies and a claim for treble damages (I believe) and attorney fees under FDCPA. She should contact an attorney and file a claim against this company. Between that damages and attorney fees, they may be looking at a $50-80k bill at the end of this all, plus the bad publicity. And I hope they are made to pay, because this is outrageous.

Re: Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review

#25

Post by kbenson »

Isn't there yet another way the contract is invalid (since they go through a few already)? It's stated in the article that the customer never received the item they paid for. Isn't the contract contingent on both parties following through (the customer paying, the business delivering paid for service or goods)?

Re: Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review

#26

Post by jrockway »

joshdance wrote: post #21
tokenadult wrote: post #11

As the blog post kindly submitted here points out, the company's conduct appears to be fraudulent, and there isn't the tiniest chance that the woman who made a legitimate factual statement about the company in an online review will have to pay even one cent to the company. Good on Popehat and other sites for spreading the word about how scummy that company is. (By the way, the title of the submission here is misleadi…

Do they have the ability to "report" her to a credit agency? Seems like an empty threat to me.

Anyone can send written correspondence to anyone. Whether or not the recipient takes action is up to them.

Re: Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review

#27

Post by bhartzer »

greenyoda wrote: post #17
antonius wrote: post #2

As this picks up more media attention, the total number of customers that this will deter will greatly offset the $3,500 fine the company may end up receiving. Karma will prevail.

Also, having to hire a lawyer to defend themselves against criminal fraud charges will cost them a lot more than $3500.

Where did they come up with the amount of $3500?

Re: Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review

#28

Post by sillysaurus2 »

corresation wrote: post #23
AnIrishDuck wrote: post #14

Ugh... if a HN title ever needed a change (the current one is "Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review"), it's this one. Jen Palmer is not facing a $3,500 fine any more than I'm "facing" the threat of being struck by a meteor on my birthday. She'll pay this horrible company a dime the day Eskimos need to worry about tigers, and I actually can think of a good analogy. This title seems intended to gin up out…

They reported it to credit bureaus, destroying their credit. They should be sued and penalized for that (in normal dealing that would be fraud if not extortion), however the threat and consequence is very real. http://m.kutv.com/article?id=106632

For anyone who hasn't experienced it: Credit score literally determines your quality of life in America. I couldn't get internet for a new apartment at age 21 because I was "unknown risk" since I'd never bothered to use credit very much.

To be clear, I hadn't missed any bills. I just hadn't used much credit, so they had no data by which to calculate a score for me. Therefore AT&T completely refused to do business with me.

It's crazy how much power these institutions have over your life. That this company was able to ruin her credit for posting a negative review is a huge deal. If they're not penalized for this, then this will set a terrible precedent.

Re: Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review

#29

Post by sillysaurus2 »

tokenadult wrote: post #11

As the blog post kindly submitted here points out, the company's conduct appears to be fraudulent, and there isn't the tiniest chance that the woman who made a legitimate factual statement about the company in an online review will have to pay even one cent to the company. Good on Popehat and other sites for spreading the word about how scummy that company is. (By the way, the title of the submission here is misleadi…

But when those reports are fraudulent, as here, the consumer can also dispute the report, and the consumer should be able to come out with a clean credit record in the end.

This isn't what happened. See here: http://m.kutv.com/article?id=106632

Specifically: Jen and her husband also disputed the ding with the credit bureaus but because Kleargear.com says the charge is valid the the ding remains.

I've personally experienced what it's like when credit bureaus decide to mistreat you, so I believe this. She likely has no recourse to dispute it short of hiring a lawyer, which is effectively impossible if she happens to be living paycheck-to-paycheck. (It's hard to grok the mental burden placed on you merely to survive, let alone repel an assault from a big, faceless company unless you've been in a situation like "I have to choose between buying groceries or paying for my dying cat's medical treatment," for example.)

If the reported version of events are true, then what this company did to her is reprehensible and should be punished. Otherwise it will set a dire precedent for other companies to try this in the future.

Re: Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review

#30

Post by maxerickson »

throwaway420 wrote: post #22
guyht wrote: post #3

Reviews are a tough spot. On the one hand, reviews can be very damaging to businesses, so it is important that some measures are in place to ensure that the review is honest and genuine, and on the other hand its important that consumers can openly review a product/company without being scared of reprisals. Clearly, in this case, KlearGear are in the wrong, but I also think that there are cases where legitimate busin…

> I also think that there are cases where legitimate businesses have been seriously damaged by competitors, or just difficult customers writing unfair bad reviews. This is a big problem for small businesses and people alike, but the actual solution to this is the opposite of what most people's first instincts would be. Ironically, it's the existence of laws against libel/slander that makes fake reviews and false nega…

My instinct is that online reviews are wildly unreliable and suspect. I certainly don't think they enjoy any sort of legal oversight.

I will take a large plurality as reliable, and someone able to write in the correct tone could certainly mislead me (that is, I will look at an individual review on its apparent merits), but I sure don't expect a couple of good or bad reviews to mean anything.

Also, the encyclopedia I ordered did not contain any murder mysteries, one star because I can't put no stars.

Post reply on HN