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

41–49 of 49 posts

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

#41

Post by yesiamyourdad »

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…

"But few people and small companies have the resources"

And that's the key phrase in this entire thing. For everyone who says, "oh, they're in the right, they should hire an attorney", they're either more naturally litigious than I am or have never actually had to hire an attorney and prosecute a case in court. The name of the game is intimidation and harassment. KlearGear is absolutely betting that their customers don't have the resources to combat their meritless lawsuits.

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

#42

Post by [deleted] »

crazygringo wrote: post #20

> But a lawsuit isn't at the heart of KlearGear's despicable tactic. Ruining the credit of its critics is. ...If that fine is not paid, the delinquency will be reported to the nation's credit bureaus. Question: what ability do most companies have to report something to credit bureaus? I mean, selling my stuff with just Stripe and a DBA, I certainly can't, as far as I know. Credit-card companies themselves certainly c…

[deleted]

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

#43

Post by 6cxs2hd6 »

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.

The timing couldn't be worse for them, with this publicized at the start of the holiday shopping season.

Talk about credit ratings -- their Dun & Bradstreet likely won't look so hot in a couple months.

Which I find 100% delightful and just. Reap what you sow, KlearGear. Thou art sleazy, scummy f-wads. Happy holidays!

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

#44

Post by AnIrishDuck »

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

> 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),

That does sounds like fraud (and/or extortion). It seems to me that, as stated in TFA, the credit bureaus won't perpetuate any fraud they are aware of. I doubt that Jen's credit will be "destroyed" at the end of this affair.

> however the threat and consequence is very real.

I'll grant the "threat" is real. Someone is certainly threatening this poor woman. As far as "consequences" go? No, there won't be any.

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

#45

Post by aagha »

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #29
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 exper…

If only there was a way to "punish" such companies.

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

#47

Post by corresation »

AnIrishDuck wrote: post #44
corresation wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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), That does sounds like fraud (and/or extortion). It seems to me that, as stated in TFA, the credit bureaus won't perpetuate any fraud they are aware of. I doubt that Jen's credit will be "destroyed" at the end of this affair. > however the threat and conseq…

Except there have already been consequences. There has already been a financial penalty applied and creditors sent to collect it. You are trying far too hard to make your original, wrong comment accurate, when it was a wrong conclusion based on an incomplete understanding of this story.

The subjects complained to the credit agencies and were essentially told to get lost (credit companies have no interest in playing conflict resolution agents, especially given that their bread is buttered by creditors). They have a chance now simply by getting as much publicity as possible (and the outrage and attention which you specifically claim isn't necessary in your post), television networks and others acting on their behalf, however that doesn't make the reality of this bizarre and abusive situation from being real.

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

#48

Post by jrs235 »

bhartzer wrote: post #27
greenyoda wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Probably just an amount they thought was high enough to scare most people yet low enough that if they tried this stunt an amount people they thought might actually possibly pay just to make the harassment go away quickly.

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

#49

Post by AnIrishDuck »

corresation wrote: post #47
AnIrishDuck wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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), That does sounds like fraud (and/or extortion). It seems to me that, as stated in TFA, the credit bureaus won't perpetuate any fraud they are aware of. I doubt that Jen's credit will be "destroyed" at the end of this affair. > however the threat and conseq…

Except there have already been consequences. There has already been a financial penalty applied and creditors sent to collect it. You are trying far too hard to make your original, wrong comment accurate, when it was a wrong conclusion based on an incomplete understanding of this story. The subjects complained to the credit agencies and were essentially told to get lost (credit companies have no interest in playing c…

> Except there have already been consequences. There has already been a financial penalty applied and creditors sent to collect it. You are trying far too hard to make your original, wrong comment accurate, when it was a wrong conclusion based on an incomplete understanding of this story.

That is mentioned nowhere in TFA. In fact, TFA explicitly states that it would be fraud to report such debts to the credit bureaus. To wit:

> Once again — if KlearGear asserts falsely that someone accepted a contractual term, and asserts a debt based on that false statement, and reports that debt to credit agencies, that's fraud. It's not just a civil wrong, it's a crime.

(from TFA). Now you say:

> The subjects complained to the credit agencies and were essentially told to get lost (credit companies have no interest in playing conflict resolution agents, especially given that their bread is buttered by creditors).

Again, this tidbit appears nowhere in TFA. Reading through to the linked stories, it does appear there. That doesn't change the fact that the title is an incorrect summary of the linked article. The article is a legal analysis of the expected long-term consequences. Which again, states that there are unlikely to be any.

At least for the customer - it sounds like this company is well and truly screwed.

> They have a chance now simply by getting as much publicity as possible (and the outrage and attention which you specifically claim isn't necessary in your post), television networks and others acting on their behalf, however that doesn't make the reality of this bizarre and abusive situation from being real.

They would've been much better served by getting a lawyer to begin with, and letting the system work. The linked article is a pretty good indication that consumer attorneys dream of cases like these. Outrage and attention, while certainly good fodder for the portion of the public that loves to be outraged and pay a minute of attention to the cause-of-the-week, is ultimately an ineffective method of resolving messes like these.

The only resolution will come through boring legal work. Everything else is window dressing.

EDIT: this whole story is a pretty good affirmation of the fact that people who "can't afford a lawyer" usually can't afford not to have a lawyer.

Post reply on HN