Skip to footer

Store has to pay woman after suing her for writing a negative review

A woman wrote a negative review about online store KlearGear.com, and faced a lawsuit from KlearGear.com. Now, a Utah court has ordered KlearGear.com to pay the woman more than $300,000 in damages. 

|
Tsering Topgyal/AP/File
A man counts dollar bills at a foreign exchange shop in New Delhi, India, Thursday, Aug. 29, 2013. A woman wrote a negative review about online store KlearGear.com, and faced a lawsuit from KlearGear.com.

Last month, DealNews asked if writing a negative online review can get you sued. Legally, that question is still in flux, but companies attacking negative reviewers have been losing big in the courts (and in the court of public opinion). This week, a high-profile case advanced when a Utah court ordered online retailer KlearGear to pay $306,750 in damages to a woman they were suing for writing a negative review.

The price of a bad review

Jen Palmer claims her husband bought a few trinkets off of KlearGear.com, a "geek gifts" website, way back in 2008. When the order didn't arrive within thirty days, PayPal canceled the payment. Palmer tried to contact the company, but couldn't get a hold of anyone; so she took to the review site RipoffReport to vent her frustrations.

"There is absolutely no way to get in touch with a physical human being," she wrote, saying KlearGear.com had "horrible customer service practices."

A whopping three years later, Palmer's husband received an email from KlearGear saying he had violated the Terms of Service, which contained a "non-disparagement agreement." These controversial clauses prohibit customers from posting negative reviews of the company. And KlearGear said the Palmers had to remove the review, or pay $3,500.

The fine eventually caused a dent in the Palmers' credit score, which prompted them to sue KlearGear, with the help of non-profit group Public Citizen.

Last month, after KlearGear never responded to the suit, a federal court issued a default ruling that the company could not collect the fine, and this week it announced that the company owed the plaintiff $306,750 in damages.

So can I get sued?

Despite the ruling, this case still doesn't necessarily determine whether non-disparagement clauses are legal, or whether they unfairly violate customers' First Amendment rights. Part of the Palmers' case rests on their claim that KlearGear's non-disparagement agreement was not actually part of the TOS back in 2008; and the default ruling was triggered by the Paris-based company being a no-show in court. So this particular case had a lot of technicalities and details that obscured the central issue of non-disparagement.

Contracts are by nature legally-binding agreements. But UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told Marketplace that a "gotcha factor" may provide an exception: "Volokh says that if a reasonable consumer would be very surprised by a clause, like a non-disparagement clause, in a vendor contract or a terms-of-service agreement, that provision of the contract might be deemed unenforceable."

And as we pointed out in previous reporting on this issue, honesty is the best policy when writing reviews online. Aside from non-disparagement clauses, some companies aggressively attack perceived libel or defamation. But libel requires that the claims be false, among other things.

Benjamin Glaser is a features editor for DealNews, where this article first appeared: http://dealnews.com/features/Store-That-Fined-a-Shopper-for-a-Bad-Review-Now-Must-Pay-306-K-in-Damages/1086925.html

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Store has to pay woman after suing her for writing a negative review
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Saving-Money/2014/0627/Store-has-to-pay-woman-after-suing-her-for-writing-a-negative-review
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe