Palmer v. Kleargear.com

Last updated

John Palmer and Jennifer Kulas v. Kleargear.com and Fidelity Information Corp.
District-Utah.gif
Court United States District Court for the District of Utah
Full case nameJohn Palmer and Jennifer Kulas v. Kleargear.com and Fidelity Information Corp.
DecidedJune 25, 2014
Citation(s)no. 13-cv-00175 (D. Utah, filed Dec. 18, 2013)
Holding
Default judgment; $306,750 in compensatory and punitive damages; reporting customer to debt collection for publishing a negative review violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Dee Benson
Keywords
Fair Credit Reporting Act

Palmer v. Kleargear.com, no. 13-cv-00175 (D. Utah, filed December 18, 2013), is a 2013 US federal lawsuit in which an internet retailer was sued by two of its customers after it billed the customers for $3,500 following a negative review. The retailer, Kleargear.com, specializes in nerd apparel, geek toys, gadgets and office toys; it is owned by Paris-based Descoteaux Boutiques. [1] The plaintiffs charged the company with violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In March 2014, the district court entered a default judgment for the plaintiffs, and in June 2014 awarded damages of $306,750. As of 2015, the Palmers continue to attempt to collect the judgment.

Contents

The internet retailer's charge to the consumer was based on an anti-disparagement clause of their site's terms and conditions.

The case led to a California statute prohibiting the enforcement of such clauses, and the introduction of the Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2015, a proposed bill that, since passed, has enacted similar prohibitions at the federal level.

History

The plaintiffs, John and Jen Palmer, attempted to purchase a desk ornament and keychain from the company at a price under $20. Kleargear.com never delivered. PayPal automatically canceled the order in December 2008. Soon after, Jen left a negative review at Ripoff Report. [2] [3] In May 2012, [4] the company sent a bill to Jen Palmer of Layton, Utah for $3,500 [5] based on an anti-disparagement clause of their site's terms and conditions unless they agreed to take down the review. [6] [7] Ripoff Report has a policy of not removing reviews; statements of fact could only be removed if a $2,000 arbitration fee was paid and the arbitrator determined that those statements were false. [2] When Palmer and her husband John refused to pay, Kleargear reported the fine for collection, which dragged down their credit rating. [8]

One issue in the dispute was whether the disparagement clause had been present when the plaintiffs had made their order in 2008. In 2013, after examining archives of Kleargear's Terms of Service at the Internet Archive, KUTV and Techdirt stated that the clause had not been present and had been added to the site in June 2012. [9] [10] In 2014, Kleargear stated that the clause had been present in 2008. [11]

Following an internet backlash, Kleargear closed its Facebook page and protected its Twitter account. [12] Businessweek called the public backlash an example of the Streisand effect. [13] Both the Better Business Bureau and TRUSTe have issued statements that Kleargear used their logos without permission and have begun investigations. Experian also began an investigation on the credit report. [14]

On November 25, 2013, Public Citizen, representing the Palmers, sent an open letter demanding that Kleargear pay the Palmers $75,000, remove the taint on their credit rating, and cease and desist from using the non-disparagement clause in the future. [15] [16] Kleargear ignored a December 16, 2013, deadline to respond to the offer, and Public Citizen sued the company in federal court for Fair Credit Reporting Act violations, defamation, and other torts. [17] [18] According to attorney Scott Michelman, numerous attempts to get in touch with Kleargear before the suit were unsuccessful. [4] In March 2014, United States District Court judge Dee Benson entered a default judgment in favor of the Palmers. [19] [20] [21] Kleargear stated to the press that the default judgment was not valid because notice should have been served to its parent company in France. [11] Judge Benson awarded the Palmers $306,750 in compensatory and punitive damages on June 25, 2014. [1] [22] On July 24, the Palmers filed a motion for $47,596.86 in attorneys' fees and expenses. [23] On August 28, the court awarded fees and expenses in the amount requested. [24]

On February 15, 2015, Judge Benson approved assignment of the judgment to the Law Offices of Ronald P. Slates, a Los Angeles law firm specializing in judgment collection, and closed the Utah case. [25]

Responding to the Palmers' experience with KlearGear, California enacted a law in 2014 banning the use of non-disparagement clauses in consumer contracts. Similar bans were introduced in both houses of Congress in 2015, and Jen Palmer testified live before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in November 2015. Public Citizen submitted written testimony to the committee as well. With Public Citizen's support, the Consumer Review Freedom Act passed the Senate in December 2015. [26] [ full citation needed ]

In April 2015, the Palmers and the Slates firm filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to enforce the judgment by garnishment of Kleargear assets, including levies with credit card companies Discover Bank, American Express Centurion Bank, MasterCard International, and Visa Inc., as well as PayPal, Inc. against accounts held by Kleargear with those companies. [27] As of October 2015, the case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge George H. King. [27]

Further implications

Inspired by the Palmers' experience with KlearGear, the California legislature passed a bill in 2014 to ban the use of non-disparagement clauses in consumer contracts, and Governor Jerry Brown signed it into law on September 9, 2014. [28]

In September 2015, the Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2015 (S. 2044) was introduced in the U.S. Congress, to make such clauses void and unenforceable at the federal level. [29] U.S. Senator Jerry Moran cited the Kleargear case as one basis for the bill. [30]

The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation scheduled hearings on the bill for November 4, 2015. [31] Among those scheduled to testify were Jen Palmer, a plaintiff in Palmer v. KlearGear; Adam Medros, vice-president of TripAdvisor; Daniel Castro, vice-president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Eric Goldman, a law professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law; and Ira Rheingold, executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. [31]

In November 2016, the amended Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2015, titled the Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 (H.R. 5111), unanimously passed in the Senate. On December 15, 2016, it was signed into law by Barack Obama. [32] [33]

Related Research Articles

A class action, also known as a class action lawsuit, class suit, or representative action, is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member or members of that group. The class action originated in the United States and is still predominantly an American phenomenon, but Canada, as well as several European countries with civil law, have made changes in recent years to allow consumer organizations to bring claims on behalf of consumers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Online shopping</span> Form of electronic commerce

Online shopping is a form of electronic commerce which allows consumers to directly buy goods or services from a seller over the Internet using a web browser or a mobile app. Consumers find a product of interest by visiting the website of the retailer directly or by searching among alternative vendors using a shopping search engine, which displays the same product's availability and pricing at different e-retailers. As of 2020, customers can shop online using a range of different computers and devices, including desktop computers, laptops, tablet computers and smartphones.

In marketing, a rebate is a form of buying discount and is an amount paid by way of reduction, return, or refund that is paid retrospectively. It is a type of sales promotion that marketers use primarily as incentives or supplements to product sales. Rebates are also used as a means of enticing price-sensitive consumers into purchasing a product. The mail-in rebate (MIR) is the most common. A MIR entitles the buyer to mail in a coupon, receipt, and barcode in order to receive a check for a particular amount, depending on the particular product, time, and often place of purchase. Rebates are offered by either the retailer or the product manufacturer. Large stores often work in conjunction with manufacturers, usually requiring two or sometimes three separate rebates for each item, and sometimes are valid only at a single store. Rebate forms and special receipts are sometimes printed by the cash register at time of purchase on a separate receipt or available online for download. In some cases, the rebate may be available immediately, in which case it is referred to as an instant rebate. Some rebate programs offer several payout options to consumers, including a paper check, a prepaid card that can be spent immediately without a trip to the bank, or even as a PayPal payout.

Spokeo is a people search website that aggregates data from online and offline sources.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in Hawaii</span>

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Hawaii since December 2, 2013. The Hawaii State Legislature held a special session beginning on October 28, 2013, and passed the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act legalizing same-sex marriage. Governor Neil Abercrombie signed the legislation on November 13, and same-sex couples began marrying on December 2. Hawaii also allows both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to formalize their relationships legally in the form of civil unions and reciprocal beneficiary relationships. Civil unions provide the same rights, benefits, and obligations of marriage at the state level, while reciprocal beneficiary relationships provide a more limited set of rights.

ResellerRatings is an online ratings site where consumers submit ratings and reviews of online retailers, and online retailers participate to respond to reviewers and to gather reviews from their customers post-purchase. As of July 11, 2017, the site had over 6.2 million user-submitted reviews for 202,000 stores.

Clark Waddoups is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">99p Stores</span> British discount store chain

99p Stores Ltd. was a family-run business founded in January 2001 by entrepreneur Nadir Lalani, who opened the first store in the chain in Holloway, London, with a further three stores opening later that year. In 2002, Lalani decided to expand the business throughout the UK and had rapidly developed 99p Stores, operating a total of 129 stores as of March 2010 and serving around 1.5 million customers each week, undercutting their main rival Poundland by a penny. As of mid-2009 the company offered more than 3,500 different product lines throughout its stores.

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859, was a federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska and decided on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It challenged the federal constitutionality of Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, a 2000 ballot initiative that amended the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions, and other same-sex relationships.

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), is a legal dispute that was decided by the United States Supreme Court. On April 27, 2011, the Court ruled, by a 5–4 margin, that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class-wide arbitration, such as the law previously upheld by the California Supreme Court in the case of Discover Bank v. Superior Court. As a result, businesses that include arbitration agreements with class action waivers can require consumers to bring claims only in individual arbitrations, rather than in court as part of a class action.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case concerning same-sex marriage. The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Vivint Smart Home, Inc. is a United States-based smart home company. A subsidiary of NRG Energy, it was founded by Keith Nellesen and Todd Pedersen in 1999. Its products provide a unified access point to manage all smart home features, with 2 million customers as of 2023.

Merchant Customer Exchange (MCX) was a company created by a consortium of U.S. retail companies to develop a merchant-owned mobile payment system, which was to be called "CurrentC." The joint venture was announced on August 15, 2012.

Disputes between consumers and businesses that are arbitrated are resolved by an independent neutral arbitrator rather than in court. Although parties can agree to arbitrate a particular dispute after it arises or may agree that the award is non-binding, most consumer arbitrations occur pursuant to a pre-dispute arbitration clause where the arbitrator's award is binding.

<i>Kitchen v. Herbert</i> American legal case

Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181, affirmed, 755 F.3d 1193 ; stay granted, 134 S.Ct. 893 (2014); petition for certiorari denied, No. 14-124, 2014 WL 3841263, is the federal case that successfully challenged Utah's constitutional ban on marriage for same-sex couples and similar statutes. Three same-sex couples filed suit in March 2013, naming as defendants Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert, Attorney General John Swallow, and Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen in their official capacities.

<i>Florence v. Shurtleff</i>

Florence v. Shurtleff, Civil No. 2:05CV000485, was a case in which the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah issued an order stating that individuals could not be prosecuted for posting adult content that was constitutionally protected on general access websites, nor could they be civilly liable for failing to prevent access to adult content, so long as the material is identifiable by filtering software. The order was the result of a 2005 lawsuit, The King's English v. Shurtleff, brought by Utah bookstores, artists, Internet Service Providers and the other organizations challenging the constitutionality of certain portions of a Utah law intended to protect minors from adult content.

The Washington Redskins trademark dispute was a legal effort by Native Americans to define the term "redskin" to be an offensive and pejorative racial slur to deprive the owners of the NFL's Washington Redskins of the ability to maintain federal trademark protection for the name. These efforts had primarily been carried forward in two cases brought before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). While prevailing in the most recent case in which the trademarks were cancelled, petitioners withdrew for further litigation now that the legal issue has become moot due to a decision in another case which found the relevant portion of the trademark law to be an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of speech.

In Brenner v. Scott and its companion case, Grimsley v. Scott, a U.S. district court found Florida's constitutional and statutory same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. On August 21, 2014, the court issued a preliminary injunction that prevents that state from enforcing its bans and then stayed its injunction until stays are lifted in the three same-sex marriage cases then petitioning for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court–Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen–and for 91 days thereafter. When the district court's preliminary injunction took effect on January 6, 2015, enforcement of Florida's bans on same-sex marriage ended.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Consumer Review Fairness Act</span>

The Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016, signed into law by President Barack Obama on December 14, 2016, is a federal consumer protection statute banning the use of gag clauses in non-negotiable consumer form contracts.

References

  1. 1 2 Farivar, Cyrus (June 25, 2014). "KlearGear must pay $306,750 to couple that left negative review". Ars Technica . Retrieved June 29, 2014.
  2. 1 2 Gephardt, Matt. "Fined For Posting a Negative Review Online". KUTV. Retrieved July 13, 2014.
  3. ↑ Nelson, Steven (December 18, 2013). "Retailer That Fined Couple $3,500 for Negative Review Hit With Lawsuit - US News". U.S. News & World Report . Retrieved July 13, 2014.
  4. 1 2 Piper, Matthew (December 18, 2013). "Layton couple sue KlearGear for $3,500 negative-review charge". The Salt Lake Tribune . Retrieved June 30, 2014.
  5. ↑ "BBC News - A case for reading the small print". BBC News Magazine Monitor . November 18, 2013. Retrieved November 26, 2013.
  6. ↑ Kim, Nancy S. (June 2, 2014). "Exploitation by Wrap Contracts – Click 'Agree'". California Bar IP Journal, New Matter, Vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 10–17.
  7. ↑ Frauenfelder, Mark (November 15, 2013). "Kleargear bills woman". BoingBoing . Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  8. ↑ McNally, Victoria (November 19, 2013). "Company Tries to Fine Customer $3,500 for Leaving Negative Review Online". Mashable . Retrieved November 26, 2013.
  9. ↑ Cushing, Tim (November 14, 2013). "Online Retailer Says If You Give It A Negative Review It Can Fine You $3,500". Techdirt . Retrieved November 26, 2013.
  10. ↑ Davis, Noah C. (May 2014). "The Yelper and the Negative Review: the Developing Battle Over Nondisparagement Clauses" (PDF). GPSolo. American Bar Association. Retrieved July 13, 2014.
  11. 1 2 Farivar, Cyrus (May 20, 2014). "Embattled retailer KlearGear fights back against online review defeat". Ars Technica . Retrieved June 30, 2014.
  12. ↑ Biggs, John (November 18, 2013). "KlearGear Goes Into Social Media Lockdown After It Charges Customers For Posting Bad Reviews". TechCrunch . Retrieved November 26, 2013.
  13. ↑ Brustein, Joshua (December 18, 2013). "A Company Is Sued Over Its 'No Bad Reviews' Clause". Business Week . Archived from the original on December 18, 2013. Retrieved December 25, 2013.
  14. ↑ Gephardt, Matt (November 21, 2013). "Follow Up: Action on Behalf of Woman Fined for Penning Negative Online Review". KUTV . Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  15. ↑ Kim, Susanna (November 26, 2013). "Utah Couple Fined $3,500 by Online Merchant KlearGear Retains Lawyer, Turns Tables". ABC News . Retrieved November 28, 2013.
  16. ↑ "Public Citizen Suing On Behalf Of Customers Whose Credit Was Ruined By KlearGear's $3,500 'Bad Review' Fee". Techdirt . November 26, 2013. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  17. ↑ Nelson, Steven (December 18, 2013). "Retailer That Fined Couple $3,500 for Negative Review Hit With Lawsuit". U.S. News & World Report . Retrieved December 21, 2013.
  18. ↑ "Public Citizen Sues Online Retailer That Damaged Utah Customer's Credit in Retaliation for Critical Online Review". Public Citizen . December 18, 2013. Retrieved December 25, 2013.
  19. ↑ Gephardt, Matt (March 21, 2014). "Defiance May Soon Pay Off for Couple Fined Over Negative Comments". KUTV.
  20. ↑ Van Geer, Rachel (March 17, 2014). "Utah couple wins suit against KlearGear.com". WOOD-TV . Retrieved June 30, 2014.
  21. ↑ Manson, Pamela (May 20, 2014). "Retailer that charged $3,500 for bad review to fight Utah couple's lawsuit". Salt Lake Tribune . Retrieved July 10, 2014.
  22. ↑ "Bad review couple win compensation". BBC News . June 26, 2014. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
  23. ↑ Palmer & Kulas v. Kleargear.com, no. 13-00175, D. Utah, Motion For Attorneys' Fees (July 24, 2014)
  24. ↑ Palmer & Kulas v. Kleargear.com, no. 13-00175, D. Utah, Docket entry 22 (August 28, 2014)
  25. ↑ Palmer & Kulas v. Kleargear.com, no. 13-00175, D. Utah, Docket entry 25 (February 15, 2015)
  26. ↑ retrieved from , May 10, 2016
  27. 1 2 Palmer, et al. v. Kleargear.com, no. 15-03656, C.D. Cal. (filed April 30, 2015)
  28. ↑ Chokshi, Niraj (September 10, 2014). "California protects the right to Yelp without penalty". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 10, 2014.
  29. ↑ 2015  Congressional Record, Vol. 161, Page  S6699 (September 16, 2015)
  30. ↑ "Sen. Moran Introduces Legislation to Protect Consumers from Fines for Negative Online Reviews". U.S. Senate. September 18, 2015. Retrieved October 30, 2015.
  31. 1 2 "How 'Gagging' Honest Reviews Affects Consumers and the Economy". U.S. Senate. October 30, 2015. Retrieved October 30, 2015.
  32. ↑ Brodkin, Jon (November 29, 2016). "It will soon be illegal to punish customers who criticize businesses online". Ars Technica. Retrieved November 29, 2016.
  33. ↑ Tarantola, Andrew (December 15, 2016). "President Obama signs the Consumer Review Fairness Act into law". Engadget. Retrieved December 16, 2016.

Kleargear.com statements

Other

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.