Utah Couple Sue Over Firm’s Negative-Review Charge

December 24, 2013

  • December 24, 2013 at 1:23 pm
    Questionning says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 0

    Does anyone know….is this non disparagement clause common with online retailer agreements?

  • December 24, 2013 at 1:33 pm
    Hmmm says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 39
    Thumb down 0

    I have not seen a clause like that before and I buy online a fair amount (I am one of those people who will read the fine print). I find it interesting from a customer service prospective that the company took the sledge hammer approach about this rather than posting their own explanation that they had fixed the problem and they “welcome” constructive comments.

  • December 26, 2013 at 11:03 am
    Huh! says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 33
    Thumb down 0

    KlearGear has garnered much more unfavorable publicity from their own actions than from the complaint posted by the Utah couple. If their management is intelligent at all, KlearGear will apologize for the damage they have caused, withdraw the negative credit report and change their purchase agreement format. If not, why would anyone bother to buy from them in the future? I certainly won’t.

  • December 27, 2013 at 11:56 am
    RT says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 0

    I frequently shop online and have never seen or heard of a “non-disparagement clause.” I’m not even sure how it would be legal (thus the lawsuit), as long as the couple was truthful and not exaggerating or twisting the facts in their online comments.

  • December 30, 2013 at 10:26 am
    Hank says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 0

    I am not familiar with “non-disparagement” clauses, but can they be enforced when the contract is cancelled by one of the parties involved?

  • December 30, 2013 at 1:47 pm
    Maureen says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    I would wager that Kleargear has received (and will continue to receive) far more negative attention for their retaliatory actions against the Utah couple than from the original complaint of not sending the $20 item. Kleargear should assess a $3500 penalty on the employee(s) that decided a “non-disparagement” clause was a good idea. Shame on Kleargear and anyone who would shop their site.

  • December 30, 2013 at 7:29 pm
    DataArchitect says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    A contract must be quid-pro-quo, meaning one pays, the other gets something. Since the second party did not receive the merchandise, the contract is clearly voided by the first party, the manufacturer, and the first party released from all terms of the agreement.

    These people have a clear first amendment case, and damages. The company seems to not have counsel and have made a poor choice that will cost them much more than $3500. It would have been much better to just refund the money, and send them a gift certificate, and no bad publicity.

    • December 31, 2013 at 3:33 pm
      mrs dean wormer says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      Kinda makes you wonder about their service, generally, if their policy is to force all customers into this non-disparagement agreement!?!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features