christmas gifts from the website in 2008. but they say the items never arrived and their calls went unanswered. finally, the transaction was canceled. jen palmer vented her frustrations online, posting a review of the company on ripoffreport.com saying, in part, there is absolutely no way to get in touch with a physical human being, no extensions work. then 3 1/2 years later, they received this e-mail, appearing to be from klear gear, citing they would be fined $3,5 h00 if the negative review wasn t taken down in 72 hours. it s ridiculous that anybody would turn around and try to extort us like this for doing something as simple as posting a review. klear gear says they signed away their freedom, forbidding them from taking any action that negatively impacts klear gear.com. they tried to take the review
back on the delivery companies. marshall cohen, thank you so much for your insight this morning. appreciate it. pleasure. it is a cautionary tale, another one, for online shoppers. a couple fined $3,500 for posting a negative review of cleargear.com is fighting back. the company says the couple did not read the fine print. now the couple says they re being extorted. more now from cnn s pamela brown. carol, this is a story we brought you about a month ago when it garnered a huge response from viewers who say it s unfair and should be illegal to be fined for posting a negative review. now the couple at the center of this story is fighting back. a utah couple fined $3,500 for writing a negative review of kleargear.com is now suing the merchant for retaliating against them, according to a lawsuit filed wednesday on behalf of the couple. john and jen palmer bought a few
able to collect their damages and they will have lost in the end. and, obviously, as we shared in the story, they had a ripple effect from this, with their credit being hurt and that kind of thing. danny, don t the credit reporting companies, on that no note, have some sort of liability here? ultimately, no. the real liability it is defamation if a company reports a debt that is not a brood debt. the real liability is on the company. reporting credit companies will reach out to the company reporting the debt and they rely on whatever that company, like klear gear, austensibly told them. then that s a debt as far as they re concerned. i suppose if they were reckless in researching that, but they rely on the companies to report truthfully and accurately. that s what they re supposed to do. they re supposed to add the consumer s claim as well, though, when they research it. so they may have some liability
then 3 1/2 years later, they received this e-mail, appearing to be from klear gear, stating they would be fined $3,500 if the negative review wasn t taken down in 72 hours. it s ridiculous that anybody would turn around and try to extort us like this, especially for doing something as simple as posting a review online. reporter: klear gear told the palmers they sign add way their freedom in a nondisclosure clause, forbidding them from taking any action that negatively impacts kleargear.com. they tried to take the review down, but couldn t. klear gear then reported the $3,500 bill unpaid to a collections company. it was bad enough that when we went to get a second car, it took a month to find a bank that was willing to finance us because of the huge ding this puts on our credit. reporter: they tried to reach out to settle this amicably, but
never heard back from the company. as jen palmer s original review online noted, part of the problem with klear gear s customer service is that they re difficult to contact. reporter: thus, according to the palmers, leaving them no choice but to sue, asking the court to declare they never owed the $3,500 and seeking compensation to be determined by a jury. contract law isn t a game of surprise where businesses get to extort money based on terms that the customers didn t read in the fine print. let s bring in cnn legal analyst paul callan and danny cevalos. i want to start with you, paul. first off, i think i can speak on behalf of a lot of consumers. a lot of us don t read the term of use contract, the fine print. we probably should. a big reason is because companies can put these nondisparagement clauses in their contracts.