Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Super Dawg Member Phil Kaufman aka AffiliateHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 22nd, 2007
    Location
    West Covina, CA
    Posts
    8,443
    Proposed CA Law Would Protect Online Complaints
    There is a bill working its way through the California legislature with virtually no opposition that would protect a consumer's right to complain about online purchases.

    Assembly Bill 2365 would make it illegal for online merchants to require their customers to agree not to post bad product or customer service reviews or comments online.

    Apparently, some merchants have begun adding small print and last-minute pop-ups that tell their customers that by proceeding with their purchase they are giving up their free speech rights to complain publicly if something goes wrong.

    The need for the legislation was prompted by a case from Utah where an online merchant, Klear Gear, actually tried to extort a $3,500,00 penalty from a couple of people who had posted a negative review on the site Ripoff Review. It seems the couple had made a purchase, which never arrived. They cancelled the order and then wrote their review. Then Klear Gear contacted them in writing, telling them that they had violated the company’s “non-disparagement clause” and demanded that they remove the bad review.

    Apparently Klear Gear's terms include the following clause:

    "To prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts Kleargear dot com, its reputation, products, services, management or employees.”
    When they did not remove the review, Klear Gear then proceeded with some reprehensible conduct. They imposed the $3,500 "fine" and when the couple refused to pay, they then listed the $3,500 fine as a “failure to pay” with various credit bureaus, destroying the couples' credit ratings.

    The California bill would prohibit such TOS and such outrageous conduct.

    Is this bill a necessary protection of free speech, or is it an unwarranted prohibition on merchants who should have the right to impose whatever terms on their customers that they deem appropriate and necessary to protect their brand?
    Last edited by Phil Kaufman aka AffiliateHound; May 19th, 2014 at 06:32 PM.
    Since June 10, 2012 a vegan aarf but still writing the Hound Dawg Sports Blog
    "If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?" -John Wooden;
    "Raj, there’s no place for truth on the internet." -Howard Wolowitz[/SIZE]

  2. #2
    OPM and Moderator Chuck Hamrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 5th, 2005
    Location
    Park City Utah
    Posts
    16,646
    I remember the Klear Gear case discussed on the forum. What happened to the couple?

  3. #3
    Super Dawg Member Phil Kaufman aka AffiliateHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 22nd, 2007
    Location
    West Covina, CA
    Posts
    8,443
    There was just an update last week. The couple sued Klear Gear who failed to timely respond to the lawsuit, and a court has just ruled that a judgment has correctly been entered in their favor against Klear Gear, holding that they do NOT own Klear Gear any penalty, and that Klear Gear violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and is liable to THEM for damages for defamation, intentional interference with prospective contractural relations, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

    The court set a hearing date for June 4 for them to prove how much money Klear Gear will own them in monetary damages.
    Since June 10, 2012 a vegan aarf but still writing the Hound Dawg Sports Blog
    "If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?" -John Wooden;
    "Raj, there’s no place for truth on the internet." -Howard Wolowitz[/SIZE]

  4. Thanks From:

  5. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. The law should protect your online communications
    By Chuck Hamrick in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: November 15th, 2013, 11:10 AM
  2. Amazon ruling casts doubt on N.C. online sales tax law
    By Chuck Hamrick in forum North Carolina Affiliate Tax
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 10th, 2012, 01:50 PM
  3. Anti-Spyware Law Proposed
    By jc101 in forum Virtual Family and Off-Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 28th, 2004, 09:01 PM
  4. Merchants' Guide to Protect Their Marks Online
    By in forum Starting an Affiliate Program & Merchant Q&A
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 16th, 2002, 11:45 AM
  5. Oh boy: A proposed law to protect spyware
    By BBF in forum Suspicious Activity!
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 26th, 2002, 10:43 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •