Link

One of my guilty pleasures is to follow crazy civil lawsuits. For the last year, I’ve been following the Prenda Saga, where an allegedly sleazy law firm (“Prenda”) allegedly stole someone’s identity to secure porn copyright assignments and then allegedly shake-down improperly-identified random internet users for thousands of dollars to keep their names out of court records. Suffice to say, Federal Courts across the country have not taken their shenanigans lightly.

As Prenda winds down, a new guilty pleasure arrives in the form of Palmer v KlearGear.com. The short version is that Palmer allegedly posted a negative review of KlearGear, so KlearGear allegedly sent a demand letter for $3500 while citing a more-than-a-little-sketchy clause in their Terms of Use that restrain any users from posting negative reviews. KlearGear then trashed Palmer’s credit rating and hired a debt collector to go after them. The kicker?

Apparently, the no-negative-reviews clause wasn’t even in their ToS at the time Palmer used the site.

In addition to declaratory relief, the claims against KlearGear include violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, defamation, intentional interference with economic relations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

KlearGear refused to respond to Palmer’s requests to repair the situation. I don’t see this ending well for them. Public Citizen is on the case.