An example of why there will never be 100% trust in the Internet. The thought I had is in regard to clickable agreements on commerce websites. Web-bots are constantly collecting and archiving web pages, that is probably how Techdirt.com determined that the NDC was not part of the KlearGear purchase engine at the time that Mr. Palmer completed the disputed transaction.
But legally where does the law stand when there is no hard copy put in the hands of both parties at the time of the sale. And when the record of the transaction plus any restrictive or binding agreements exist only on the server belonging to the Web company.
I haven’t had a chance to blog about the case, but I thought I’d note that Public Citizen has gotten involved. Here’s the press release:
Public Citizen Asks Online Retailer KlearGear.com To Remedy Its Retaliation Against Customer for Critical Online Review
Company Damaged Customer’s Credit After He Refused Company’s Demand for $3,500 Over Critical Web Posting
Online merchant KlearGear.com must retract its reports to consumer credit agencies concerning a phony $3,500 debt it has sought from customer John Palmer since late spring of 2012, Public Citizen wrote the company today in a demand letter.
The false debt that KlearGear.com reported to credit reporting agencies has hounded the family for more than a year. Recently, for instance, the family was unable to obtain a loan to purchase a new furnace when their old one broke, so the Palmers and their three-year-old son were left without heat in October in Utah.
Even if the clause had been on the website at the time of John’s purchase, it would be invalid “because it constitutes unfair surprise in a take-it-or-leave-it contract, and the terms themselves … are so one-sided in their broad, restrictive impact as to oppress an innocent party,” Public Citizen explained in the demand letter. Any attempt to enforce such a clause in court would also violate the First Amendment because John did not voluntarily and knowingly waive his constitutional right. Additionally, the false debt was levied against John, but he did not write the review.
“KlearGear.com’s unscrupulous conduct has affected every aspect of our lives, from major financial transactions like financing a new home purchase and a car purchase, to basic needs like heat in our home,” said John Palmer. “We are fighting not only to clear my credit record and obtain compensation for our ordeal but also to make sure that no one else has to go through what we did.”
Today’s demand letter explains that by reporting to one or more credit agencies that John Palmer owed a debt that he did not in fact owe, KlearGear.com committed defamation, intentional interference with economic relations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. By failing to correct the misinformation it sent to credit reporting agencies, KlearGear.com also violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), for which substantial damages may be awarded.
If KlearGear.com does not agree to these demands, the Palmers plan to file suit.