Tim Cushing lists this under the self-inflicted-reputation-wounds-are-surprisingly-pricey dept.
Geek gadget also-ran KlearGear gained internet infamy thanks to the following paragraph tucked away on its "Terms of Sale and Use" page:
In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and 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.com, its reputation, products, services, management or employees.
Tacked onto this absurd redefining of "fair and honest feedback" was a $3,500 fee. This was [leveled] at a couple who complained about the non-delivery of products it had paid for. This went to court, and the couple was awarded over $300,000 in a default [judgment] when KlearGear no-showed.
For the most part, this would seem to be a cautionary tale--something other companies would take into consideration when crafting their own terms of service. But some companies are still apparently willing to dance with the Devil Streisand by including onerous fees tied to the phrase "fair and honest feedback." Not only will the enforcement of this clause likely result in large amounts of public shaming, but in some states, this may actually be illegal.
In the interest of discouraging future KlearGears from dragging their customers' credit ratings through the mud in response to bad reviews, we present a list of companies that still maintain similar clauses on their websites, along with dollar amounts demanded if this clause is violated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 18 2014, @09:10PM
1. In replying to this comment you agree to never do or say anything which I construe as harmful to me and mine.
2. In reading this comment, you agree to reply pursuant to the terms of agreement in point 1 within 60 minutes of receipt.
3.
(Score: 3, Funny) by martyb on Thursday December 18 2014, @09:21PM
3. ???
4. Profit!
Huh! An internet meme that is actually on-topic! =)
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Thursday December 18 2014, @09:29PM
I notice that the agreement to which you have agreed does not apply to comments to your comments.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday December 18 2014, @09:49PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 18 2014, @10:09PM
According to our implied contract I will now have my 17 year old sharks shoot at you with laser beams.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday December 18 2014, @10:59PM
* - - - -
Did not warn me about tornado.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday December 18 2014, @09:45PM
People who start a business and then try to tack on such restrictions have probably already had a prior business taken down by un-happy customers.
The fact that so many of them start with similar wording "In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content" suggests there is some scammer's bible floating around out there where these people get this stuff.
(Googleing that exact phrase in quotes shows 25000 hits. Many are news or blog posts about the practice but a great deal of them are actual companies (some even Amazon affiliated sellers) who are attempting to impose that language.)
Somebody is counseling these companies to try this tactic, and I suspect it is some of the "Reputation Management" companies you see advertising on late night tv.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 18 2014, @09:49PM
I don't understand why these fucks think they can get away with something like this. They're just asking to be gunned down on sight, really. Someone is going to get one of these "fees" and proceed to just walk right down to their office and start gunning niggers down until there's nothing left.
That's freedom. That's america.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday December 18 2014, @10:34PM
Just wait until this sort of shenanigans ends up in everything, including gym memberships, wedding parties [cnn.com], recruiter work agreements, terms of service, and EULAs.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 18 2014, @11:08PM
Many work agreements already forbid you from suing the company. They call it "binding arbitration" where the company gets to pick who "arbitrates" a complaint and their decision is binding as law. And if you ever make any noises like you might use ask for arbitration of a dispute, they will fire you on the spot. That is called "right to work."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 19 2014, @12:18AM
they will fire you on the spot. That is called "right to work."
Actually, that's called "at-will employment." Related, but not the same, as "right to work"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 19 2014, @06:43AM
"Right to work" is a union-busting tactic that means you don't have to join the union to get the benefits that the union gains when it does collective bargaining with a company.
The correct way to pronounce that is "Right to work for less".
The corporation has its team of lawyers and consultants and prep'd management and it wants you and your fellow workers to show up at review time unorganized so they can pick you off one at a time and get you to bid down your labor.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Friday December 19 2014, @03:59AM
Worst EULA I ever read had some real gems in it. Was from a tiny company calling itself Timberwolf, based in Dallas.
1. You agreed that you had to give them all the work you did that could be related to their product. There was no time limit on that clause, so apparently that included all your work ever, even if it was decades before their company was founded.
2. You had to let them on to your company premises on demand, instantly, any time during normal working hours, and let them inspect the contents of any computers they pleased. Quite extraordinary overreach there, just to check if you were committing any piracy.
3. They reserved the right to take their product away from you instantly. You could only lease their product, not buy it. You of course could not terminate the relationship as quickly, you had to give them 30 days notice in writing. And you had to return all copies of the software. Until you did, you couldn't end the relationship. Therefore, assuming you were fool enough to agree to such a relationship to begin with, the obvious way to end the relationship quickly was to stir up their paranoia that you were about to steal their intellectual property so that they would rush over and terminate your lease.
I had read enough, and decided to just download and pirate their stuff. No way was I going to agree to all that. But they held back a software key that you couldn't have until you signed the agreement. So, I simply didn't use their stuff.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 19 2014, @04:12AM
2. You had to let them on to your company premises on demand, instantly, any time during normal working hours, and let them inspect the contents of any computers they pleased. Quite extraordinary overreach there, just to check if you were committing any piracy.
If that worries you, stay away from Microsoft products then.
http://www.cnet.com/au/news/microsoft-kicks-off-the-year-of-the-audit/ [cnet.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 18 2014, @11:44PM
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1H3IS1LYNZ48S [amazon.com]
Take a look at it. The reviewer has some issues with the 'made in USA' label and the vendor never addressed the issue but spent its time threatening the user!
Pretty much every reply from that vendor says the same thing. And, their English is not even all that polished; so, this does add some doubt as to the true location where the stuff is designed and built.
At any rate, file this away as yet another vendor who thinks that bullying the customer is acceptable.
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Thursday December 18 2014, @11:50PM
Disclaimer
It is not my fault!
You, the reader or user of the provided information, have implicitly agreed to this disclaimer by entering this site or using its information and accept this disclaimer to govern your use of any and all information from or derived from this site.
You are solely responsible for your own fate and agree to not to blame me or my affiliates for your unfortune in whatever form.
You agree to not to take offence about any information provided by or derived from this site. Your only recourse is to leave me and my affiliates alone and not to visit, read, remember, see and use any information provided by or derived from this site.
Upon request you accept to provide a copy of your soul for inspection (for those jurisdictions that adapt to that dogma of beings with souls). Any copies will be destroyed after inspection. You are solely responsible for your soul and copy/copies of your soul. You agree not to blame anyone else but yourself for what happens to your soul or copy/copies of your soul.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday December 19 2014, @07:27AM
So, in other words, the marketers and lawyers conspiring with such clauses are more or less influenced directly by Satan? With very few modifications actually, we could frame this and put it above the entrance for Hell. Probably the one the lawyers go through the most, as it would be well appreciated for its dark humor.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Friday December 19 2014, @04:08AM
... so stop selling shit.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday December 19 2014, @03:07PM
An illegal contract is unenforceable. I know that in the USA consumer protection regulations are completely different, but I find it strange that you can sign away a constitutional right.
The sheer inclusion of such in a contract is illegal.