Bad review score fee in user agreement

[J T]

I expect this will become the norm for video game reviews soon too...


http://gawker.com/woman-fined-3500-for- ... socialflow

[J T]

*In before someone feels the need to explain to me that businesses only exist to make money.*

[AppleQueso]

Using an example of a company doing something outrageous and far outside of the norm to make some strained hyperbolic point about game reviews?

I mean the news story would've made a fine thread on its own I guess, but what?

This also has nothing to do with gaming.

*In before someone feels the need to explain to me that businesses only exist to make money.*

Are you serious?

I expect better from you, man.

[isiolia]

I expect this will become the norm for video game reviews soon too...

Considering what disparagement seems to legally cover, I'd doubt it.

[Jmustang1968]

Yeah I think anyone would think this is both outrageous and bullshit.

[MrPopo]

This is the exact sort of thing that needs to go to court to get some legal precedent set. I'm surprised the couple didn't reach out to see if any attorneys would do some pro bono work; the level of bullshit involved in the case could be good publicity for an attorney who took it up.

[prfsnl_gmr]

This is the exact sort of thing that needs to go to court to get some legal precedent set. I'm surprised the couple didn't reach out to see if any attorneys would do some pro bono work; the level of bullshit involved in the case could be good publicity for an attorney who took it up.

Forget pro bono work. Any enterprising plaintiff's attorney would love a case with facts like these, and I can think of multiple grounds for suing that company into oblivion just from skimming the article. (Seriously, the facts are just too rich. Assuming the company has recoverable assets - which I doubt - the recovery here would be incredible.)

I can also assure you that the company did not have good legal advice when they decided to put that term into their sales contract, and I can likewise assure you that the company did not have good legal advice when it decided to enforce that provision. Accordingly, I simply do not see this becoming common practice in any industry.

EDIT: Just an FYI, the "anti-defamation" clause is almost certainly unenforceable as written. Moreover, the company never shipped the product; so, even if the language was enforceable, the company did not provide any sort of "consideration" for the buyer's promise not to defame it. Finally, the buyer's comments may very well be true, and truth is always a defense to any sort of traditional claim for libel or slander. (Those sort of claims are the only way you could possibly sue someone for an online review like this, and the mere belief that you have such a claim does not permit you to "fine" someone $3500.)

Basically, the company is trying to extort these people into taking down a negative review by issuing a bogus charge for $3500 and then reporting the bogus charge as delinquent to the credit reporting agencies. This is little better than common law robbery. ("You money or your life!" has been replaced by "Your review or your credit score!") After jumping through a few procedural hoops, the buyers should file claims against the company under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and their state's consumer protection/unfair competition statutes. Taking the steps required to file a valid FCRA claims will likely repair the buyers' credit, and those statutes generally provide extremely harsh penalties such as treble damages, stautory damages, punitive damages, etc. that would push the buyer's potential recovery through the roof.

DOUBLE EDIT: The only way I could see enforcing something like this is if the purchase agreement had some sort of confidentiality provision. Any such provision would be construed very narrowly, however, and it would prevent the buyer from leaving even a positive review. Accordingly I very much doubt that purchase contract had a provision like this, and even if it did, it would not be supported by any sort of consideration (i.e., the company did not actually give this couple anything). Finally - and based on the article - it sounds like the person who left the review is not the person who actually placed an order with the company. Accordingly - even if the provision were enforcable and even if it were supported by consideration - the company is issuing the "fine" based on actions by a person who is not even a party to the alleged sales contract.

Again, these facts are just too rich, and they show that the company thinks it knows a lot more about the law than it actually does (i.e., it does not have good legal counsel). If I were a plaintiff's lawyer, I would love for someone to come through my door with a case like this.

[marurun]

There's always the fact that there is no evidence the policy was in place until recently, despite her husband's attempted purchase being a couple years ago.

[aaron]

this is why i don't order from companies with hip misspellings in their name.

[noiseredux]

this is why i don't order from companies with hip misspellings in their name.

I hate to tell you but Aaron's Aamporium is kind of "hip."