When Utah couple John and Jen Palmer didn't receive an item they ordered in late 2008 from the online retailer KlearGear, they canceled the order and Jen Palmer posted a negative review of the company on RipoffReport.com. Four years later, the company responded by demanding that the Palmers pay the company $3,500 for allegedly violating KlearGear's terms of service. KlearGear allegedly said its terms of service included a non-disparagement clause. The Palmers didn't pay, following which KlearGear allegedly reported John Palmer to at least one credit agency, resulting in a hit to the couple's credit rating. When the Palmers tried to contest the “debt,” KlearGear allegedly insisted that it was owed the money -- and an additional $50 “dispute fee.” Among other consequences of KlearGear's report, the Palmers say they were denied credit to pay for a new furnace when their old one broke and denied a credit card. This week, advocacy group Public Citizen took up the Palmers' case. The group is demanding that KlearGear pay the Palmers $75,000 for allegedly filing a false report to credit agencies. Public Citizen says the report constitutes defamation, intentional interference with economic relations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Public Citizen also says that KlearGear's refusal to correct the information provided to credit agencies violates the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. Attempts by Online Media Daily to reach KlearGear were unsuccessful. Public Citizen says in a letter to KlearGear that its terms of service in 2008 didn't include the non-disparagement clause. Techdirt reports that the clause wasn't included in KlearGear.com's terms of service until 2012. That clause is no longer on KlearGear.com, but the Internet archive shows that the site's terms recently included the following language: “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.” The company goes on to add that violations result in a bill for $3,500 “for legal fees and court costs.”Public Citizen says in its letter that even if KlearGear had included the non-disparagement clause on its site in 2008, the company still didn't have the right to report the Palmers to credit agencies. “The non-disparagement clause is substantively and procedurally unconscionable because it constitutes unfair surprise in a take-it-or-leave-it contract, and the terms themselves -- prohibiting 'any action that negatively impacts KlearGear.com [or] its reputation” -- are so one-sided in their broad, restrictive impact as to oppress an innocent party,” Public Citizen lawyer Scott Michelman writes to KlearGear. In addition to $75,000, the Palmers are asking KlearGear to inform credit agencies that the debt was reported in error and to promise that it won't again include a non-disparagement clause in its terms of service.