they tried to reach out to settle this amicably, but never heard back from the company. >> as jen palmer'sinal review online noted, part of the problem with klear gear's customer service is that they're difficult to contact. >> reporter: thus, according to the palmers, leaving them no choice but to sue, asking the court to declare they never owed the $3,500 and seeking compensation to be determined by a jury. >> contract law isn't a game of surprise where businesses get to extort money based on terms that the customers didn't read in the fine print. >> let's bring in cnn legal analyst paul callan and danny cevalos. i want to start with you, paul. first off, i think i can speak on behalf of a lot of consumers. a lot of us don't read the term of use contract, the fine print. we probably should. a big reason is because companies can put these nondisparagement clauses in their contracts. how common is this? >> fortunately for consumers, it's not very common. the reason it's not common is because a company would be out of business if they did what this company has done, allegedly, to the palmer

ding. >> the palmers tried to settle, they said, but never heard back from the company. >> as jen palmer'sted, part of the problem with clear gear's customer service is that they're difficult to contact. >> thus according to the palmers, leaving them no choice but to sue. they're asking the court to declare they never owed the $3500, and ask that it be taken in front of a jury. >> it is not a practice where businesses get to extort money based on the terms the customers didn't read in the fine print. >> cnn did try to reach out to clear gear several times but did not hear back. clear gear did respond by way of e-mail to our affiliate, kutv, saying the request for the family to take down the ad was not black mail, but an effort to avoid the fine. >>> and utah's challenge to blocking same-sex marriage may be delayed. hundreds of couples are running to get licenses approved while they battle it out in the courts. the state's attorney general says they want the court to be involved. once filed, the appeal will go to the supreme court justice who will have the option to rule on it herself or as

john and jen palmer bought a few christmas gifts from the website in 2008. calls went unanswered. finally, the transaction was canceled. jen palmer vented her frustrations online, posting a review of the company on ripoffreport.com saying, in part, there is absolutely no way to get in touch with a physical human being, no extensions work. then 3 1/2 years later, they received this e-mail, appearing to be from klear gear, citing they would be fined $3,5 h00 if the negative review wasn't taken down in 72 hours. >> it's ridiculous that anybody would turn around and try to extort us like this for doing something as simple as posting a review. >> klear gear says they signed away their freedom, forbidding them from taking any action that negatively impacts klear gear.com. they tried to take the review down, but couldn't. they then reported the $3,500 bill unpaid to a collections company. >> it was bad enough that when we went to get a second car it took a month to find a bank that was willing to finance us because of the huge ding this puts on our credit. >> repor

john and jen palmer bought a few christmas gifts from clear gear.com in 2008 but items never arrived d calls unanswered. the transaction was canceled. jen vented frustrations online, posting a review of the company on ripoffreport.com saying, there is absolutely no way to get in touch with the physical human being, no extensions work. then, 3 1/2 years later, they received this e-mail, appearing to be from clear gear, stating they'd be fined $3500 if the negative review wasn't taken down in 72 hours. >> reporter: clear gear told the palms are they signed away freedom and terms and conditions nondisparagement clause preventing weinstei >>> the palmers tried to take the review down but couldn't, they reported the $4500 bill as unpaid to a collections company. >> all right, we're having a little problem with that. but you get the drift. can you imagine writing a review and then having someone obviously sue you? well, we'll follow that story for you, and a big story for you, colorado shoppers can add one more item to the shopping list. milk, bread, and yes, pot? ♪ how do you explain the f

the battle began when john and jen palmer bought a few christmas gifts in 2008.they say the items never arrived and their calls went unanswered. finally, the transaction was canceled. jen palmer vented her frustrations online, posting a review of the company on rip-offreport.com saying in part there is absolutely no way to get in touch with a physical human being, no extensions work. then 3 1/2 years later, they received this e-mail, appearing to be from clear gear, stating they'd be fined $3,500 if the negative review wasn't taken down in 72 hours. >> it's ridiculous that anybody would turn us around and try to extort us for doing something as simple as posting a review. >> they said they signed away their freedom forbidding them from taking any action that negatively impacts cleargear.com. the palmers tried to take the review down but couldn't. clear gear apparently reported the $3,500 bill as unpaid to a collections company. >> it was bad enough that when we went to get a second card, it took them a month to find a bank that was willing to finance us. the palm