Imagine leaving a bad review and waking up to 26 filthy mattresses on your driveway—all because a company decided to take revenge. This is the shocking reality for one Melbourne couple, Laura and Jarrod Maultby, whose seemingly simple dispute with a trash collection company has spiraled into a $200,000 legal nightmare. But here’s where it gets even more outrageous: the company, Junk, didn’t just stop at dumping mattresses—they’ve dragged the family into a multi-state legal battle that’s left them fearing they might lose their home. And this is the part most people miss: buried in Junk’s terms and conditions was a clause allowing them to return ‘an equivalent amount of waste’ if a bill went unpaid. Who would’ve thought a single line could unleash such chaos? Now, the question is: Is this a case of a company going too far, or are the Maultbys overreacting?
It all started when the Maultbys, working parents from Langwarrin in Melbourne’s southeast, hired Junk to remove a small pile of disintegrated wood from their yard. They were stunned by a $514 bill, which they claim was far more than they’d anticipated. When they didn’t pay, Junk retaliated by dumping 26 old, dirty mattresses outside their home—a move that sparked Laura to leave negative reviews online. What began as a $514 disagreement quickly escalated into a legal firestorm, with Junk filing multiple lawsuits against the family in two different states, accusing them of ‘disparaging’ the business and causing a $25,000 weekly revenue drop. But is leaving a bad review really grounds for such extreme retaliation?
The Maultbys’ ordeal has been nothing short of harrowing. ‘It’s been the worst 12 months of our lives,’ Laura admitted. Court documents reveal Junk accused the family of posting six ‘false’ reviews, including claims that the company ‘rips and scams its customers.’ Junk’s owner, Richard Furnari, denied allegations of harassing the couple with repeated phone calls. Despite the stress, the Maultbys recently scored a small victory: the Queensland District Court dismissed one case, and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) refused to hear duplicate actions. ‘It’s great that VCAT is pushing back against these duplicated legal actions,’ Laura said. Yet, their fight isn’t over—a Supreme Court case remains active.
The emotional and financial toll on the family has been brutal. ‘Our future is unclear,’ Laura shared, adding that their young daughters have been deeply affected. To cover mounting legal costs, the family launched a GoFundMe campaign, raising just over $20,000 of their $100,000 goal. ‘We never refused to pay the invoice—we just questioned it,’ Laura explained. Their story went viral, drawing media attention and, unfortunately, more legal threats from individuals and companies tied to Junk. Now, they face the heartbreaking possibility of selling their mortgaged home just to defend themselves. Is this the price of speaking up?
This saga raises critical questions about consumer rights, corporate accountability, and the limits of free speech. While Junk argues it’s protecting its reputation, the Maultbys believe they’re being silenced for sharing their experience. Where do you stand? Is Junk justified in its actions, or has the company crossed a line? As this bizarre legal battle continues, one thing is clear: the Maultbys’ story is a cautionary tale for anyone who’s ever thought about leaving a bad review. What started as a simple dispute has become a fight for their home, their finances, and their voice. Let’s keep the conversation going—what do you think about this case? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
