Live data from Hacker News

Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

chaseoptout.com

91–100 of 246 posts

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#91
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I give out my credit card number hundreds of times per year. Credit cards wouldn't be very useful if you never gave them out.

An ecommerce site has a merchant agreement with a payment processor to comply with PCI DSS. This does not. It is in no way similar.

FYI we are complying with PCI DSS when you use this site - you can read details in the FAQ

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#92
post #21

Isn't the likely outcome of opting out that Chase just closes your account?

So few will opt out, Chase will get what it wants: No customers can make a dispute with chase in a court of law. They cannot band together for gross abuse. They will have achieved removing courts of law from the equation and replacing them with secret privatized courts that do not have to have any regard for the rule of law.

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#93
post #80

I have a feeling that Chase will send a letter to the operator of this website using some excuse like unauthorized use of the Chase trademark or something.

Interesting point. Here from Radvocate (partner on this product). We currently help consumers take action under their contracts with 20+ wireless / cable / ISP brands. We are up and running fine.

Corporations do have a stake in contractual and legal systems continuing to function, as well as in not calling down negative news coverage on themselves.

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#94
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you fill in your info on the page and click the buttom, this happens as the final part of the flow before it submits.

"By checking this box, I certify that my account information is accurate and I want to e-sign and mail this document to chase to opt out of binding arbitration." The document is not actually present.

Not a lawyer. I'll make sure we have a legal opinion addressing this if we don't already.

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#95
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately this is the problem that Chase created ... we give users a way to download a form letter instead, but were just trying to make it as easy as possible for customers to opt out if they would like to do so

You're teaching users it's OK to give out their account information "sometimes". Which is much less secure than "never".

[deleted]

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#96
post #27

Under the "What is the actual language in the agreement sent by Chase?" FAQ item, it says -- "Can I (the customer) reject this agreement to arbitrate? Yes. You have the right to reject this agreement to arbitrate if you notify us no later than 8/9/2019. You must do so in writing by stating that you reject this agreement to arbitrate and include your name, account number, address and personal signature . Your notice m…

We are relying on legal opinions that the site fully complies with the ESIGN Act. That act makes electronic signatures on par with physical signatures. (Disclosure = I'm not a lawyer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Signatures_in_Globa...

Just a layman here but that seems like a misinterpretation of the statute? The idea of the statute seems to be that the government will not void, nullify, or refuse to enforce the terms of an electronic contract. It does not state that in any given contract, private parties must accept the terms signed in any form whatsoever -- that's still left as something for those people to agree on, and Chase very clearly spelled out that that's not valid for the contract. So the "reason" for the invalidity of a contract wouldn't be that it has an electronic signature, but that one of the parties simply didn't follow the terms it set for validity (whatever they were -- in this case, that they be personally signed, and mailed by the actual account holder). So I'm very curious how legal opinions interpret the statute otherwise, since I don't see any hint that it was intended to be interpreted as allowing one of the parties to change the signing terms to include electronic signatures.

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#98

Do you really want to give a site run by someone you don't know vital info and a account number. Probably legit but ...

totally fine if you don't! we also allow you to just download the form so you can fill it out and mail it yourself

You shouldn't even be collecting this info.

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not at all! We explicity ask if you want to opt in to future communications on our form - we are NOT using them to communicate with users if they do not opt in.

Then give the user the letter up front instead of hiding it in small text. This site has NO written all over it!

sorry you feel that way? We did put a fair amount of effort (and are spending our own dollars to mail the letters) so I don't think we are doing anything too unreasonable

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#100
Side note, arbitration is cheaper than litigating in court. The only thing opting out affords consumers is easier access to class action suits. If you think you might bring an individual claim against Chase, arbitration is cheaper and a more level playing field (no countersuit strategy) than state or federal court.

TL; DR arbitration is not the corporate-controller enigma many seem to think it is. You trade off real benefits by opting out of Chase's mutual binding arbitration terms.

Most people should opt out, but not everyone. (Nobody should opt out unthinkingly.)

Post reply on HN