Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

chaseoptout.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 246 posts

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

#161

Post by mehrdadn »

Cogito wrote: post #150
mehrdadn wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I disagree on that point, what about the fact that the terms require you to mail it yourself. Edit: Also, I'm not sure what "wet signature" means. The claim was not quite that the signature has to be in ink . The debate is over whether you (not someone else) are performing the signing, and whether you (not someone else) are mailing (not emailing etc.) it on paper (not e.g. a flash drive) or not. Which, to me, m…

Reading the above comment, where does it say it has to be personally mailed? > Your notice must be mailed to us at P.O. Box 15298, Wilmington, DE 19850-5298. That sounds like it has to be mailed, but who does the mailing doesn't matter. Similarly, wouldn't matter if you used the post or a courier.

I didn't mean "mail" as in "literally drop off the envelope in the post box", I just meant "mail" as in "write the letter to be mailed". And no, when I say "write" I don't mean it necessarily precludes voice recognition or whatever new counterexample you might be trying to think of now either.

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

#162

Post by toomuchtodo »

snazz wrote: post #158
toomuchtodo wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sort of humorous comment, as PCI DSS is self assessment and attestation of compliance. If OP states they’ve met their burden, that’s all that’s required at their scale.

Really? I evidently know nothing of the matter, but you're saying that the auditors only get involved when they become a larger operation?

Yep. Card networks can also unilaterally decide your level.

https://www.pcicomplianceguide.org/faq/#4

Disclaimer: I work in governance/risk/compliance, but have not performed PCI compliance work in the last several years.

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

#163

Post by mjkornbl »

rkhassen wrote: post #142
mjkornbl wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radvocate here: We do have a vested interest. Over time, we want to be the place you come when you have a dispute against a big company because we'll fight hard for you. We're excited to partner on this project partly because it is very "on brand" for us from that perspective — we can help people, get our name out there, and shine light on an issue that matters to us. We're a business, but we're also all in this busi…

Good points and I appreciate what you write here. And an interesting business concept - to help consumers pursue individual arbitrations. That could be really cool especially against large corporations when they are abusive. What do you charge as people go through their individual arbitration process/ how does the profit model work? I really have mixed feelings about the legal system - on Also, Radvocate, wondering i…

Hi, thanks for the response.

On the business model – we charge a commission currently set at 15% of whatever compensation you recover. Hopefully that's from a negotiated settlement with the company before a full arbitration process is necessary. (More details at bottom). We currently process against 20+ cable / ISP / wireless companies.

Re: PII, first I want to make clear that I can't speak with legal standing about the terms & conditions as written. That said, if someone checks the (optional) box giving us permission to do so, all we plan to store is an e-mail address (plus an anonymized token?). We at Radvocate don't have current plans to use that e-mail address, but it is true that it likely would be most useful for the purpose of putting together a future class action against Chase. We'd only partner on that with firms we trust and who will make respectful use of the information.

We think this could be of interest and beneficial to someone opting out of arbitration. To repeat a point on this thread, it's another way to take action against Chase. Additionally, while we all have experience with a class action of being mailed a gift card three years later, if someone does make direct contact with a lawyer on the lawsuit, that may put them in a different position (though I'm not a lawyer).

More on our process: The way arbitration works is you usually have to send the company a notice letter (which we automate) 30-60 days before filing. When you do that a lot of companies suddenly want to negotiate, instead of ignoring your dispute, and we provide data and process guidance to help you negotiate most effectively. If negotiation fails then we automate escalating your claim to arbitration by filing with the American Arbitration Association, and we continue to provide guidance as the case moves through their system, including preparation for the hearing (which will typically happen by phone).

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

#164

Post by glennpratt »

neilv wrote: post #50
saagarjha wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that there is a PDF for those who don't want to enter their information: https://www.chaseoptout.com/ChaseOptOut.pdf

I don't see how that's relevant to what I said. The problem I was citing was the encouragement to put this info into a Web form on an arbitrary site. You should always be discouraging that.

This is not constructive feedback; explain your solution and why you feel the trade-offs you prefer are better.

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

#165

Post by hnruss »

rkhassen wrote: post #104

For me the red flag is them willing to send this letter to Chase, via snail mail at no charge to you. Nobody gives something for nothing. So I thought, why would they do this? after reading through the form, at the bottom, it looks like one of the companies, who sponsors this site, "Radvocate" seems like they are in the "class action" lawsuit business. https://myradvocate.com/ This site is about having enough potenti…

If they're going to sue Chase someday, more power to them.

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

#166

Post by DannyBee »

mehrdadn wrote: post #96
mjkornbl wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 spelle…

Non-layman here, no it's not an misinterpretation of the statute.

It makes electronic signatures as good as regular ones in interstate commerce. Period. Full stop. Caselaw supports this in spades.

The only meaningful case otherwise is where statutes explicitly require in-writing signatures (a good example is copyright transfers).

There is an intra-state version of this is UETA.

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

#167

Post by chipperyman573 »

craftyguy wrote: post #157
zbruhnke wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Anyone can make a FAQ on the web. Not everyone can prove compliance with PCI DSS.

The same could be said about any other online merchant...

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

#168

Post by Cogito »

mehrdadn wrote: post #161
Cogito wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading the above comment, where does it say it has to be personally mailed? > Your notice must be mailed to us at P.O. Box 15298, Wilmington, DE 19850-5298. That sounds like it has to be mailed, but who does the mailing doesn't matter. Similarly, wouldn't matter if you used the post or a courier.

I didn't mean "mail" as in "literally drop off the envelope in the post box", I just meant "mail" as in "write the letter to be mailed". And no, when I say "write" I don't mean it necessarily precludes voice recognition or whatever new counterexample you might be trying to think of now either.

Fair enough.

I'm not sure what that means though. If I printed off the form from the website would that count as me writing the letter to be mailed?

In any case, in the stuff quoted up top, I don't read this concept that it must be done personally. For example, it seems like it would be fine for my accountant to do it for me (though they may need me to sign it? maybe they can affix a seal or something)

There must be a way for a business to opt out of this clause, right?

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

#169

Post by gowld »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #140
gricardo99 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don’t see the concern. really? No concern downloading a form letter from some web site and mailing PII/account information to the address they provided? Call me paranoid, but that kind of behavior is just waiting to run into a scam. My point was not about the address, it was about general wariness of scams. No different than always calling your financial institution using a valid/known number, rather than a number…

You need to consider the two possible evils. If I don't use this website, there is a 100% chance I will "agree" to binding arbitration. I know myself. There is absolutely no way I am going to print, fill out, and mail in a paper form. Is this website a perfect solution? No, but I don't see a better option under the circumstances, and from what I can tell, the people running it are doing the right things within the co…

I presume chaseoptout.com is not a scam.

Tomorrow, an enterprising scammer might clone the site to chaseoptoutservice.com, and do all the nefarious things mentioned above, and they'll be neck-and-neck in SEO.

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

#170

Post by wutbrodo »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #111
rkhassen wrote: post #104

For me the red flag is them willing to send this letter to Chase, via snail mail at no charge to you. Nobody gives something for nothing. So I thought, why would they do this? after reading through the form, at the bottom, it looks like one of the companies, who sponsors this site, "Radvocate" seems like they are in the "class action" lawsuit business. https://myradvocate.com/ This site is about having enough potenti…

From a "consumer who wouldn't individually sue chase" perspective I see nothing wrong here. I know many here consider this to be ideological heresy but it's possible to have a transaction where both parties come out ahead and this seems like one of those win-wins to me. They do a little work for you in exchange for putting your name on a list of people they can use in a class action, you might even get $5 or somethin…

It's a standard HN (and wider society) complaint that makes very little sense: the best case for corporate behavior is having incentives that are aligned with the consumer or whatever your definition of societal good is.
Post reply on HN