171–180 of 246 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do we have proof of that? I think the fact that we're taking your word for everything so far is the source of the discomfort here.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If the response is to attack the legit version, then Chase wins! That's not an acceptable outcome either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Would you help us go after them? I'd sign up in a heartbeat for that. When I moved from Connecticut where we have a relatively benign ISP (Cablevision) who doesn't have data caps, to California where we only have Comcast/Xfinity, my monthly price for Internet doubled and I have less than half the bandwidth available to me.
I know everyones talking about how sketchy the online forms are. But my question is what sketchy practices is Chase involved in that they need this to be part of their agreement. Secondly and its been noted here before why are such clauses even legal? I really hope we can take the concept to court and murder it completely.
It's legal because of a staggeringly overbroad reading of the Federal Arbitration Act that the Supreme Court has said is fine and Congress has refused to reign in.
> I really hope we can take the concept to court and murder it completely.
Many will enter, zero will win. Virtually every attempt at limiting the Federal Arbitration Act's scope in legal proceedings has been turned down by the Supreme Court.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concepc...
* https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/american-express...
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.
In terms of what users are taught (which is plainly the context of the comment you are replying to), this website is identical to ecommerce sites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I agree that's a big potential problem, but I don't know what to do about it. If the response is to attack the legit version, then Chase wins! That's not an acceptable outcome either.
It's a false dichotomy to say its either this web site or Chase wins.
Promoting risky and insecure behavior is just wrong. period. That's independent of whatever Chase or any other company is putting in their agreements.
I think you'd be helping people far more by pointing out all the problems with this kind of website, so they can be aware of the risks and hopefully avoid scams, rather than getting them out of binding arbitration clauses.