Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
1–10 of 111 posts
Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
#2It's time to stop viewing contracts as an inherent good that must be obeyed, and instead as merely useful tools to help society. Until (more) limits are placed on them to protect individuals, we will continue descending deeper into a "well you agreed to it when you clicked OK" dystopia.
Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
#3Here is the clause in Section 11:
As a Pet Owner, you acknowledge that Wag! is in the business of connecting Pet Owners and Pet Care Providers, and that said business is how Wag! earns its income. As a result, Pet Owner agrees that if Pet Owner solicits a Pet Care Provider to provide off-platform pet care services to Pet Owner whom Pet Owner first met and/or learned about through the Wag! platform, Wag! is entitled to charge both the Pet Owner and the Pet Care Provider a referral fee. This referral fee will be charged once per specific Pet Owner/Pet Care Provider services relationship utilized outside of the process provided for within the Wag! platform. Pet Owner’s referral fee will be $1,000. Pet Owner will first be notified in writing of Pet Owner’s obligation to pay the referral fee. Thereafter, Pet Owner hereby authorizes Wag! to charge any of your payment methods for the referral fee.
Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
#4The title should be fixed, it’s for using a provider you met through Wag.
Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
#5It's time to stop viewing contracts as an inherent good that must be obeyed, and instead as merely useful tools to help society. Until (more) limits are placed on them to protect individuals, we will continue descending deeper into a "well you agreed to it when you clicked OK" dystopia.
This certainly wouldn't be legally binding in Germany, is that actually different in the US?
Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
#6Here is the clause in Section 11: As a Pet Owner, you acknowledge that Wag! is in the business of connecting Pet Owners and Pet Care Providers, and that said business is how Wag! earns its income. As a result, Pet Owner agrees that if Pet Owner solicits a Pet Care Provider to provide off-platform pet care services to Pet Owner whom Pet Owner first met and/or learned about through the Wag! platform, Wag! is entitled t…
There's no way this is going to hold up in any kind of court. A 50-100$ fine might have flown under the radar, but 1000$ is enough incentive for taking this to a small claims court.
Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
#7If I recall correctly, when an employer signs up with a headhunter service to bring resumes, you're also agreeing to a 1 year term of exclusivity. Often resumes are shared without a name or other basic identifying information until you agree to meet with them. If you end up hiring them anytime from then to 1 year out, you pay the headhunter their fee. Seems fair, only because the headhunter needs to make a buck.
Based on neighborhood traffic on Nextdoor and Facebook, dog walking is still a "hire your neighbor's kid" market, and Wag seems to be trying to elevate it to the gig economy where dogs are walked by those that need to put food on their own table.
Headhunters don't profit forever from every job they connect their clients with, and it seems Wag is trying to get away with changing those rules.
Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
#8Here is the clause in Section 11: As a Pet Owner, you acknowledge that Wag! is in the business of connecting Pet Owners and Pet Care Providers, and that said business is how Wag! earns its income. As a result, Pet Owner agrees that if Pet Owner solicits a Pet Care Provider to provide off-platform pet care services to Pet Owner whom Pet Owner first met and/or learned about through the Wag! platform, Wag! is entitled t…
It's worse, apparently they also try to charge the walker (=contractor).
Which is a wholly different bowl of trouble. Charging the pet owner is anti-competitive unenforceable nonsense, charging the pet walker means a lawsuit for back pay and taxes given the obvious misclassification as contractors.
Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
#9I'm just imagining one of the wag investors asking "What's to stop your walker who lives nearby the dog's owner, just doing the walk independently with the person they've built trust with?"
And the answer is "you have a shitty business model and this should have killed it years ago"
Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag
#10Here is the clause in Section 11: As a Pet Owner, you acknowledge that Wag! is in the business of connecting Pet Owners and Pet Care Providers, and that said business is how Wag! earns its income. As a result, Pet Owner agrees that if Pet Owner solicits a Pet Care Provider to provide off-platform pet care services to Pet Owner whom Pet Owner first met and/or learned about through the Wag! platform, Wag! is entitled t…
There's no way this is going to hold up in any kind of court. A 50-100$ fine might have flown under the radar, but 1000$ is enough incentive for taking this to a small claims court.
> There's no way this is going to hold up in any kind of court.
The terms of service also include a binding arbitration clause. In my limited understanding (Not a lawyer), how the arbitrators come to their conclusion need not have any basis in law, and in the vast majority of cases, and will not get reexamined by a real court.
I fear there is a real possibility for someone to be forced through a Kafkaesque nightmare before this gets resolved.