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

Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 111 posts

Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag

#61

Post by HarryHirsch »

chrisseaton wrote: post #50
peteretep wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a recruiter. The contract is with the hiring company. Once I’ve submitted your resume to a company, with your permission, the company can’t hire you without paying me. So as long as I have your permission to put you forward for a role, and submit you to the client, you can cut me out of the process as much as you wish ... I’m still getting paid if you take the role.

Why can’t everyone operate with a bit more trust? Am I too hopeful and in reality people would try to screw you over if you were more open?

There's hundreds of people working in the same space, everyone with a time horizon no farther than the next quarter. Of course they'll rip you off.

Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag

#62

Post by tzs »

ShroudedNight wrote: post #3

Here 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…

Suppose Alice does dog walking for both Wag! and Rover. A bit of Googling suggests that many walkers are on both, similar to the way many people drive for both Uber and Lyft.

Suppose Wag! sends Alice to walk Bob's dog.

Later, Rover also sends Alice to walk Bob's dog.

It Wag! going to try to collect $1000 from Bob for this? Or will they not consider this a violation of their terms because Bob did not actually solicit Alice for walking services. Bob solicited Rover, who sent Alice.

What if Bob specifically asks Rover to send Alice?

Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag

#63

Post by zuminator »

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #30
ShroudedNight wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I am also not a lawyer, and wonder how far arbitration stretches: If an anbiter determines that damages are owed, and the person doesn't pay, does that dealing with that revert to the courts? Who enforces the arbitration -- The police? If an arbiter makes a decision which is clearly illegal, will a court refuse to enforce it?

IANAL but my understanding in my state is that the prevailing party will go to court and file a petition to confirm the arbitration award. The result of that is a judgment that is legally enforceable. Or conversely the loser can petition the court to vacate the arbitration award if they believe it to be unreasonable.

Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag

#64

Post by chiph »

chrisseaton wrote: post #12
BooneJS wrote: post #7

If 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. Base…

> Seems fair, only because the headhunter needs to make a buck. Seems like a relationship built on deep mutual mistrust! I spoke to a recruiter once who wouldn't tell me the company she was hiring for, presumably to stop me going directly. But it was a ludicrous situation because of course I'm not going to agree to spend my time interviewing with an unknown company!

Ask what industry the client is in. The recruiter will often give you that, which ought to tell you enough to identify them. Or if you sound self-assured and confident, they'll just tell you the name of the client. If you can't even get the industry out of them, pull your resume and terminate your relationship with the recruiter. "Not confident in your firm placing me with a quality firm"

Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag

#65

Post by megaremote »

sokoloff wrote: post #58
crispyporkbites wrote: post #43

Do people really let strangers walk their dogs? It’s crazy, my dog is my best friend, there’s no way I’m trusting a random person with his life. If I can’t find someone to take care of him, I change my plans. If you can’t prioritise your dog you shouldn’t have one.

When we both worked, we had a dog walking service. It was the same walkers over and over (changing rarely), vetted by the agency, but essentially strangers to us. I think it’s extremely common.

I don't understand? Walking a dog is not a fulltime job. Not sure how you could work, and still not have time to walk a dog?

Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag

#66

Post by sokoloff »

megaremote wrote: post #65
sokoloff wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we both worked, we had a dog walking service. It was the same walkers over and over (changing rarely), vetted by the agency, but essentially strangers to us. I think it’s extremely common.

I don't understand? Walking a dog is not a fulltime job. Not sure how you could work, and still not have time to walk a dog?

I’m not sure what’s not to understand.

We would leave for work in mornings and return in the evening and didn’t feel it was appropriate to leave our dog home alone for 8-9 hours without a walk (social contact and the bathroom as well).

Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag

#67

Post by oldandtired »

chrisseaton wrote: post #12
BooneJS wrote: post #7

If 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. Base…

> Seems fair, only because the headhunter needs to make a buck. Seems like a relationship built on deep mutual mistrust! I spoke to a recruiter once who wouldn't tell me the company she was hiring for, presumably to stop me going directly. But it was a ludicrous situation because of course I'm not going to agree to spend my time interviewing with an unknown company!

As a contractor, I worked with the same group of recruiters for well over a decade. They were always forthcoming with who and what. I had only one problem in all that time and that was, in effect, my stuff-up. I had my resume in for the same position via my normal process and also via one directly to the company in question. I hadn't taken notice of this and when I found out, I apologised and withdraw my direct application. In that particular case, I didn't get the work. But I attributed that to my failure.

Otherwise, I found that working with the specific recruiting company to be beneficial to myself with them getting their ongoing cut of the business.

Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag

#68

Post by jasonjayr »

gridlockd wrote: post #57
jammygit wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been waiting for this sort of thing. Naturally, since a TOS represents informed consent and is somehow a legally binding contract, then the next innovation is to add financial terms to them. Hopefully, such a company will push the boundary so far that the entire world of TOS will be overturned by some court decision. Imagine walking into a mall and ending up consenting by accident to the tos nonsense we have now…

> a TOS represents informed consent and is somehow a legally binding contract Not necessarily. If you bury surprising stuff like this in the TOS, it's likely not enforceable. The court knows that nobody reads these endless TOS anyway and would likely rule the clause "unreasonable". However, it can still work as a means of intimidation. Also, let's imagine Wag actually tried to collect those 1000$, some people may not…

People would fight $1000.

If they wanted to hide a surprise fee like that, and hoped folks would let it slide, they should have kept it under $100.

Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag

#69

Post by caseymarquis »

This points to a basic issue with Wag's business model. If 'contractors' have an incentive to take on clients directly and cut out Wag, then they will do so. You can't stop that with an unenforcable TOS, because they're contractors. What a normal business would do at that point is admit Uber for dog walking was a bad idea, implement a reasonable finders fee system and pivot to connecting/reviewing/vetting/handling contracts/payments for owners and walkers. The business would be worth X to XX million dollars and everyone would be happy.

Wag, however, has over 300 million dollars in funding. So they're probably @#$%ed.

Here's an idea for a startup, 'Uber for Uber for X'.

How many times have you acquired 300 million dollars in funding only to realize you missed a silly detail that will bankrupt your overvalued Uber for X startup? Never again!

Now anyone can easily build their own Uber for X in days! Use our centralized customer network for immediate network effects! As the network was the only real value your sheisty middleman-ware provided anyway, you're obviously now a contractor. If it turns out we don't add value to your Uber for X experience, taking on customers directly will of course result in a hefty fine. It's buried in the TOS because it's legally unenforceable, but we'll still try to bill you anyway!

Uber for Uber for X. Overvalued since 2019.

Re: Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag

#70

Post by pj_mukh »

Dwolb wrote: post #45
ShroudedNight wrote: post #3

Here 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…

Just a side comment: this is one reason why I love virtual credit cards. In this way, you can create rules for businesses who levy overzealous extra charges and price increases.

What’s a good service for this?
Post reply on HN