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

71–80 of 111 posts

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

#71

Post by digianarchist »

rwmj wrote: post #23

I'm certainly not defending it, but these clauses can also be found in UK rental contracts made by estate agents. The clause will usually state that if you continue in the house after the term of the contract without renewing through the agency (and paying their exorbitant annual fees again) they will charge you a "finders fee" on the basis that you found the landlord through them originally. No idea on the legality…

Illegal in Wales since today.

Landlord letting fees banned in Wales to help tenants https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-49542333

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

#72

Post by heavyset_go »

bedros wrote: post #36

Homejoy the house cleaning startup has a very similar business model to Wag. and as Homejoy failed because clients would directly hire the cleaners vs going through Homejoy; Wag will be destined to the same failure unless they use scare tactics to block clients from hiring contractors directly

Then Wag will suffer the same fate as the rest of the gig economy companies: proprietors with skills/means don't need Wag to land clients, and they aren't about to give Wag the rights to their relationships with new clients, and those without skills or means will flood Wag's pool of workers.

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

#73

Post by strictnein »

caseymarquis wrote: post #69

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 co…

I thought you were joking about the $300 million, but nope:

https://news.crunchbase.com/news/wag-need-300m-softbank-walk...

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

#74

Post by breeny592 »

This falls back to the classic thing - if your market is commoditised, then your product needs to be an experience to drive your revenue. And in all likely-hood, dog walking is not an industry "ripe for disruption" with enhanced experiences. Ride sharing took off because the experience of cabs was (in my experience) pretty much universally abysmal across the globe, and Uber/Lyft etc. actually provided a service that gave you a better experience.

The reality, as the commenters said in the linked reddit discussion, is that Wag has no real way to enforce this. Unsure on laws in the USA, but that provision would be highly illegal under Australian competition laws as exclusive sourcing is a finable offence, so have to assume similar provisions exist over there too in one way or another.

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

#75

Post by crankylinuxuser »

peteretep wrote: post #55
chrisseaton wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I've found generally I can operate with almost complete trust, but there are always some bad actors AND people fuck up. Of the latter: programmer contacts me about a job I'm advertising. I tell them about the role. They want me to represent them but decide the best course of action is to apply directly to the client on their website (?!). When I find out, I contact the client and try and explain the situation. First…

TBH, the few times Ive worked with a few recruiters, they misrepresented the position they were recruiting for. Now, I'm not sure if it was a recruiter packaging the job to be 'ideal' or if it was HR having absolutely no clue what they were doing.

Never the less, when I walked in and sat down, it was nowhere near what I was expecting and what was conveyed to me.

Of course that's the worst situation. The recruiter doesn't get paid and spent time, the company wasted time, and the potential employee wasted time. But I have no issue in leaving money on the table for you if you do a good job about recruiting. And once you're paid after a year, I'll ask for a raise equal to what you got :) That tells me what they're really willing to pay for me.

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

#76

Post by paultopia »

I actually don't think this is all that bad. (I'm not sure if it would be enforceable---the classic common law rule is that liquidated damages clauses have to actually be a genuine estimate of the party's damages, not punitive... but it's also been a while since I've done contract law.)

It seems like the defense of this is fairly simple.

(1) People ought not to be able to use their matchmaking services without giving them a cut, that's shitty, and why not use contracts to enforce it---just the same as other kinds of matchmaking services, like job placement agencies, do.

(2) Also, it's probably safer for consumers to use their platform to have things like built-in verification of transactions, maybe(?) insurance(?) etc. anyway. Same reason it's a bad idea to take the AirBnB or Ebay or whomever transaction off-platform, because that's how crooks siphon away recourse for their frauds.

So why not use a little bit of coercion for everyone's good?

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

#77

Post by crankylinuxuser »

smallgovt wrote: post #56
crankylinuxuser wrote: post #16

Sigh. Did it take this long to realize that "gig economy" was all about employee arbitrage and the destruction of the bottom 1/5 of employees to 'day laborer with requirements of employees'? Uber steals tips by 'lowering pay' of a ride. Same with Lyft. Same with that food delivery service. They're all alike: 'abuse the worker cause they're here - they don't have other choices'. And all the while people "agree" to the…

The more direct solution to helping those in tough situations like you describe is enforcing stricter employee labor laws. Messing with contract law is another can of worms. There are plenty of situations between corporations or wealthy people where parties have no other reasonable choice (e.g. a fire sale of a company). That shouldn’t make contracts void.

Why "Messing with contract law", especially when it concerns a corporation to an individual, so terrible?

A company has piles of money and piles of lawyers. What do you, an individual have? You likely have a few thousand in the bank, more money locked away for old age, and can google a list of lawyers.

Point being; there is a significant power imbalance between an individual and a corporation. So absolutely yes, we as a society should be legally preventing and stopping many contracts, ToS, and other legal and quazi-legal instruments for abuses of all sorts.

That should apply from shitty Valley upstarts all the way to banking and old businesses.

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

#78

Post by perl4ever »

pj_mukh wrote: post #70
Dwolb wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

One of more of my credit cards (issued by a major bank) provides this. However, I decided to use it one day and was greeted by the message...wait for it...

"This content requires the Adobe Flash Player."

I just checked and it still does, so I have yet to try it out.

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

#79

Post by perl4ever »

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!

I usually am not given the identity of the company from a recruiter, but 95% of the time, I can find who it is with just a minute of searching, based on the language in the job description. It's pointless to take the id off when you don't rewrite the rest - and nobody has time for that.

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

#80

Post by irjustin »

Wag is sitting in the exact same space as Homejoy which has the same fundamental problem - there is a natural relationship between both sides.

Beyond discovery there is no reason to keep the relationship on the platform.

Comparisons to Uber or AirBnB don't really work here as there is no natural relationship with your Uber driver and the lack of repeat visit to the same destination keeps repeats/relationships down.

Wag is fighting a capitalistic force. Beyond the initial discovery/relationship build - once the end user and dog walker has found someone they really like, what value is being added by staying on platform?

They're just taking money...

Post reply on HN