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

91–100 of 111 posts

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

#91

Post by ggm »

DannyBee wrote: post #90
manfredo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it won't hold up. Not for legal reasons, but for economic reasons. Say they don't pay the $1,000. What is Wag going to do? Sue the customer? Wags has no collateral that they can repossess. Taking the customer to court will almost certainly cost more than $1,000. If the cost of collecting this fee is greater than the fee itself then it's not in the company's interest to enforce it when customers refuse to pay.…

Err, plenty of these agencies have enforced against their customers. They won't end up in court, but binding arbitration. They will make an example of a few people and the rest will fall in line or run away, as per usual. They are more likely to enforce against the dog walkers than random customers. The customers will not care about that enforcement, it will be relatively effective in achieving their goal, etc. In pr…

the rest will fall in line or run away

Not a lawyer, not an economist, but this feels like the law of unintended consequences writ large: Sue your customers and they run away means you have no future customer and your business tanks.

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

#92

Post by manfredo »

DannyBee wrote: post #90
manfredo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it won't hold up. Not for legal reasons, but for economic reasons. Say they don't pay the $1,000. What is Wag going to do? Sue the customer? Wags has no collateral that they can repossess. Taking the customer to court will almost certainly cost more than $1,000. If the cost of collecting this fee is greater than the fee itself then it's not in the company's interest to enforce it when customers refuse to pay.…

Err, plenty of these agencies have enforced against their customers. They won't end up in court, but binding arbitration. They will make an example of a few people and the rest will fall in line or run away, as per usual. They are more likely to enforce against the dog walkers than random customers. The customers will not care about that enforcement, it will be relatively effective in achieving their goal, etc. In pr…

A customer blocks all charges to their credit card from Wags and cancels their service. Wags issues a fine to a customer. The customer doesn't pay. Wags tries to bring the customer to arbitration. The customer gives no response. What happens then?

Wags could use a collections agency, but they'll only get a fraction of that money back. Not to mention arbitration usually costs hundreds of dollars per hour, with usually one hour (or longer) minimum, so I'm dubious they'll even bother going to arbitration.

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

#93

Post by hodgesrm »

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…

This looks analogous to the terms you sign when engaging an employment recruiting agency to find you employees. Those terms have existed for ages and there's settled law behind them. Why is finding a person to walk your dog any different?

Disclaimer : I don't have a dog in this fight though we do have a couple of cats and a small gecko.

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

#95

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

manfredo wrote: post #89
DannyBee wrote: post #81

It's really interesting to watch how much of HN armchair lawyers this and assumes it will not hold up for, well, no apparent legal reason that i can see. With my actual lawyer hat on, I'll place my bet on the other side - This is not a non-compete, and these clauses are quite commonplace in almost all placement agencies (IE nannies, employees, etc). Charging a fee to facilitate two people meeting and making a transac…

I think it won't hold up. Not for legal reasons, but for economic reasons. Say they don't pay the $1,000. What is Wag going to do? Sue the customer? Wags has no collateral that they can repossess. Taking the customer to court will almost certainly cost more than $1,000. If the cost of collecting this fee is greater than the fee itself then it's not in the company's interest to enforce it when customers refuse to pay.…

Threaten both sides with expensive litigation if they don't stop, hoping that one of them will get cold feet, forcing the other to find another customer/dog walker.

Just having the term there is enough to act as a chilling effect, which is all they need.

They might also occasionally take a customer to court, at a loss, to scare others.

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

#96

Post by 300bps »

jammygit wrote: post #52
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…

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…

When I was six I put up a sign saying my sister was stupid and then added a clause at the end, “$5 fine for touching this sign.”

She ripped the sign down and I never got my $5.

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

#97

Post by CaptainZapp »

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…

Ahh and this from the good burghers that want you to sign an NDA if they kill your dog[1]

I think their business model is wrong in more than one respect.

[1] https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/wag-killed-our-dog-and-tried-t...

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

#98

Post by jaclaz »

peteretep wrote: post #44
rwmj wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wondering how that would even work. Do they blindfold you and take you to a mystery location!?

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.

>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.

But isn't it the same for Wag?

The point is that you have two counterparts:

1) the company that could deny having actually employed your candidate but that cannot because there are records about the hiring

2) the candidate that (since he/she has nothing to loose) has no reason to deny being hired

What have Wag to actually prove that someone got again the same dog walker and that they met for the first time through Wag?

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

#99

Post by palunon »

manfredo wrote: post #89
DannyBee wrote: post #81

It's really interesting to watch how much of HN armchair lawyers this and assumes it will not hold up for, well, no apparent legal reason that i can see. With my actual lawyer hat on, I'll place my bet on the other side - This is not a non-compete, and these clauses are quite commonplace in almost all placement agencies (IE nannies, employees, etc). Charging a fee to facilitate two people meeting and making a transac…

I think it won't hold up. Not for legal reasons, but for economic reasons. Say they don't pay the $1,000. What is Wag going to do? Sue the customer? Wags has no collateral that they can repossess. Taking the customer to court will almost certainly cost more than $1,000. If the cost of collecting this fee is greater than the fee itself then it's not in the company's interest to enforce it when customers refuse to pay.…

Can't they also sue for legal fees ? (Non US non lawyer here, but in my country awarding lawyer and court fees is pretty much automatic if you win)

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

#100

Post by jdeibele »

We board our dog with somebody we used through DogVacay before it merged with Rover.

To me, there's definitely some value was added by the service by doing some screening. I didn't ever pick somebody who had no reviews. But that's valuable for the first time, worth much less afterwards. We've used 6 or 7 different "sitters" because the first, first 2, first 3, etc. were booked or not available.

Our primary sitter went private. He's got magnetic signs advertising dog sitting on his truck. He charges the same rate as when we booked through DogVacay but we pay him in cash, not via credit card on the website. I text him to see if he's available and so far he has been. I think he's less busy than he was using the website but the flip side is that he's not paying a fee so I bet he nets out better or the same. Plus he's dealing primarily with repeat customers - dogs that he's familiar with, dogs that are familiar with him.

The matching has some value. It's too bad there isn't a fair way that he could have us as a repeat customer - which is due to him being somebody we think is trustworthy - but pay less to Rover. Something like 25% (or whatever they charge) for a first-time stay, 10% for repeats.

Post reply on HN