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

Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

chaseoptout.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 246 posts

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#221

Post by ForHackernews »

rkhassen wrote: post #104

For me the red flag is them willing to send this letter to Chase, via snail mail at no charge to you. Nobody gives something for nothing. So I thought, why would they do this? after reading through the form, at the bottom, it looks like one of the companies, who sponsors this site, "Radvocate" seems like they are in the "class action" lawsuit business. https://myradvocate.com/ This site is about having enough potenti…

> This site is about having enough potential clients are able to sue Chase at some point in the future

...that sounds good to me! I certainly don't have the resources to take Chase to court myself, and who knows, maybe the existence of this class-action-in-waiting will keep Chase from being as shady.

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#222

Post by raxxorrax »

kileywm wrote: post #23

I just want to point out that, as a user, opting out of this portion of Chase's agreement could result in Chase deciding to close your account. Not advocating what course of action to take, but merely pointing out that there is risk associated with this action. That being said, I have read through the email from Chase, and there is nothing that explicitly states that they will close it as a result of the user opting…

Maybe you should close your account if you feel threatened by behavior that could lead them to do so. Better cut ties immediately.

This is disgraceful behavior from a bank and they also made clear that they tend to close accounts for arbitrary reasons.

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#224

Post by vmurthy »

gricardo99 wrote: post #101
zbruhnke wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately this is the problem that Chase created ... we give users a way to download a form letter instead, but were just trying to make it as easy as possible for customers to opt out if they would like to do so

>we give users a way to download a form letter instead But you don't just let them download it. You make them give you their email address first. Edit: Haha! No wait, you have to click through two levels of "Don't want to give us your info? Click here to get the letter". The first one asks for you email, only after the second do you actually get the letter. Why? They already said "dont want to...". Just give it to th…

> Haha! No wait, you have to click through two levels of "Don't want to give us your info? Click here to get the letter". The first one asks for you email, only after the second do you actually get the letter. Why? They already said "dont want to...". Just give it to them!

Yeah. That got me a bit irritated. Here's the form without having to give any info : https://www.chaseoptout.com/ChaseOptOut.pdf

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#225

Post by trentmb »

mjkornbl wrote: post #127
rkhassen wrote: post #104

For me the red flag is them willing to send this letter to Chase, via snail mail at no charge to you. Nobody gives something for nothing. So I thought, why would they do this? after reading through the form, at the bottom, it looks like one of the companies, who sponsors this site, "Radvocate" seems like they are in the "class action" lawsuit business. https://myradvocate.com/ This site is about having enough potenti…

Radvocate here: We do have a vested interest. Over time, we want to be the place you come when you have a dispute against a big company because we'll fight hard for you. We're excited to partner on this project partly because it is very "on brand" for us from that perspective — we can help people, get our name out there, and shine light on an issue that matters to us. We're a business, but we're also all in this busi…

I hold PoA for my father- what's the best way, using this form, to say they're his accounts, but I'm the one filing the letter on his behalf?

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#226

Post by trentmb »

rkhassen wrote: post #142
mjkornbl wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radvocate here: We do have a vested interest. Over time, we want to be the place you come when you have a dispute against a big company because we'll fight hard for you. We're excited to partner on this project partly because it is very "on brand" for us from that perspective — we can help people, get our name out there, and shine light on an issue that matters to us. We're a business, but we're also all in this busi…

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…

> Also, Radvocate, wondering if you can address the PII concerns other's have raised, as that is a very big deal.

For credit cards at least, you aren't giving any more information to them than you would any random website where you make a purchase.

Less, even, as there's no expiration date or CVV.

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#227

Post by stickdogg »

mjkornbl wrote: post #139
pkfrank wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bravo. In my view, this connection and upside was made appropriately-clear in the "Who are you and why did you build this?" section, and the context from the logo attached to the site. Very clever marketing, good on you for managing this, and I hope you see a great return for your efforts.

Thanks – I'm glad you have a long-standing comment history so this doesn't look like I made you up ;-)

Lol. That was good reframing. The first comment had me leaning in the direction of not siding with Radvocate.

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#229

Post by solarkraft »

Nition wrote: post #207
mirimir wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. But they've never posted very frequently. So maybe this is just an important issue for them. Also, are baseless allegations OK here?

Well, personally my guess is that it's actually a legitimate user since the username is based on their real name, and they've linked to their Twitter account in the past. It'd be pretty silly to sell an account so closely linked to your identity. Unless it was hacked and sold without the user's knowledge I guess.

Plus it'd be really stupid for the buyer to mention it. How about stopping this thread derailment?

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#230

Post by solarkraft »

gricardo99 wrote: post #214
mjkornbl wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think you've come close to adequately addressing the PII issue here. The information you're collecting, if it ends up in the wrong hands, could lead to some nightmarish identity theft. Surely you're aware of massive and prevalent data breaches[1]. You're collecting sensitive information to help people, but not providing any convincing bonafides on information security, let alone an actual plan for how sensiti…

How would you do any of this without collecting that data? They're lawyers, how else would you deal in a client's name in the legal system?
Post reply on HN