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

51–60 of 111 posts

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

#51

Post by bitbckt »

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?

Yes.

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

#52

Post by jammygit »

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.

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

#54

Post by smallgovt »

whoisjuan wrote: post #41

Pff. I don't know what lawyers they have but they are shitty as fuck. Of course, this is 100% unenforceable. If I was hit with one of these I would immediately sue in a small claims court. Those walkers are contractors. If they want to do this type of shit and have at least a small chance to earn those fees, start by hiring them as W-2 workers with benefits. This is just hypocritical.

Why sue them? Seems like a waste of time when you can dispute the charge with your credit card company.

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

#55

Post by peteretep »

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?

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 time I've worked with the client, and after some emails, they grudgingly accept that I have the emails to prove the situation, but the candidate fucked it all up ... however, this has engendered enough shitty feeling that they decide they don't want to continue working together.

I don't get paid for most of the candidates I put forward for roles (employers want 4-5 applicants per person they hire, at least), as they don't get the roles, and can't afford to just forgive a $20,000 commission because the candidate managed to gum up the workings.

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

#56

Post by smallgovt »

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.

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

#57

Post by gridlockd »

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…

> 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 even fight it.

I think this is a case of "there is no such thing as bad publicity". I don't use Wag, but like most "gig economy" platforms, I would expect it's already thoroughly despised.

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

#58

Post by sokoloff »

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.

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

#59

Post by judge2020 »

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…

My understanding is that TOS clauses are only binding when they're things users generally know when they sign up, such as "don't hack our systems", "you dont own our stuff by using it" and other CYA clauses. The only thing I don't think this would work for is binding arbitration, but those are joined by a "this agreement contains a binding arbitration agreement you must read" line at the top of the TOS and is valid under case law.

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

#60

Post by judge2020 »

pdkl95 wrote: post #22
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…

Interesting... the arbitration clause includes a clause that might (if I recall correctly) be a response to a case where the person making the complaint ran out of money (Arbitration filing fees (and the arbitrators hourly fee) tend to be much more expensive than regular court). A higher court eventually ruled that requiring excessive fees to resolve a disagreement wasn't constitutio9nal (equal protection?), and the…

Arbitration is still not great since the arbitrator doesn't have to be anyone with a legal background (most of the time it's a retired judge though) and has a huge incentive to rule in favor of the people paying them (especially if there's a big chance wag comes back to the arbitrator for future arbitration cases)
Post reply on HN