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

81–90 of 111 posts

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

#81

Post by DannyBee »

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 transaction is perfectly normal, and I'm not aware of any court striking them down. In fact, the opposite - i'm aware of plenty of court cases of employers recovering placement fees, etc, from employees, for example.

The only prohibition i'm aware of in california is payment of fees to unlicensed real estate agents for things licensed real estate agents would normally do.

The only interesting restriction you will find on recovery is whether the agency (wag here) was compliant with relveant licensing/etc statutes, and whether the two people actually met using wag.

If they did, ...

Folks are welcome to meet through other means, and it does not restrict anyone working for anyone.

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

#82

Post by duxup »

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…

It's an interesting setup. Wag sort of "owns" that relationship in a way....

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

#83

Post by jessedhillon »

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?

Privacy does exactly this: https://privacy.com/

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

#84

Post by whoisjuan »

smallgovt wrote: post #54
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.

That’s not the issue. Even if my credit card company reverses the charge, Wag could still seek for payment and send the charge to a collections agency, possibly affecting my credit score.

If you sue and win they have to annul the charge. You also create precedence which is crucial in American Law jurisprudence. $1000 USD is a significant amount of money for many people.

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

#85

Post by takeda »

tzs wrote: post #62
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…

I don't think it is enforceable...

Also how would Wag know that you privately made an arrangement with Alice?

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

#86

Post by steviecleveland »

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…

Just like Wag!, you're not wrong, you're just wrong.

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

#87

Post by yumraj »

strictnein wrote: post #73
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...

Jeffrey Housenbold, of Vision fund and Hilary Schneider, CEO of Wag both went to HBS.

Maybe they knew each other from before. Connections do work...

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

#88

Post by mistersquid »

takeda wrote: post #85
tzs wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think it is enforceable... Also how would Wag know that you privately made an arrangement with Alice?

If the company has an industry-disrupting feature whereby they are able to locate and follow a canine (or its owner) wherever it might go, they could name that feature “Tail”.

This would mean they could get proof of referral by Wag tailing the dog…

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

#89

Post by manfredo »

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. The result is that the fee effectively becomes optional.

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

#90

Post by DannyBee »

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.…

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 practice, they will most likely use this clause to prevent organized abuse, etc.

Remember also that you agree upfront to let them charge you. So it is going to be you who has to try to get the money back. (You will not likely win a CC dispute here)

Post reply on HN