18 ms·

How I Got my $3500 Camera Kit Stolen on KitSplit

• usaphp 7y ago
  From KitSplit Q&A post [1]: > "they appreciate the peace of mind they get because KitSplit vets everyone who joins, and assures that everything on the platform is covered." > However, we know that sometimes things go wrong, and we’re not taking any chances with expensive camera gear. That’s why we vet everyone on the platform to make sure they are who they say they are, and make sure that every piece of gear rented via KitSplit is fully insured. [1] - https://medium.com/@VeriduHQ/a-short-q-a-with-kitsplit-and-some-puppies-187ff7311541 https://medium.com/@VeriduHQ/a-short-q-a-with-kitsplit-and-s...
• msie 7y ago
  This is horrible. Hopefully KitSplit goes out of business soon. What’s the use of the company? Might as well lend out gear through Craigslist. Too many companies relying on the honour system.
  • mars4rp 7y ago
    no, so many companies are there to collect the omission without the burden of dealing with consequences. No skin in the game. if they rent out their own gears they go out of business soon, but it is okay to lose someone else's property without any downside. It works I win, it doesn't you lose!
  • jdreyfuss 7y ago
    These kinds of sites are exactly that: niche Craigslists. Since they are marketplaces, they see their job as connecting two groups that want to engage with each other (in this case, camera owners and people who want to rent a camera), and anything beyond connecting people has nothing to do with them. It's best to think of these kind of sites as digital telephone poles with flyers and act accordingly, but it's hard when, in an attempt to grow their user base, they exaggerate the value they offer and make people think they're safer or getting more out of them than they really offer. Those kind of tactics deserve to be called out
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• g_sch 7y ago
  This seems to be a general problem across the peer-to-peer rental industry. My friend had her car stolen while renting it out on Getaround and ended up in a similar situation. These things seem to come and go in cycles. Airbnb and Uber faced several similar trust & safety issues of their own before they started building in much stronger safety and insurance protections and, crucially, convincing their customer base to continue trusting them. Now that their hard work has once again given people confidence in the P2P rental model, these upstarts are swooping in with none of the protections and reaping the benefits.
  • turdnagel 7y ago
    The same kind of issues can't possibly apply to Airbnb, because no one can steal your house and run away with it. "Voluntary Parting" is the unfortunate case that is difficult to cover with insurance, unless Kitsplit decides to put aside money in the bank to cover these costs themselves. And Uber doesn't rent, so I don't think it's a 1:1 comparison here.
    • maxerickson 7y ago
      It's easy to an incredible amount of damage to a property. For example, close a drain and turn on a faucet.
    • codyb 7y ago
      Then they also need departments for checking the authenticity of the claims as well. Insurance isn’t easy.
    • rickyc091 7y ago
      Well, there have been stories where folks clear out the apartment completely or significantly damage the apartments. A quick search for "airbnb stolen property" on Google will yield a few results.
    • bluedino 7y ago
      The comparison would be with Turo, and stealing a car is grand theft auto so the cops would at least pretentd to care.
• hawkesnest 7y ago
  I can guarantee you that if I saw something stolen from me on CL I'd be certain to reclaim my gear. One way or another.
  • save_ferris 7y ago
    FYI, OJ Simpson went to prison for stealing back memorabilia he claimed was stolen from him, just in case you're insinuating you'd do the same.
    • jstarfish 7y ago
      There have also been cases of people getting murdered while trying to reclaim their lost/stolen iPhones.
      • benatkin 7y ago
        It isn't surprising. I think loss aversion kicks in here. The phone they stole doesn't rightfully belong to them, but they possessed it, so to lose it, not only does the total worth of their possessions decrease, they also have to deal with the blow of a loss, psychologically. So their anger is in full force and they're willing to go beyond how far they usually go, which is pretty far, given that they're stealing iPhones. Here's a story I found. I remember reading it. Tragic. :( https://www.theverge.com/2015/6/18/8809741/teenager-murdered-tracking-lost-smartphone https://www.theverge.com/2015/6/18/8809741/teenager-murdered...
    • mullen 7y ago
      Guns were involved, that is why OJ went to jail. If OJ walked in to the room without guns or "muscle", saw his stuff, then walked out and called the police, he would have been okay.
      • ghostbrainalpha 7y ago
        I'm in Las Vegas and followed it fairly closely because I have friends in the DA's office. It was even worse than that, OJ is truly beyond redemption. Every effort has been made to protect him from the system and his brain just can't process decisions correctly. I'd bet everything I own that his autopsy will show serious CTE issues, and that he will be back in prison within the year.
• shereadsthenews 7y ago
  When Pro Camera Rental still existed in SF, you left a deposit of the full value of the hardware you were renting.
  • dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    This is how all the free specialty tools rentals at the auto parts stores works. You don't have to bring it back unless you want your money back.
• css 7y ago
  Looks like Medium is down right now.
  • lol768 7y ago
    Images are struggling to load for me. Is this the behaviour you're seeing, or is it just completly broken?
    • css 7y ago
      Oops! Something happened to Medium. Please try that again in a moment. Gateway time-out The web server reported a gateway time-out error. Ray ID: 4ec8cda57a74d38a Your IP address: x.x.x.x Error reference number: 504 Cloudflare Location: Los Angeles
  • shereadsthenews 7y ago
    The amazing part is how they serve you the full content of the article but then fail to serve their javascript that would allow you to SCROLL DOWN and read it.
    • fabiensanglard 7y ago
      What a sad world that you need javascript to scroll down a page now.
  • fivefive55 7y ago
    Weirdly enough it works for me from Edge but not Chrome.
  • 3JPLW 7y ago
    Cache/mirror for now: http://archive.is/6ipJB http://archive.is/6ipJB
• slap_shot 7y ago
  I can't really even explain how upset this makes me. I live in Brooklyn (where Kristina lives, and from where KitSplit operates). What can I do to help this situation? I'll do anything I can to help shine light on this company and fraud that their platform is facilitating. I'm not a fan of the call out culture, but I really want to see KitSplit take some action and fix this problem.
  • heliodor 7y ago
    The core problem seems to be false advertising. It would be great for the author to take the company to small claims court and try to address that. However, a class-action lawsuit to address all the wronged people would probably just bankrupt the company. The hurt people would not receive restitution. The founders would not receive any punishment. They would just lose the easy stream of future income they currently enjoy. Stopping a bad company from doing further harm is worthwhile though. Calling out is exactly what's needed here. Our society and technology are at a point where it is easy for bad actors to cause damage, relocate, and repeat. Exposing them and shutting down their future opportunities is exactly what's necessary. Back in the days of small villages, everyone knew everyone's reputation and that provided a barrier against fraud. Unfortunately, our current legal framework prevents any company from offering a reputation platform because they would get sued out of existence with libel claims. Investors aren't very interested in the morality (or even legal technicalities) of the products in which they invest, as long as they make some money on their investments. Calling the founder out will slow her down in any future grey-zone endeavors but won't stop her completely.
    • robocat 7y ago
      > Back in the days of small villages, everyone knew everyone's reputation and that provided a barrier against fraud. Surely there were also small villages where most commit fraud too? "Cheat and Grudger are an ESS" in The Selfish Gene.
  • danielfoster 7y ago
    What I found most shocking is that if KitSplit claims that less than 0.1% of rentals result in voluntary parting, why not cover this person's losses? Maybe covering voluntary parting would result in too many fraudulent claims. If that's the case, they should clearly explain that theft is not covered and perhaps offer an insurance supplement.
• datapolitical 7y ago
  A great example of why tech needs regulation. Normal people get hurt when risks aren’t disclosed in an effective manner. You should absolutely file a class action lawsuit and I bet they’ll settle just to avoid the bad press. If this crappy, unethical business practice becomes widely known I doubt people will keep using them.
• news_to_me 7y ago
  > If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. For this reason, don’t trust a company with a trust page. A true sign of what the Web has become
  • function_seven 7y ago
    It's a corollary of the common line, “at $COMPANY, we take $ISSUE very seriously.” A phrase that usually means they don't take $ISSUE seriously at all! Or at least, they didn't. Which is why they're saying it.
• pvaldes 7y ago
  Treat it as anything stolen. Go to the police with the serial number of your camera and any proof of your property like photos, videos or so. Exiftool is your friend. They probably will discover a vault of many other stolen objects in the same place.
  • bluedino 7y ago
    He did. The cops don't care because it's only $3,500 in equipment.
    • tempestn 7y ago
      Varies based on the police department, but once it showed up on craigslist that might have been enough to get them to act. They're not going to waste a bunch of resources investigating, but they might get involved if they can just show up at the thief's house.
    • pvaldes 7y ago
      Hum, lets imagine for a second, theoretically that somebody wants to do something illegal (photos of industrial trade secrets, or pictures of children porn for example), but don't has a camera, or don't want to use their own camera by fear of being caught; so calls a friend and borrows his camera. I assume that the owner would have a hard time explaining why he gave a 3500 dollars camera full of their fingerprints and ADN to a perfect stranger just because. Would have luck if can prove that was not a necessary collaborator in a crime. But if the procedure is done through KitSplit, would be this (I repeat, hypothetical scenery) a different situation from a legal point of view?
  • scott_s 7y ago
    As explained in the piece, the law does not consider the act stealing but voluntary parting, making it a civil matter. The author did go to the police and their insurance company, and both said the same thing. I think this issue kills KitSplit as a service.
    • microtherion 7y ago
• lol768 7y ago
  Another interesting discussion thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332918
  • voodoochicken 7y ago
    The person in that thread was compensated, hopefully that happens here too.
• daveslash 7y ago
  Am I the only one who is irritated with the typos, misspellings, and grammatical errors in the KitSplit screenshots he shared? Things like "When renters rent your gear, they're also required to use a credit card which and we use to secure payment processor that includes fraud protection services." -- note the "which and we"*. There are several of these. It just strikes me as a hobbled together startup; that would be a red flag to me. That said, I know it's unreasonable to expect users to comb through all of the documentation looking for such things.... Although un-hopeful, I do hope this guy gets his gear/money back.
  • benatkin 7y ago
    No, I'm annoyed by it as well. To me it makes it harder not to think of KitSplit as acting in bad faith. When the company that's supposed to deal with bad actors is itself a bad actor, how likely are they to deal with bad actors effectively?
• gingabriska 7y ago
  How come a company doesn't require enough enough from the scammers to track them down and get the camera back? This company is literally doing nothing to help them. I feel so sad looking at this entire thing, not only he lost his camera but also wasted so much time with zero support offered by the company.
  • cpach 7y ago
    I’m not sure it would help in this case; seems like the fraudster used a stolen identity.
• intsunny 7y ago
  The text on the trust page linked in the article https://kitsplit.com/trust https://kitsplit.com/trust, does not specifically protect the equipment lender: > KitSplit Short Term Insurance and Damage Coverage Options: > Accidents happen, but on KitSplit you are always covered. Owners: rest assured that we require renters to purchase insurance, a damage waiver, or leave a full deposit. Renters: you have the choice of three kinds of coverage: you can purchase short-term coverage through our site, you can upload a certificate of insurance, or you can leave a deposit for the value of the equipment. Read more about coverage here.
  • holografix 7y ago
    Wow this is so misleading.
  • jjoonathan 7y ago
    > Owners: rest assured that we require renters to purchase insurance, a damage waiver, or leave a full deposit. I'm sure they have their loopholes in order, but damn this is deceptive.
    • jjwhitaker 7y ago
      So they have one of the following: 1. Certification of renters insurance with the renters information, which if fake is fraud. 2. A waiver of some kind covering damage to the item, probably out of pocket I-accept-all-risk type signed by the renter, which if fake is fraud. 3. Full deposit of the rented gear to payout to the owner if lost/stolen/damaged, which if declined may be fraud or at least grounds to stop the transaction and protect the owner. Meaning there is either enough info to find the renter at least for a civil suite or there is fraud. Who is liable for fraud here? Legally I'm not sure but based on the reply and posturing from KitSplit I'd say they are. Based on this info I'm not going to use or advocate their platform. It looks like the renter went for the deposit option but the transaction was declined. Kitsplit should have stopped the transaction there, minimum. One can't claim to be 99.99% perfect then do nothing in response to the .01% where clients lose thousands from theft on a a technicality.
• ArchReaper 7y ago
  This is pretty bad on KitSplit's part. How can they even advertise that the owner is covered by a full deposit if the owner doesn't get compensated with it upon theft? That's blatant misleading advertising, hope this blows up on them.
  • ddalex 7y ago
    I guess with a high profile link from HN to Medium indexed by Google, and future owner will see the red flags from a mile away... KitSplit is as good as dead right now.
    • jakelazaroff 7y ago
      Unfortunately unlikely. This exact scenario has happened before, except on a prominent photography publication instead of Medium: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332918
      • Nrsolis 7y ago
        It's going to keep happening until someone takes them to court. I hate to say it but unless you're bound by an arbitration agreement in the terms of service you should just file in small claims. Even still...file in small claims and make them fight to have the case sent to arbitration. Lawyers are expensive and you won't need one in small claims. Sometimes the process is the punishment.
        • rhino369 7y ago
          Arbitration clauses are pretty good for consumers for small injustices. KitSplit can't litigate an arbitration for even $35,000 dollars, let alone $3,500.
      • ddalex 7y ago
        > We also provided Peter reimbursement for the camera, and are seeking additional reimbursement via collections. So it died at that point because they reimbursed the owner. This is their only way out at this point. But they took the high ground this time, and it's likely that the bad press will grow until they will compensate the unlucky chap to make this disappear as well.
• holografix 7y ago
  This is absolutely fucked. Surely they can be sued for something. If you setup a go fund me I’ll put some cash in.
• dopamean 7y ago
  How is kitsplit different from renting out your gear to random people on the street? They seem to provide no actual service and definitely not the most important one: security of your gear. What a waste of a company.
  • 300bps 7y ago
    What a waste of a company. Worse than a waste - their wording gives a false sense of security where none should exist.
    • ddalex 7y ago
      Considering that they brag about blocking 99.99% of frauds, and still there are so many cases of stolen property happening on their site - it seems that the 99.99% number is an exaggeration. As such, they are obviously deceiving the owners through misrepresentation of what they do. Second, they have automated emails for dealing with "voluntary parting" furthermore suggesting this is not an isolated occurrence. I'm just saying - if I'd want to make off with tons of equipment, one novel idea for me would be to set up a legitimate private marketplace, fake renter info, send an acolyte to pick up the equipment, and then deny all responsibility. But never subscribe to malice what is explainable through incompetence and so on.
    • munk-a 7y ago
      I think it's bordering on conspiracy to commit theft honestly. "Setting up a marketplace" is this jargon that's thrown around and promotes all sorts of libretarian and free market connotations, but this company has clearly not done the ground work to actually establish a safe marketplace. It's like running a flea market but occasionally getting raided by a gang that steals everyone's stuff, if that happens three times and you continue to operate the market without addressing the issue... you're clearly not an honest operator.
  • rhino369 7y ago
    A marketplace for connecting renters and owners is valuable. Their real issue is that their marketing essentially says they cover stolen gear, but their fine print says they don't. That's no bueno.
• bocklund 7y ago
  The odd thing to me is how this is considered voluntary parting. Presumably you could show that, through KitSplit, the renter and owner entered into a legal contract. Maybe this is the true problem with the gig economy. If I rented a car/phone/computer/camera directly from any legitimate company, you can bet that the police and lawyers wouldn't consider that <legitimate company> voluntarily parted with their property.
  • ikeboy 7y ago
    Who has been arrested for failing to return a rental?
    • ceejayoz 7y ago
      https://setexasrecord.com/stories/511403204-physician-s-suit-targeting-avis-alleges-car-rental-company-brought-false-grand-theft-auto-charges-against-him https://setexasrecord.com/stories/511403204-physician-s-suit... https://6abc.com/business/hertz-customers-arrested-after-vehicles-mistakenly-reported-stolen/3487977/ https://6abc.com/business/hertz-customers-arrested-after-veh...
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    • ptyyy 7y ago
      https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/man-arrested-for-not-returning-freddy-got-fingered-vhs-from-2002/177186020 https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/man-arrested-for-not-retur...
      • astronautjones 7y ago
        a classic of the genre
  • cpach 7y ago
    In the article it says that “(...) [Kitsplit] worked with the NYPD and law enforcement authorities to recover stolen and missing gear in cases where the equipment value is $200,000 or more”. Maybe it varies between different police departments, but I’m quite sure many departments won’t spend time investigating someone with a faked identity that steals a single computer and similar.
• onemoresoop 7y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if KitSplit knew all along about all the loopholes and are as a matter of fact acting on it themselves. Find gullible victims, send someone to pick equipment, and you know the rest. When the image becomes really bad they close shop. If the insurance was paying they would be investigated eventually but they do know legally nobody can get them. And I expect to see all kinds of modern ways of theft popping up everywhere.
  • TomVDB 7y ago
    You wouldn't be surprised if KitSplit was a criminal enterprise from the bottom up???
    • onemoresoop 7y ago
      I wouldnt be. Im not surprised by anything anymore. But here I’m just speculating. Today I heard of KitSplit for the first time and will not touch them with a ten foot pole.
    • Analemma_ 7y ago
      Sure. After Theranos, we now know that "startups which are fraudulent ab initio" certainly aren't outside the realm of possibility.
  • supergauntlet 7y ago
    Of course they are. You think they raised 2.1 million in their seed round and didn't pay for any lawyers? A lawyer 100% told some exec how to craft their legalese to appear to cover theft, but would not actually make KitSplit liable in the event of said theft. Hanlon's razor doesn't apply here. Never assume these companies, which have all the facts and all the cards stacked in their favor, are acting out of incompetence or obliviousness. They know. They also know they won't be held accountable. The last time (7 months ago) KitSplit pulled this, they paid out to the guy who got his stuff stolen and everyone quieted down. That's just the cost of doing business.
• holografix 7y ago
  Hope the founders get inundated with questions about this on Twitter where they are very vocal. Anyone using their services need to be made aware that you’re basically donating your camera gear to anyone who might rob you.
• natrik 7y ago
  Still no compensation offer from the CEO/Co-founder Lisbeth Kaufman https://medium.com/p/4530d0062e60/responses/show https://medium.com/p/4530d0062e60/responses/show https://medium.com/@lisbethkaufman_82625/im-one-of-the-cofounders-of-kitsplit-and-i-wanted-to-respond-to-this-personally-29aded237f7e https://medium.com/@lisbethkaufman_82625/im-one-of-the-cofou... She also claims their assessment of people signing up to KitSplit is effective at blocking 99.99% of bad actors and stopping millions of dollars of theft on the platform, almost surely an exaggeration.
  • heliodor 7y ago
    What a tone-deaf response from the cofounder! The article paints in painful detail how the website claims one thing and the contractual terms do the opposite, resulting in the user being suckered by fine print. Literally, this is a problem of false advertising. Instead of proper fixes to the problem, they will add more fine print and more reasons to rub it in your face when your gear gets stolen.
    • theturtletalks 7y ago
      Yes, her response seems to assure people the company is legit, not actually trying to help the person in need. Shows a lot about the company.
  • iooi 7y ago
    > We have 6 different FAQs that warn KitSplit users about the risk of voluntary parting. Ouch, so this isn't the first person to get bit by this on KitSplit, just the first one to get traction. These companies need to get called out way more.
    • Beefin 7y ago
      How can consumers review/evaluate platforms like this? Is there a Yelp meets Crunchbase for companies that operate worldwide?
      • 7y ago
• onemoresoop 7y ago
  They seem legit because they have a public facing, and are bamboozling the owners, make them feel safe (who reads the find print and the legalese anyway) when in fact they are just like any random guy on the street. Who knows, maybe that was the whole business plan, make profits, when image becomes really bad close shop. Crazy profits. They are setup legally quite well, they basically risk nothing.
  • hrktb 7y ago
    I think the worst part is, even reading all the legalese, one can come under the impression it’s a legit company that tried to cover their users and will genuinely help in case of trouble.
    • TylerE 7y ago
      "Please note, however, that the insurance accepted on KitSplit is industry standard equipment rental insurance and does not cover some rare instances, such as if a renter commits fraud. These instances are extremely rare on KitSplit and happen less than 0.1% of the time, but we recommend that owners get their own annual policy with voluntary parting coverage in addition to the insurance provided by the renter." Seems pretty clear to me that you are not in fact covered.
      • aerophilic 7y ago
        An interesting note here: 0.1% is 1 out of every 1000. This is not a insubstantially small number. This becomes even more alarming if it is rentals rather than “vetted parties”. Seems like they should have a better process for this not so rare case.
        • rebuilder 7y ago
          Taking that number at face value, it means that total revenue for renting 3500 USD worth of gear for 70 bucks a pop 1000 times is, statistically, 7000 USD. If KitSplit takes 22%, that leaves 5850 USD, and since the expectation is to lose the gear, that leaves 2350 USD in expected profit. Which is, I think, rather less than their users expect. Edit: whoops, total revenue should be 70 k. Kind of a different result.
• KukicAdnan 7y ago
  "If a renter does not return equipment, and it has not been stolen or lost, it's called voluntary parting." I just don't understand this line of thinking at all. You rent something out for a specific and agreed upon period of time. The person decides to keep the thing you rented out. And it's not theft? Also how is it not lost?
  • rhino369 7y ago
    I think it's an insurance term that separates out two different risk profiles. Random theft (breaking into a car, pick pocketing, etc.) is a fairly low and known risk. It's therefore easy to ensure. But if you rent your camera out every day, eventually some fraudster will steal it by not returning it. And the risk of that happening likely depends on how well the renter is screening prospective renters. That makes it tough to insure. KikSplit says its a 1/1000 occurrence, but you can't just charge a .1% premium because if KikSplit does a shitty job of keeping out fraudsters, then it might be 2/100. Things that are tough to insure are expensive to insure.
  • benatkin 7y ago
    I think the idea was that the author of the post voluntarily handed it to the scumbag. They use the term parting because it doesn't carry the connotations that lended or gave do. However, nothing appeared to be amiss until he didn't return it, so until he didn't return it, it was voluntary. Since that was long past the in-person interaction, the parting during the in-person interaction could be considered voluntary. It would be interesting if someone stole for the first time like this. They could decide first to take the chance to steal it, and once they have the potentially stolen goods, decide whether or not to return it. Then the moment where they became a thief would be a fuzzy period of time between the time it was agreed to return it to the time he sold the equipment to a third party.
    • KukicAdnan 7y ago
      But I don't see how it was "voluntary." There must have been some agreed upon contract through KitSplit right that makes this not a voluntary but a business-type transaction where the rules are clearly stated: You paid $X, and you get Y for an agreed amount of time. If you don't pay, you don't get it, if you don't return within the timeframe agreed you're in breach of said contract.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• boyadjian 7y ago
  Renting is a profession. Strange world nowadays, where everybody thinks he can make anything, just because "There is an application for that".
• ikeboy 7y ago
  This is what small claims court is for. The contract might not be enforceable if they have other text on their website saying otherwise. Worth trying to get a judge to agree with you for $3500.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• _bxg1 7y ago
  The silicon valley of today is nothing more than a haven for fly-by-night, under-regulated capitalism. Usually there's a bit of software sprinkled on top. Most of these companies aren't innovating in technology at all, they're innovating in gaming the economy for their own enrichment.
• maverick2007 7y ago
  I'm curious at what point it makes sense for them to just pay out the $3430 difference to make this story have a happy ending. I'm a photographer that would love to make a little extra cash or to rent a lens from someone else through this service but I never will because of how poorly they handled this whereas if they had owned up and made it right instead of hiding behind legalese I probably would be more likely to use it. At what point it how many lost users like me does it take to make paying out cheaper than loss of business?
  • yellowarchangel 7y ago
    There is absolutely no way the bad press they're getting is worth saving a measly 3430. HOWEVER, from this 1 point alone (and the thread from last year about the same issue with kitsplit), we can deduce that kitsplit probably has enough thefts that they can't afford to "pay off" all the people being stolen from. Their claim that "99.99% of people aren't scammed" seems awfully smelly, as they could use their modest 20% cut from rentings to pay off all the people who are stolen from.
• iooi 7y ago
  So if KitSplit explicitly absolves itself from liability, what is the benefit of that platform over Craigslist? At least with CL you wouldn't have to pay KitSplit a fee. Their fees certainly aren't going towards liability insurance or fraud detection, so what are they doing with those fees? I bet the fraud rate at KitSplit is going to go up after this post. Now you have a list of people that will wake up at 7am to hand over $4k of gear to you, knowing that KitSplit won't do anything and neither will law enforcement. Just remember to cancel your credit card and you'll make a quick $2k! In all seriousness, if KitSplit wanted to stop this just charge renters a hefty deposit (the approximate cost of resell) and it should nip this in the bud. Obviously, someone in their "Growth" team will point out that this will hurt their KPIs and their VCs might not like it, so they won't do it.
  • Beefin 7y ago
    Yeah I was wondering why they don't enforce a deposit up front.
    • treis 7y ago
      The CC is likely stolen. Any deposit or replacement fee will be disputed by the actual owner and charged back.
      • jachee 7y ago
        I was guessing it was a pre-paid card that just barely had the balance to cover the rental fee.
        • derwiki 7y ago
          Most places block pre-paid cards for purposes like this (although I have seen Stripe report a card initially as non-pre-paid and then later revise it to say pre-paid).
          • ltc5505 7y ago
• Beefin 7y ago
  It seems the distinction of "voluntary parting" completely diffuses the responsibility of theft from KitSplit, since every exchange is voluntary through their service. My question is why they haven't received a cease and desist from legal enforcement since their platform is aiding and abetting crime...
  • Beefin 7y ago
    And according to Wiki they've been around for 5 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KitSplit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KitSplit
• rkagerer 7y ago
  Band together with your new friend to take both parties to small claims court. Argue the representations made on their website were misleading and induced you into using the service. That due to the unequal bargaining power, any ambiguities in their Terms must be resolved in your favor. Research precedent, including anything judges have said about click-wrap vs browse-wrap agreements in your jurisdiction. Maybe you can find a sympathetic lawyer from a prestigious firm who's willing to write them on your behalf on their firm's letterhead. All this might simply scare them into settling - it's far cheaper for them than paying a lawyer to litigate (and less toxic publicity), and eliminates the risk that if you manage to win (small-claims is a bit more unpredictable than big-boy court) it sets a precedent that could come back and bite their business model.
  • iooi 7y ago
    I like your idea. It could be a platform on its own, like a GoFundMe but exclusively for pro-bono legal cases.
    • 0815test 7y ago
      GoFundMe even used to support funding for legal purposes. They got rid of it because of one legal-defense funding campaign that they disagreed with politically.
      • NoPityNoRemorse 7y ago
        They did not disagree with it politically but they wanted to censor it, and veil it under "political opinion". Censorship is censorship, and sugar coating it only works on fools.
  • calimac 7y ago
    The name of the page “Trust quote is contradictory to the writing in TOS
  • alex_anglin 7y ago
    ... and hope that there wasn't a forced arbitration clause in the TOS!
• uniformlyrandom 7y ago
  How many defrauded owners to we need to start a class-action lawsuit?
• Havoc 7y ago
  Seems borderline fraudulent on kitsplits part. Clearly they know this is a major issue and are putting people’s livelihood at risk yet they continue anyway.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• coding123 7y ago
  See also https://petapixel.com/2018/10/29/how-i-lent-my-4500-camera-kit-for-95-and-had-it-legally-stolen/ https://petapixel.com/2018/10/29/how-i-lent-my-4500-camera-k...
  • ddalex 7y ago
    The difference there is that in that case KitSplit compensated the owner. They declined to compensate here presumably because they didn't think that he can raise a stink - the original piece was on petapixel which is really popular with photographers.
• calimac 7y ago
  Our world is built on contracts. The OP makes a very clear point that should be a lesson to every reader; learn to read and comprehend what you are reading before you execute any contract or release anything not after. Assumption and laziness is where most people lose. Discipline and confidence to reference the contract to the letter as written is key.
• Nrsolis 7y ago
  Sue first and sue often. Really. You've already done most of the legwork on this. Now all you need to do is get this into small claims court. Trust me: once KitSplit gets that notification from the court that they're being hauled into court and are going to need to hire a lawyer to defend themselves, you're gonna be working with a whole different level of people at Kitsplit. That's your best chance to get compensated. SUE THE BASTARDS.
  • staticautomatic 7y ago
    EDIT: In some small claims courts, including CA, you can't have a lawyer represent you.
    • Eldt 7y ago
      As a company they would need someone to represent them though, right? Would that not be a lawyer working for the company?
      • Nrsolis 7y ago
        Yup. A "legal person" like a corporation in the USA must have legal counsel to represent them in court, even small claims. Court sucks. Any lawyer will tell you that you don't want the judge making the decision for you. They'll buy you a new camera if they are smart and fix their process. Otherwise they will spend a lot more on lawyers than they ever would making you whole. And yes, some companies get sued ALL THE TIME.
    • cthalupa 7y ago
      How would this work for businesses? The owner or CEO gets dragged in? Seems unlikely, otherwise you could just DoS a business by keeping their leadership embroiled in small claims issues. I imagine you can't have outside counsel represent you, but the business can probably send their own lawyer and delegate authority to them.
      • cbsks 7y ago
• danShumway 7y ago
  Second time an article like this has surfaced in less than a year[0]. KitSplit claims that these scenarios are extremely rare. If that was the case, I have no idea why they wouldn't include voluntary parting insurance in their service. Is the bad press worth the occasional payout they'd need to do? Why would I or anyone else ever use KitSplit after hearing a story like this? Peace-of-mind is literally the most important feature of a service like this. It is the only thing that separates them from your local [insert-location-here] Facebook rental group that just exchanges cash under the table. [0]: https://petapixel.com/2018/10/29/how-i-lent-my-4500-camera-kit-for-95-and-had-it-legally-stolen/ https://petapixel.com/2018/10/29/how-i-lent-my-4500-camera-k... (HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332918)
  • gus_massa 7y ago
    Just to be clear, it's a similar case, not the same case. It would be nice to compare the unpixellated photos of the thieves.
  • londons_explore 7y ago
    I would trust a 5+ year old active facebook account far far more than anything else. It turns out, faking an old facebook profile well enough to fool a human who you're going to meet face to face is tricky, and thieves really hate being called out to all their real friends, relatives, etc.
• d1zzy 7y ago
  When I moved to the US years ago, one of the big differences I noticed (coming from Eastern Europe) was the implicit "trust" people and businesses have of "strangers", people and businesses they have never met before. Where I came from there's an implicit distrust and you have to earn your trust. Now, I thought, this implicit trust is actually great, it definitely makes so many things much easier (don't have to carry or show my ID for so many things where back in Eastern Europe you'd be required to, don't have to show up in person for almost anything, even driving license is sent over mail, etc), people take you at face value, it makes many things friction free. I generally much prefer it over the default distrust culture. As to the security of such an approach, I always wondered what happens with bad players. Without much investigation I simply assumed that: 1. most people are likely good players 2. those few bad players would get caught by an actually functioning police force and the punishment would be so severe nobody wants to risk it Naive I know :) I don't know about #1 but #2 is starting to become clear to me it's simply not true. Just look at KitSplit, plenty of bad actors and when that happens nobody seems to be caught. I'm starting to think that people trust strangers implicitly as a matter of comfort (it's more stressful to distrust everyone for sure) and culture (they grew up in it) rather than because they have rational reasons to do so (ex. the law is enforced and violations of said trust are severely punished).
  • pjc50 7y ago
    This is the "high/low trust society" distinction; just as there are societies where nobody is on time for meetings and nobody expects them to be, there are some societies where people expect strangers to be very likely dishonest and others where people expect a high baseline honesty. High trust is a substrate which enables lots of great things to happen. But it's also a resource which can be mined by people for profit, and I worry that a lot of the West is in the process of transitioning into a low-trust society, with a lot of people profiting along the way.
    • LorenPechtel 7y ago
      I see that happening, also. I think the internet is to blame--it's not that it makes people less trustworthy, but it provides a much wider net for the untrustworthy to prey upon others.
• Bokanovsky 7y ago
  I'd never give out expensive gear on a rental site like this. If they can't really deal with people not returning / stealing cameras, what happens if they return the camera damaged? Or scratch the lens up? Sure you get money for someone to use your unused camera for a day, but how do you know that they'll treat your equipment as you would? What if they switch your camera out for one in worse condition? The risk to reward ratio for this doesn't work for me.
  • taejo 7y ago
    It seems pretty clear that they do have insurance for accidental damage, and that's exactly where they're trying to hide the fact that they don't have insurance against fraudulent renters. The risk profile for fraud is very different from accidents, which is why it's harder to insure against fraud, but also why you really need that insurance (or a deposit, or whatever).
• joyjoyjoy 7y ago
  TLDR: Idiot rents out $3500 equipment, equipment does not get returned, starts bitching on his blog on hope that the middleman (KitSplit) swallows the loss and reimburses him.
• Jeremy1026 7y ago
  So basically, if I get a Fake ID (or just do some simple photoshop) I can become a verified buyer on KitSplit. Add in a prepaid Visa card and I can "buy" any camera/drone I want for $100? Tech companies need to start to accept some liability for the problems they are causing. Edit: I have a verified fake name. Now I'm waiting to see if they accept my photoshopped ID images. Edit 2: I now also have a verified Government ID. Here is a screenshot of my totally legit verified profile. https://i.imgur.com/dr61qN5.png https://i.imgur.com/dr61qN5.png
  • op12op12 7y ago
    But how did you get past their current "40-point risk assessment that includes both machine learning and human review" /s https://medium.com/@lisbethkaufman_82625/im-one-of-the-cofounders-of-kitsplit-and-i-wanted-to-respond-to-this-personally-29aded237f7e https://medium.com/@lisbethkaufman_82625/im-one-of-the-cofou...
    • Jeremy1026 7y ago
      With a really poorly done photoshop of my ID to change my name and DOB to my fake information, duh. How else would you defeat such stringent review processes?
• theturtletalks 7y ago
  The platform charged a 22% fee to allow this renting of equipment? Why charge a fee if you're not actually going to cover the buyer or seller when your marketplace messes up? Also, just because you sign an illegal contract doesn't make that contract valid. Many companies will try to tell you "well you accepted our terms when signing up." Well those terms are not on legal grounds.
  • moate 7y ago
    >>Why charge a fee if you're not actually going to cover the buyer or seller when your marketplace messes up? I think we all know the answer here. So many sites are just "hapless middle men who facilitate contact between individuals who want to engage in <activity>" when someone commits fraud/theft/terroristic threats/<crime> on their platform.
    • theturtletalks 7y ago
      I know what KitSplit will tell you. We provide value by connecting people and allowing payments. Gee, I can give someone my number and accept cash on Craigslist too. If I'm paying 22% of the transaction to you, there'd better be some assurances.
      • nikanj 7y ago
        Oh no, not at all. Now that this story is on the front page of HN, KitSplit will tell you it was all a big misunderstanding. They will pay for all of your stolen gear, send you a T-shirt, and donate to a kitten orphanage. The next person who gets their kit stolen is still fucked though, unless they too manage to make it to the front page.
        • deleted 7y ago
          [deleted]
• ydnaclementine 7y ago
  KitSplit, pay us to get split away from your equipment kit
• wyldfire 7y ago
  > Because in the end, I genuinely do think that KitSplit is a great idea on paper Is it..‽ > Additionally, I watched my stolen property being sold on Craigslist — that was the sweet icing on the cake. Why not use that opportunity to arrange a "purchase"? Either identify the thief by surveillance (follow to their home e.g.) or attempt a retrieval via brute force (hired guard etc)? At least with the thief's identity it might be possible to pursue a legal way to get back the gear or be compensated. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1l16cq/a_friend_found_her_stolen_bike_on_craigslist_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1l16cq/a_friend_found...
  • sdca 7y ago
    >attempt a retrieval via brute force (hired guard etc) This can be a very bad idea, especially if the seller isn't a thief but someone who unknowingly purchased the stolen property. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_robbery_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_robbery_case
• metabagel 7y ago
  Twisted road offers person-to-person motorcycle rental. Their stolen bike FAQ says: ========== What happens if the bike is stolen? If a motorcycle that you rented through Twisted Road is stolen, please immediately file a police report and cooperate fully with law enforcement, Twisted Road, the motorcycle owner, and any other authorities related to the investigation. If you are the owner, please immediately contact a Twisted Road representative and follow his or her instructions. Owners should be prepared to file a police report if instructed to do so. You will be able to provide law enforcement with the driver’s license of the rider, the plates, and other important information needed to locate and return your bike. If you are concerned about having your bike stolen while it is being rented, we encourage you to place a GPS tracker on your motorcycle before each rental. ========== Basically, you are responsible if your motorcycle is stolen.
  • rtkwe 7y ago
    Which is really dumb. If you're whole company is based around being a middle man between renters and owners your answer to the inevitable issue of theft by renters had better be better than a giant shrug and "we'll keep trying to charge this fraudster (who's definitely either using a stolen card or whole identity)."
    • robocat 7y ago
      How do they protect themselves from thieves intending to steal from their insurance? I.e. thief "lends" bike to themselves (fake account) and falsely claims it was stolen? Clearly some risk (needs real identity, insurance fraud), but clearly some gain too. The only solution is to put up a bond of approximately the street value of a similar stolen motorbike.
      • detaro 7y ago
        Is that different than somebody insuring their own car at an insurance company and then pretending it was stolen?
        • 7y ago
• evancox100 7y ago
  "Additionally, a lawyer friend of mine has pointed out that the terms of use that we’ve agreed upon with KitSplit is a contract set up to devoid them of liability for serious potential crimes, like theft." Do you really need a lawyer to tell you that ToS are designed to absolve the service of liability?
• instaheat 7y ago
  Would Checkr be a possible solution to "Vet" people that join. I just joined on a whim, and the verification process is a joke. I'm already "verified" with the fancy check logo next to my name, INSTANTLY.
• tantalor 7y ago
  How much more does this "voluntary parting insurance" cost? Back-of-envelope for a $3500 replacement cost @ .1% chance of loss, the nominal insurance cost is $3.50. Double that for the insurance premium, so maybe $7. That's 10% of the owner's cut, which definitely seems worth it in hindsight.
  • jellicle 7y ago
    Except that if you were actually in the voluntary parting insurance business, you'd find: fraud is a lot more than 0.1%, and fraud to take advantage of your insurance would be very real (Bill and Dave are buddies, Bill claims Dave didn't return his camera, Bill and Dave end up with the reimbursement AND the camera). You'd have to do a ton of legwork to try to keep your fraud losses low, and your insurance would be expensive as hell. I mean, what's the proper premium charge for a $1000 camera loaned out to "random Craigslist guy", a premium where, overall, you end up making money exceeding your losses due to payouts? $500? $999? At least one in a thousand transactions WON'T be fraudulent, right?
    • tantalor 7y ago
      Not sure why I got downvoted there, I'm just using the information provided by KitSplit: These instances are extremely rare on KitSplit and happen less than 0.1% of the time https://kitsplit.com/insurance https://kitsplit.com/insurance If the actual rate of fraud is higher than 0.1% as you suggest then KitSplit is liable for losses; they are the ones perpetrating a fraud.
• kevin_b_er 7y ago
  This happened to someone else in a writeup in November of last year. There's no "peace of mind" when renting on KitSplit. They say "We've got you covered" but this can happen easily. How can they have you "covered" when your stuff can be stolen by "voluntary parting". I put forth that KitSplit is a middleman which provides nothing to the experience and their percentage carries no value. It is not in your interest to rent anything through them vs craigslist.
• kit-split 7y ago
  Neither a borrower nor a lender be. The whole idea sounds idiotic. Let other people touch your gear because the internet and websites? Real rental agreements for expensive, big ticket items usually involve deposits and agreements signed in blood, because... what could possibly go wrong. To wade into such things, chest deep no less, is almost as if to invite problems because you smelled blood in the water and went looking for a fight. Letting random people run wild with your stuff sounds stupid. And if you've ever rented a car, you know what the attitude is toward stuff that isn't yours. To look at their website, it reeks of naive people with expensive cameras. The potent radiation it emits is enough for me to steer clear. I can easily see that letting anyone touch my stuff because that website sent them my way, is to watch an event horizon envelop and spaghettify it into a black hole, never to return. If, by chance, I do get it back, it only means that I too am now trapped inside the black hole, and shall forever exist in this alternate plane of existence, in which I can only dive deeper and deeper into more black holes, until the exceptional moment when I don't get my stuff back, and I can rest assured that the last black hole I entered was really a worm hole returning me to the real world.
• ajnin 7y ago
  Interesting bit about the other person who had stuff stolen receiving the exact same emails from KitSplit. If they bothered to have created a script for this it means that they're probably dealing with this stuff frequently, more than one in 10'000 times as they claim. They also are probably shamelessly lying when they say that they discussed the case in length with "Kristina" but that she ultimately decided to deny the claim. Makes it sound like they're really trying to help while in reality they're only deploying diversion tactics. They've been misleading him all along.
• kazinator 7y ago
  TLDR: Idiot handed something expensive to a complete strange he met through some website you've never heard of until now, with no collateral, and now it's gone. If you rent a $3500 something to someone, you're supposed to put a charge in about that amount on their credit card that is reversed when they return it. Or some other form of reasonable collateral. If Home Depot lends you a $100 tool (or one that was $100 new), they will put something like $200 on your credit card. If they never see you again, they made a nice profit. > Why would any sane person rent out their gear to a stranger unless there was a third-party to keep each person accountable and provide insurance if something goes wrong. No; the question is: why would any sane person believe that some startup website for connecting owners and renters would actually take on liability for renters who steal? Why would any sane person just form beliefs about how things are, and not read the legal fine print? Why would you use use some website that takes your money for finding a renter, yet provides nothing else? Such a site should provide the service of handling the collaterization that individuals are not set up for. Or, else, where is their value over a hook up site like Craigslist?
  • pico303 7y ago
    This. Why the hell doesn't KitSplit bill the client's credit card for the full amount of the equipment prior to rental, and clear it when the equipment is returned? Simple, and if the client can't afford the charge, don't rent the equipment.
    • heyyyouu 7y ago
      This is how all other major rental stores work. BUT THEN they wouldn't have a business. That's really the issue -- they care about their business, NOT their customers. And they don't have to because they don't own the equipment like any other rental store would.
• yellowarchangel 7y ago
  This sounds familiar: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18340552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18340552 "... They’ve also assured me they are making improvements to their policies and will have additional updates soon..." So in the 7 months since that last article, they have seemingly made deteriorations as now they won't even offer to pay for the OPs equipment.
  • Spectral 7y ago
    While reading this article I had the same thought, read something similar on HN before. Sounds like nothing's changed on KitSplit. Looks like they found their profit/payment line - continue to screw the 0.01% and leave them in the dark and only pay up the the even smaller % that decide to pursue them in court.
• the-pigeon 7y ago
  Wow. So basically KitSplit tricks people into thinking they will cover your equipment if something happens to it but then doesn't at all. That's super scummy. I think the author of this is way too nice to them. Take them to small claims court as others suggested. Having a loophole buried in the terms of service does not allow you to lie about your service.
• orliesaurus 7y ago
  If you write KitSplit on Google and scroll a few lines, you see: "How I Lent My $4,500 Camera Kit for $95 and Had It Stolen - PetaPixel" That's a huge red flag. If I were you I would go full TrustPilot on these folks!
• MisterTea 7y ago
  So you rented out your gear on what amounts to craigs list and now your shocked that someone split with your kit (hence the aptly named site.) Did you stop to think about how the service is supposed to protect you from theft? > One specific area that KitSplit talks about in-depth is their proprietary vetting system ... That should have been where you stopped reading and walked away. From my experience, let me tell you what "proprietary" means: A. we have no process OR B. we use what everyone else is but want to stand out from the rest so we lied to you. How do you vet trust on the internet? Think about how hard it is to steal a rental car. Do they have a magical proprietary process? No. They take all of your personal info and use that as collateral against you should you decide not to return the car. Bottom line, and I'll happily take the karma hit: you're a sucker. And I'm not being mean, but driving the point home. You believed some rent seekers bland promises of magic fairies and pixie dust in order to secure a quick buck. You know the old saying: If it sound too good to be true...
  • Retra 7y ago
    They may be a sucker, but there is still value in warning people and/or litigating to recover losses. We afford people the ability to make mistakes so that we can effectively learn from them, not simply to punish people for being imperfect.
• mabbo 7y ago
  KitSplit is a marketplace for connecting owners of expensive items with people who want to steal those expensive items. It's very technical in nature, you see.
  • dexterdog 7y ago
    No, Kitsplit is a site that facilitates the theft of your equipment for a small fee.
    • lrc 7y ago
      And in just such a way as to prevent your insurance company from paying a claim!
      • TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
        Professional equipment thieves love it!
  • dx7tnt 7y ago
    It's not just a marketplace, it's developing into a whole platform for tech-mediated voluntary parting, connecting the haves with the have-nots and making the world better for everyone. The founders have already raised the first rounds of VC and are looking forward to vesting so they can take this revolutionary concept forward into new markets and territories.
  • dang 7y ago
    Please don't break the site guidelines, regardless of how bad or provocative some situation is. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20276995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20276995.
• eithed 7y ago
  This is not the first time something like this happens - https://petapixel.com/2018/10/29/how-i-lent-my-4500-camera-kit-for-95-and-had-it-legally-stolen/ https://petapixel.com/2018/10/29/how-i-lent-my-4500-camera-k...
• Lunatic666 7y ago
  As a fellow photographer (even the same gear), I understand the author's pain in losing it. I really hope they can get it back and the thief is held liable. What I truly admire is how professional the blog entry is written after being badly ripped off like that.
• pastor_elm 7y ago
  Should have taken a photo of the guy and got his license plate number. Maybe even asked to check his ID.
  • i_am_nomad 7y ago
    KitSplit is a New York company.
• wiseleo 7y ago
  To the CEO Lizbeth: Replace vague suggestions like "recommend" with "must have voluntary parting coverage on your own insurance policy". Collect the policy number. Require confirmation that policy is active before every listing goes live. Long-term solution: work with a carrier to underwrite this risk for your lenders so they don't need to involve their insurance. It's clear that the platform is forcing its paying customers to shoulder all risk. Theft by not returning is the primary risk for which the customers are paying a premium.
• donniefitz2 7y ago
  I'm founder of a similar 2 sided marketplace addressing the same market, but for buying and selling (https://gearoffer.com https://gearoffer.com). KitSplit likely has a fraud problem that's much larger than they admit. Even at our small scale, we often get fraud attempts. The key is to adapt the platform once you find a hole. Otherwise, these fraudsters will come back, frequently. If KitSplit tout their ability to prevent fraud in the first place, but this person was able to find a long list of other victims, I'm guessing KitSplit isn't plugging the holes and this type of scam will continue.
• 1024core 7y ago
  Small claims court is your only option. BTW: if the OP had done some Googling: https://petapixel.com/2018/10/29/how-i-lent-my-4500-camera-kit-for-95-and-had-it-legally-stolen/ https://petapixel.com/2018/10/29/how-i-lent-my-4500-camera-k...
• blairanderson 7y ago
  If you rent to someone and they don't give it back, the easy thing to do is call it theft, but legally its a breach of contract known in the rental world as "voluntary parting". I used to work for kitsplits biggest competitor, we had the same problems. AirBnb has similar issues. https://www.google.com/search?q=voluntary+parting+coverage https://www.google.com/search?q=voluntary+parting+coverage The gear owner could/should have bought their own insurance to cover this.
• eMSF 7y ago
  Sharing economy, all right. Some refuse to acknowledge the issues that are well known.
• DanBC 7y ago
  See also the comments to this article form 8 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332918
• easymovet 7y ago
  They should really hold the full amount in escrow, with something like Bitcoin so they don’t have to worry about transaction denials.
• jechamt 7y ago
  Now that the medium post and this HN response (and possibly others) have gained traction, the author and other similarly affected parties may be interested to communicate this shift in momentum to investors, conveniently listed on kitsplit's website: https://angel.co/company/kitsplit/jobs https://angel.co/company/kitsplit/jobs Mostly individuals (and perhaps this is not the complete picture) through AngelList, perhaps AngelList (angel.co) itself might be interested to know in more detail the actual policies and communications of one of its listed companies. Deciding to not cover this claim and claims like it seems to be a short-sighted and heavily financially-motivated decision. Perhaps if the financial stakes of that decision were more clear, the author could pursue a different result. Perhaps, though, this momentum has come too late. Food for thought as I haven't seen it discussed here so far.
• rchrd2 7y ago
  Somehow the name makes sense. KitSplit - Split from your kit.
• Finnucane 7y ago
  At least it seems clear how they came up with the name. Someone gets your kit, and they split.
• pacetherace 7y ago
  Try that "voluntary parting" with a rental car and see what happens.
• giarc 7y ago
  Unethical, but the best course of action for someone is to simply find a smashed up piece of equipment and claim it was returned damaged and not stolen. Sounds like they would insure damaged equipment but not stolen equipment. However, that also would be fraud.
• sytelus 7y ago
  I'm immensely just surprised someone would give away their $3500 to a stranger to make a rent of $70. Even if the theft was covered, I would worry about the potential abuse of such sensitive gear. I would worry about the person leaving things in sun or dropping on floor or get water on it and so on. It is insane to me that people want to do this. But then again folks are renting out their apartment with fully loaded furniture and appliances to complete strangers. It is infinitely surprising to me that scammers haven't made business out of this. AirBnB doesn't require real background check and with just fake FB profile, pre-loaded visa card any scammer can be in business to steal thousands of dollars of valuables. People are effectively giving away keys to their home for just few 10s of dollars and scammers are just passing this opportunity up. This wouldn't have made sense to any economist and it still doesn't. How is this possible?
  • sangnoir 7y ago
    > I'm immensely just surprised someone would give away their $3500 to a stranger to make a rent of $70. turo.com facilitates giving cars worth tens of thousands to strangers for less (per day). They do claim to be insured, though - but I'm not going to be putting them to the test.
    • brandonmenc 7y ago
      The comparably serious consequences of committing grand theft auto probably act as a backstop in that case.
      • go_ruby 7y ago
        It's not grand theft auto. It's called "theft by conversion".
    • epmatsw 7y ago
      I'll say that GetAround at least was great when the guy renting our car totaled it. Got the full value back, he was on the hook for the deductible and everything.
    • 7y ago
• dclowd9901 7y ago
  Good lord, look at the response from one of the founders. Even with the absolutely sane and calm response from the author (I would be burning their fucking offices down), the company still comes back with bullshit lines and offers no recompense. Whoever's funding this, I'm holding them to account. Boycotts for all.
• heyyyouu 7y ago
  There should be a fund to pay Google Ads to make this the top search for KiKsplit on Google. Then they'd take you all seriously.
• jrockway 7y ago
  In this case, I feel like KitSplit's "minimum viable product" is too minimum. Of course renters are going to steal stuff. The only value you can really provide as a middleman in this transaction is "well if they do take your camera, we'll buy you a new one". If the fraud rate is too high for that to be a viable business, so be it. You should close your business or do better vetting. Otherwise this is just Craigslist with a 22% commission, a deal nobody would take. (Do you ever see posts on Craigslist that say "use my $3500 camera for a day for $70"? No? That's because it's crazy and nobody would ever do that. A company has the power to have contracts and vetting; and yet KitSplit cheaped out and does nothing. It makes me mad and I just heard about them five minutes ago.)
• mikehines 7y ago
  Free publicity for KitSplit, which I hope it won't lead to explosive growth.
• purple_ducks 7y ago
  Seems like KitSplit's provided you with false information as they actually hadn't verified the user's identity. Seems like a nice base for your claim.
• sahaskatta 7y ago
  I had an analogous experience with another service Omni https://omni.co https://omni.co not too long ago. I rented out my drone as I wasn't using it too regularly. I had confidence that their insurance policy would cover any damage by renters. I recently had my drone returned to me as I was planning to use it on an upcoming vacation. I did not bother to inspect the drone when they sent it back to me. A few weeks later, I decided to use it and realized there was scuffs, damage to the propellers, and that the camera gimbal was broken. A renter had crashed my drone. I contacted Omni to request details on filing an insurance claim. I got an email stating that I only had 48 hours after the item was returned to me to file a claim. Quite frustrating. I will definitely will be reading the details of these insurance policies in the future.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• dx7tnt 7y ago
  There's a traditional idiom where I come from: "The fool and his camera equipment are easily parted."
• z3t4 7y ago
  I been thinking of starting a "renting" company but figured out that it would basically be an insurance company.
  • jjwhitaker 7y ago
    Which wouldn't be a terrible idea. Insurance is just another way to crowdsource money for stable/safe investments where the front is peace of mind. One could probably operate under a pure risk assessment model but why not put the extra cash into short term T bills then maybe once more cushion is established low risk mutual funds? Hopefully I'm missing some major regulatory issue.
• lisbethkaufman 7y ago
  Hi, Lisbeth Kaufman here (CoFounder and CEO of KitSplit). This is a shitty situation, I feel terribly for Yohahn and the other owner who had their gear stolen. I wanted to personally respond to let you all know that we are fixing this and making them whole- and then some. Since we launched in 2015, tens of thousands of filmmakers and creators have safely rented gear to and from each other on KitSplit with incredibly positive experiences. Recently, however, someone stole $3,500 cameras from two of our owners. To put it mildly, this was an awful experience for the owners. One of them wrote about it on the internet, as you know. At first, we reacted by basically telling him “sorry, you knew the risks (or should have). It’s all in our terms of service!” And technically speaking, it’s true. Traditional gear rental insurance that we (and all rental platforms) offer doesn’t cover theft by the renter. But traditional gear rental insurance is inadequate. And so is our policy. We’ve been pondering this problem for a while. With this recent theft, it is clearly time to solve this problem. So we’ve decided to create a new insurance product for our owners: the KitSplit Theft Protection Owner Guarantee. The Owner Guarantee means that KitSplit owners will be covered in all scenarios, whether damage, loss, or theft. To make good on this promise, we’re starting by reimbursing the two owners who’s gear was recently stolen. We are the first rental platform to offer coverage of this kind. It fills a major insurance loophole, and it’s the right thing to do for our customers. You are welcome to read more about the problem and how we are fixing it here. https://blog.kitsplit.com/announcing-kitsplit-theft-protection-owner-guarantee/ https://blog.kitsplit.com/announcing-kitsplit-theft-protecti...
  • justin66 7y ago
    Since we launched in 2015, tens of thousands of filmmakers and creators have safely rented gear to and from each other on KitSplit with incredibly positive experiences. Recently, however, someone stole $3,500 cameras from two of our owners. Approximately how many of your owners experienced thefts prior to these two recent events?
  • dx7tnt 7y ago
    Thanks for the information. Next time I want someone to split with my kit, I'll definitely check out your service. One thing - how do you keep a straight face when using bone-headed marketese like "voluntary parting" when writing your T&C's and communicating with the customers who fall for it?
• milemi 7y ago
  KitSplit - we’ll split you from your kit!
• londons_explore 7y ago
  Best to just put a little GPS tag in every bit of equipment. Anything expensive ships in a case - just cut an extra slot in the back of the foam and put a tag in. Make sure you get the tags that have more than 3 days battery life! Then, when it goes missing, wait a few weeks for it to end up resold to someone, then go pick it up. Since they bought it from some shady guy, the loss is on them. If they won't give it back, call the police while standing outside their front door.
• josejuanisaac 7y ago
  how about learning to respect the dangers of the sharing economy? cheap-for-me-not-for-thee
• jamalrashid 7y ago
  Goodness me! Here in Germany we have insurance on most of our goods - I don't think most other societies use insurance as much as Germans do
• NoPityNoRemorse 7y ago
  While I understand that Kitsplit can't cover everything and reimburse all because that would have the thieves put them out of business, from this story it is very clear I will never use such services to rent equipment. We're not talking a few hundred dollars here, we're in the thousand dollar range if not more. The website says theft is covered but theft is not declared as theft but "parting" which itself is not covered. Since all thefts on the platform will be defined as "parting" the website is clearly misleading usrs. If parting is the outcome of what non-lawyers call "theft" then it should be explained on the web site, and strongly suggested to people using the service to subscribe an insurance for "parting" if it happens. If a solution is not found for this, I do not see how KitSplit can stay afloat. As more and more people get scammed, sonner or later that company will find itself in court. And even if they do win and show good faith, the damage will be done, and people will stop using that idea (which is a good one).
• hellenawaweru 7y ago
  t think the insurance must have explained earlier what they offer. most insurances cover damage and theft to the renter https://finance.uonbi.ac.ke/node/1072 https://finance.uonbi.ac.ke/node/1072