6 ms·

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

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.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  I would not be so sure. This is not the first KitSplit story posted to HN. The last one was less than a year ago and was for an even more expensive camera. Also, the co-founder of KitSplit has an account here as well.
- Harvey-Specter 7y ago
  The third google link is to an article on PetaPixel [0] with just as much detail as this and a very similar headline "How I Lent My $4,500 Camera Kit for $95 and Had It Stolen", from October 2018. The author here clearly didn't google anything about KitSplit, or if they did weren't convinced by the existing documentation of bad behaviour. I'm not sure why this new article would be any different.
  - ddalex 7y ago
    They reimbursed the first owner - that's the difference.
    - Harvey-Specter 7y ago
      According to the article they reimbursed the owner $2000, two months after $4500 worth of equipment was stolen. Still not confidence inspiring.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  HN is not nearly as high-profile as we'd like to think.
sambull 7y ago
No that's just disruption.
3JPLW 7y ago
> hope this blows up on them It didn't last time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332918 (7 months ago). It's the exact same story, except the victim there got his story published at a major photography site and roused enough rabble that KitSplit ended up reimbursing him for the low low cost of an endorsement at the end.
- koolba 7y ago
  I thought this sounded familiar.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  Literally the last words in that endorsement: "[KitSplit is] taking this as an opportunity to reflect and improve their system." That worked out well - I suspect they just covered their asses further, to the extent that they could do so without actually being clear about the risk renters are exposed to.
jjoonathan 7y ago
Even worse, it sounds like this is a standard practice in the insurance industry. Insurance always carries a steep moral hazard in the form of the temptation to sell deceptive peace of mind, fooling their client into thinking they have purchased insurance covering a scenario which the company has no intent of actually covering. Few people will ever actually discover the deception, so it's reliably profitable. I had not heard of the "voluntary parting is not theft" schtick before today and in the absence of a prominent warning about this distinction I would consider such an insurance sale fraudulent. Further, I'd want a large punitive multiplier on the fines to account for the fact that most of the time the deception will go undiscovered. I strongly suspect our legal system would disagree, and I'd consider that an even bigger problem.
- droithomme 7y ago
  Our legal system does disagree, it is theft. The voluntary parting is a concept invented by insurance companies to deny liability. It has nothing to do with criminal law which sees this as prosecutable criminal theft.
  - hapless 7y ago
    It depends on the state you live in, but by and large, it is not the same. For example, in my home state, reneging on a rental agreement on a piece of property worth more than $100 is "Misapplication of Property," a misdemeanor. Actually stealing the exact same camera, as opposed to deceiving the owner, is "Larceny," a felony. Holding up the owner at gunpoint to steal the same camera is "Robbery," a much more serious felony. The law slices and dices these things finely. Sweet talking someone into handing over his property is often a crime, but it is usually not the same crime as simply taking it.
  - jellicle 7y ago
    This is incorrect. If you give over a piece of property to someone with a contract, and they fail to fulfill the contract, you've got a civil claim against them but it's not generally a crime. Example: someone leases a car and doesn't make payments. Leasor can't call the police and claim "Janet stole my 2018 Cadillac, she stopped making payments two months ago!". Or, they can, but will be told: It's not theft.

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.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rootusrootus 7y ago
I would not be so sure. This is not the first KitSplit story posted to HN. The last one was less than a year ago and was for an even more expensive camera. Also, the co-founder of KitSplit has an account here as well.
Harvey-Specter 7y ago
The third google link is to an article on PetaPixel [0] with just as much detail as this and a very similar headline "How I Lent My $4,500 Camera Kit for $95 and Had It Stolen", from October 2018. The author here clearly didn't google anything about KitSplit, or if they did weren't convinced by the existing documentation of bad behaviour. I'm not sure why this new article would be any different.
- ddalex 7y ago
  They reimbursed the first owner - that's the difference.
  - Harvey-Specter 7y ago
    According to the article they reimbursed the owner $2000, two months after $4500 worth of equipment was stolen. Still not confidence inspiring.
PhasmaFelis 7y ago
HN is not nearly as high-profile as we'd like to think.

sambull 7y ago

No that's just disruption.

3JPLW 7y ago

> hope this blows up on them It didn't last time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332918 (7 months ago). It's the exact same story, except the victim there got his story published at a major photography site and roused enough rabble that KitSplit ended up reimbursing him for the low low cost of an endorsement at the end.

koolba 7y ago
I thought this sounded familiar.
mannykannot 7y ago
Literally the last words in that endorsement: "[KitSplit is] taking this as an opportunity to reflect and improve their system." That worked out well - I suspect they just covered their asses further, to the extent that they could do so without actually being clear about the risk renters are exposed to.

jjoonathan 7y ago

Even worse, it sounds like this is a standard practice in the insurance industry. Insurance always carries a steep moral hazard in the form of the temptation to sell deceptive peace of mind, fooling their client into thinking they have purchased insurance covering a scenario which the company has no intent of actually covering. Few people will ever actually discover the deception, so it's reliably profitable. I had not heard of the "voluntary parting is not theft" schtick before today and in the absence of a prominent warning about this distinction I would consider such an insurance sale fraudulent. Further, I'd want a large punitive multiplier on the fines to account for the fact that most of the time the deception will go undiscovered. I strongly suspect our legal system would disagree, and I'd consider that an even bigger problem.

droithomme 7y ago
Our legal system does disagree, it is theft. The voluntary parting is a concept invented by insurance companies to deny liability. It has nothing to do with criminal law which sees this as prosecutable criminal theft.
- hapless 7y ago
  It depends on the state you live in, but by and large, it is not the same. For example, in my home state, reneging on a rental agreement on a piece of property worth more than $100 is "Misapplication of Property," a misdemeanor. Actually stealing the exact same camera, as opposed to deceiving the owner, is "Larceny," a felony. Holding up the owner at gunpoint to steal the same camera is "Robbery," a much more serious felony. The law slices and dices these things finely. Sweet talking someone into handing over his property is often a crime, but it is usually not the same crime as simply taking it.
- jellicle 7y ago
  This is incorrect. If you give over a piece of property to someone with a contract, and they fail to fulfill the contract, you've got a civil claim against them but it's not generally a crime. Example: someone leases a car and doesn't make payments. Leasor can't call the police and claim "Janet stole my 2018 Cadillac, she stopped making payments two months ago!". Or, they can, but will be told: It's not theft.