6 ms·

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 b

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 to charge both the Pet Owner and the Pet Care Provider a referral fee. This referral fee will be charged once per specific Pet Owner/Pet Care Provider services relationship utilized outside of the process provided for within the Wag! platform. Pet Owner’s referral fee will be $1,000. Pet Owner will first be notified in writing of Pet Owner’s obligation to pay the referral fee. Thereafter, Pet Owner hereby authorizes Wag! to charge any of your payment methods for the referral fee.

ulucs 7y ago
There's no way this is going to hold up in any kind of court. A 50-100$ fine might have flown under the radar, but 1000$ is enough incentive for taking this to a small claims court.
- ShroudedNight 7y ago
  > 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 before this gets resolved.
  - Mikeb85 7y ago
    > The terms of service also include a binding arbitration clause. Also wouldn't hold up.
    - judge2020 7y ago
      In the US, it's legal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-sides-with-business-in-arbitration-case-11556138640 https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-sides-with-busine...
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - Silhouette 7y ago
        Wasn't that ruling about class action suits, though? As I understand it, that's a very specific status that must be explicitly sought, and while it doesn't seem to be unusual under the US legal system, plenty of other places don't have a direct equivalent.
  - pdkl95 7y ago
    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 case was allowed to restart in regular court. Basically you could agree to arbitration, but you couldn't agree to terms that completely blocked any path to justice. Which, again if I recall correctly, is why companies started adding clauses like this to their arbitration agreements: > If the arbitrator finds that you cannot afford to pay AAA’s filing, administrative, hearing and/or other fees and you cannot obtain a waiver from AAA, Wag! will pay them for you. The company doesn't have to worry you might fall back to the regular court if they ensure the fees are paid. This couod keep you in arbitration, but this is a double-sided weapon: the company agreed to pay potentially many thousands of dollars in arbitration fees. Even this stupid $1000 termination fee wouldn't justify paying for arbitration. The company would be very strongly incentivized to settle quickly, before they are required to pay $2k filing fees and $400+ per hour arbitrator fees.. (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Talk to an actual lawyer about the specific TOS for proper advice!) Also, some interesting language right after that promise to pay arbitration fees: > In addition, Wag! will reimburse all such AAA’s filing, administrative, hearing and/or other fees for proceedings involving claims totaling less than $10,000 unless the arbitrator determines the claims are frivolous. Wag! will not seek attorneys' fees and costs in arbitration unless the arbitrator determines your claims are frivolous.
    - traek 7y ago
      An interesting case of a company shooting itself in the foot via forced arbitration is Chipotle. They convinced a court to exclude employees who agreed to arbitration from a class action, so those employees each filed individually (helped by the class action lawyers), which has turned out to be vastly more expensive for Chipotle. https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-chipotle-20190104-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-chipo...
      - stefan_ 7y ago
  - xkcd-sucks 7y ago
    I am also not a lawyer, and wonder how far arbitration stretches: If an anbiter determines that damages are owed, and the person doesn't pay, does that dealing with that revert to the courts? Who enforces the arbitration -- The police? If an arbiter makes a decision which is clearly illegal, will a court refuse to enforce it?
    - zuminator 7y ago
      IANAL but my understanding in my state is that the prevailing party will go to court and file a petition to confirm the arbitration award. The result of that is a judgment that is legally enforceable. Or conversely the loser can petition the court to vacate the arbitration award if they believe it to be unreasonable.
stefan_ 7y ago
It's worse, apparently they also try to charge the walker (=contractor). Which is a wholly different bowl of trouble. Charging the pet owner is anti-competitive unenforceable nonsense, charging the pet walker means a lawsuit for back pay and taxes given the obvious misclassification as contractors.
- fgonzag 7y ago
  Exactly, IANAL but I'd guess that limiting a contractor like that (telling him who he can and he cannot do business with) would immediately classify him like an employee in quite a few states, unless wag is paying a $1000 dll exclusivity fee. So any Wag "contractors" in a few employee protective states might be able to make a case.
Dwolb 7y ago
Just a side comment: this is one reason why I love virtual credit cards. In this way, you can create rules for businesses who levy overzealous extra charges and price increases.
- pj_mukh 7y ago
  What’s a good service for this?
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    One of more of my credit cards (issued by a major bank) provides this. However, I decided to use it one day and was greeted by the message...wait for it... "This content requires the Adobe Flash Player." I just checked and it still does, so I have yet to try it out.
  - jessedhillon 7y ago
    Privacy does exactly this: https://privacy.com/ https://privacy.com/
jammygit 7y ago
I’ve been waiting for this sort of thing. Naturally, since a TOS represents informed consent and is somehow a legally binding contract, then the next innovation is to add financial terms to them. Hopefully, such a company will push the boundary so far that the entire world of TOS will be overturned by some court decision. Imagine walking into a mall and ending up consenting by accident to the tos nonsense we have now.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > a TOS represents informed consent and is somehow a legally binding contract Not necessarily. If you bury surprising stuff like this in the TOS, it's likely not enforceable. The court knows that nobody reads these endless TOS anyway and would likely rule the clause "unreasonable". However, it can still work as a means of intimidation. Also, let's imagine Wag actually tried to collect those 1000$, 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.
  - judge2020 7y ago
    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.
  - jasonjayr 7y ago
    People would fight $1000. If they wanted to hide a surprise fee like that, and hoped folks would let it slide, they should have kept it under $100.
- 300bps 7y ago
  When I was six I put up a sign saying my sister was stupid and then added a clause at the end, “$5 fine for touching this sign.” She ripped the sign down and I never got my $5.
tzs 7y ago
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 Alice for walking services. Bob solicited Rover, who sent Alice. What if Bob specifically asks Rover to send Alice?
- takeda 7y ago
  I don't think it is enforceable... Also how would Wag know that you privately made an arrangement with Alice?
  - mistersquid 7y ago
    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…
duxup 7y ago
It's an interesting setup. Wag sort of "owns" that relationship in a way....
hodgesrm 7y ago
This looks analogous to the terms you sign when engaging an employment recruiting agency to find you employees. Those terms have existed for ages and there's settled law behind them. Why is finding a person to walk your dog any different? Disclaimer : I don't have a dog in this fight though we do have a couple of cats and a small gecko.
CaptainZapp 7y ago
Ahh and this from the good burghers that want you to sign an NDA if they kill your dog[1] I think their business model is wrong in more than one respect. [1] https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/wag-killed-our-dog-and-tried-to-buy-our-silence/ https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/wag-killed-our-dog-and-tried-t...

ulucs 7y ago

There's no way this is going to hold up in any kind of court. A 50-100$ fine might have flown under the radar, but 1000$ is enough incentive for taking this to a small claims court.

ShroudedNight 7y ago
> 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 before this gets resolved.
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  > The terms of service also include a binding arbitration clause. Also wouldn't hold up.
  - judge2020 7y ago
    In the US, it's legal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-sides-with-business-in-arbitration-case-11556138640 https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-sides-with-busine...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - Silhouette 7y ago
      Wasn't that ruling about class action suits, though? As I understand it, that's a very specific status that must be explicitly sought, and while it doesn't seem to be unusual under the US legal system, plenty of other places don't have a direct equivalent.
- pdkl95 7y ago
  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 case was allowed to restart in regular court. Basically you could agree to arbitration, but you couldn't agree to terms that completely blocked any path to justice. Which, again if I recall correctly, is why companies started adding clauses like this to their arbitration agreements: > If the arbitrator finds that you cannot afford to pay AAA’s filing, administrative, hearing and/or other fees and you cannot obtain a waiver from AAA, Wag! will pay them for you. The company doesn't have to worry you might fall back to the regular court if they ensure the fees are paid. This couod keep you in arbitration, but this is a double-sided weapon: the company agreed to pay potentially many thousands of dollars in arbitration fees. Even this stupid $1000 termination fee wouldn't justify paying for arbitration. The company would be very strongly incentivized to settle quickly, before they are required to pay $2k filing fees and $400+ per hour arbitrator fees.. (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Talk to an actual lawyer about the specific TOS for proper advice!) Also, some interesting language right after that promise to pay arbitration fees: > In addition, Wag! will reimburse all such AAA’s filing, administrative, hearing and/or other fees for proceedings involving claims totaling less than $10,000 unless the arbitrator determines the claims are frivolous. Wag! will not seek attorneys' fees and costs in arbitration unless the arbitrator determines your claims are frivolous.
  - traek 7y ago
    An interesting case of a company shooting itself in the foot via forced arbitration is Chipotle. They convinced a court to exclude employees who agreed to arbitration from a class action, so those employees each filed individually (helped by the class action lawyers), which has turned out to be vastly more expensive for Chipotle. https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-chipotle-20190104-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-chipo...
    - stefan_ 7y ago
- xkcd-sucks 7y ago
  I am also not a lawyer, and wonder how far arbitration stretches: If an anbiter determines that damages are owed, and the person doesn't pay, does that dealing with that revert to the courts? Who enforces the arbitration -- The police? If an arbiter makes a decision which is clearly illegal, will a court refuse to enforce it?
  - zuminator 7y ago
    IANAL but my understanding in my state is that the prevailing party will go to court and file a petition to confirm the arbitration award. The result of that is a judgment that is legally enforceable. Or conversely the loser can petition the court to vacate the arbitration award if they believe it to be unreasonable.

stefan_ 7y ago

It's worse, apparently they also try to charge the walker (=contractor). Which is a wholly different bowl of trouble. Charging the pet owner is anti-competitive unenforceable nonsense, charging the pet walker means a lawsuit for back pay and taxes given the obvious misclassification as contractors.

fgonzag 7y ago
Exactly, IANAL but I'd guess that limiting a contractor like that (telling him who he can and he cannot do business with) would immediately classify him like an employee in quite a few states, unless wag is paying a $1000 dll exclusivity fee. So any Wag "contractors" in a few employee protective states might be able to make a case.

Dwolb 7y ago

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.

pj_mukh 7y ago
What’s a good service for this?
- perl4ever 7y ago
  One of more of my credit cards (issued by a major bank) provides this. However, I decided to use it one day and was greeted by the message...wait for it... "This content requires the Adobe Flash Player." I just checked and it still does, so I have yet to try it out.
- jessedhillon 7y ago
  Privacy does exactly this: https://privacy.com/ https://privacy.com/

jammygit 7y ago

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.

gridlockd 7y ago
> 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.
- judge2020 7y ago
  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.
- jasonjayr 7y ago
  People would fight $1000. If they wanted to hide a surprise fee like that, and hoped folks would let it slide, they should have kept it under $100.
300bps 7y ago
When I was six I put up a sign saying my sister was stupid and then added a clause at the end, “$5 fine for touching this sign.” She ripped the sign down and I never got my $5.

tzs 7y ago

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 Alice for walking services. Bob solicited Rover, who sent Alice. What if Bob specifically asks Rover to send Alice?

takeda 7y ago
I don't think it is enforceable... Also how would Wag know that you privately made an arrangement with Alice?
- mistersquid 7y ago
  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…

duxup 7y ago

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

hodgesrm 7y ago

This looks analogous to the terms you sign when engaging an employment recruiting agency to find you employees. Those terms have existed for ages and there's settled law behind them. Why is finding a person to walk your dog any different? Disclaimer : I don't have a dog in this fight though we do have a couple of cats and a small gecko.

CaptainZapp 7y ago

Ahh and this from the good burghers that want you to sign an NDA if they kill your dog[1] I think their business model is wrong in more than one respect. [1] https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/wag-killed-our-dog-and-tried-to-buy-our-silence/ https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/wag-killed-our-dog-and-tried-t...