3 ms·

If you break the rules of the contract what makes you think you get your money back? If you want a refund you should be required to prove that the company was

by evgen 6y ago

If you break the rules of the contract what makes you think you get your money back? If you want a refund you should be required to prove that the company was the one that violated the agreement.

saagarjha 6y ago
Prove to whom? The arbitration judge?
buran77 6y ago
The problem in countries with expensive litigation is that it raises the bar for what a person would be willing to fight for. If I'll end up spending $10000 whether I win or lose I'll think twice before I litigate for a few hundreds or even thousands of dollars worth of ebooks. It also incentivizes companies to do it for as long as they know they'll get away with it. You're pitting a company with billions to spend on this stuff and all the incentive to keep doing it against a regular consumer with none of the resources or determination. This is where regulation comes in and it should always favor the consumer by default. It's why countries have consumer protection agencies but no company protection agencies.
- chrononaut 6y ago
  > If I'll end up spending $10000 whether I win or lose I'll think twice before I litigate for a few hundreds or even thousands of dollars worth of ebooks. Wouldn't a possible avenue here [in the US] be small claims court? Or could costs still rise to that level under that situation?
  - pnutjam 6y ago
    You would forfeit anything in excess of the small claims limit, probably around $5k. Also costs around $100 to file and you're looking at at a day or two of time away from work.
0x_rs 6y ago
"Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" The company refusing to provide a service and shutting your account down should be the one to prove an eventual violation of an agreement. Too often we are witnessing content and/or service providers refuse to acknowledge the cause of an account being blocked - most of the times I've read about because of false positives in automatic detection systems and the likes. There should be at the very least a middle ground, such as being able to access content already paid for and only that.
- Qwertious 6y ago
  "Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" Means "The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him." For anyone who can't read latin (and doesn't want to have to google a latin phrase in an english conversation).
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
The contract such as "we may block your account for uploading any content against our guidelines. We may rule content to be against our guidelines for any reason and at our sole discrecion."

by evgen 6y ago

If you break the rules of the contract what makes you think you get your money back? If you want a refund you should be required to prove that the company was the one that violated the agreement.

saagarjha 6y ago

Prove to whom? The arbitration judge?

buran77 6y ago

The problem in countries with expensive litigation is that it raises the bar for what a person would be willing to fight for. If I'll end up spending $10000 whether I win or lose I'll think twice before I litigate for a few hundreds or even thousands of dollars worth of ebooks. It also incentivizes companies to do it for as long as they know they'll get away with it. You're pitting a company with billions to spend on this stuff and all the incentive to keep doing it against a regular consumer with none of the resources or determination. This is where regulation comes in and it should always favor the consumer by default. It's why countries have consumer protection agencies but no company protection agencies.

chrononaut 6y ago
> If I'll end up spending $10000 whether I win or lose I'll think twice before I litigate for a few hundreds or even thousands of dollars worth of ebooks. Wouldn't a possible avenue here [in the US] be small claims court? Or could costs still rise to that level under that situation?
- pnutjam 6y ago
  You would forfeit anything in excess of the small claims limit, probably around $5k. Also costs around $100 to file and you're looking at at a day or two of time away from work.

0x_rs 6y ago

"Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" The company refusing to provide a service and shutting your account down should be the one to prove an eventual violation of an agreement. Too often we are witnessing content and/or service providers refuse to acknowledge the cause of an account being blocked - most of the times I've read about because of false positives in automatic detection systems and the likes. There should be at the very least a middle ground, such as being able to access content already paid for and only that.

Qwertious 6y ago
"Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" Means "The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him." For anyone who can't read latin (and doesn't want to have to google a latin phrase in an english conversation).

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

The contract such as "we may block your account for uploading any content against our guidelines. We may rule content to be against our guidelines for any reason and at our sole discrecion."