5 ms·

Every company (Apple, Google, Amazon, etc) is guilty of pulling this non-sense on customers. It is too easy for them to wipe out thousands of dollars of value w

Every company (Apple, Google, Amazon, etc) is guilty of pulling this non-sense on customers. It is too easy for them to wipe out thousands of dollars of value with no meaningful explanation (read the Terms and Services and go away? seriously Apple?) and no accountability. IMO, states should enact laws where you can take the company to court in your local county and no contract can override that right. If the termination is found justified, the company must refund all account assets at fair market value and any remaining balance. If it was not justified, the company must reinstate the account, pay all court and legal fees, and a reasonable amount of mandatory punitive damages. Also, I don't get why Apple et al pull these stunts anyways. They already have a huge "regulate me" post it on their back.

chefandy 5y ago
That's a tough policy to write fairly. Imagine Tom in Alaska buys a $10 downloadable pdf calendar off of designer David in Florida via Etsy. Tom claims the calendar somehow harmed him and sues David locally in Alaska, but is willing to settle remotely for $500. David knows it's bullshit and could beat it in a millisecond, but there's no way he could take time off to go to Alaska and avoiding a bench warrant is a pretty compelling reason to pay up the $500. That's not to say the current setup doesn't suck, but the solution isn't super cut-and-dried.
- doctor_eval 5y ago
  But this is happening on accounts with long standing. The thing that gets me is that Apple knows I’ve spent $10,000s with them over many years. Even if I somehow fuck up and use a dodgy card, I’ve brought so much money into the business that they should at least assume good faith on my part. I understand cutting relatively new accounts off permanently for abuse but this no-recourse shit for long standing accounts is bullshit.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    I think they understand that, they’re just saying such a law either needs a regulating body doing the enforcement or needs to be worded very well to avoid frivolous cases.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    Reanimating of old accounts for fraud is very common from a fraud pov. Using a “dodgy card” ultimately is the problem.
- Animats 5y ago
  There are things you can do remotely. This happens all the time. I once sued a company in New South Wales in small claims court. It was done entirely online from the US, and if there had been a hearing, it would have been by phone. The company paid up within 24 hours of the filing.
  - chefandy 5y ago
    That's been true for many (not all) international suits for some time, but you can't generalize that to everywhere. In the US, things like that are set up per-jurisdiction or per-court and they all have vastly different budgets for these things. Jurisdiction is also not entirely straightforward in these instances. It's not that cut-and-dried.
avianlyric 5y ago
This is something the EU is currently taking on with their Digital Markets Act, and the concept of digital gatekeepers. I pretty sure (I haven’t been following too closely so it might have changed) the Act requires digital gatekeepers to provide human customer support, and provide clear explanations for moderation activity and account closure. Along with a clear appeals process. In theory all of this should make it much easier for a normal person to appeal an account closure, and refer a company to a regulator, or sue them in court, if they fail to provide a fair appeal.
- mmcnl 5y ago
  This sounds promising. What's a good article that explains this in more detail?
  - aembleton 5y ago
    https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/euro...
    - mmcnl 5y ago
      Thanks.
tsywke44 5y ago
You have to look at it from the company’s point of view. As the accounts can be created for free, every day millions of grifters are pulling shady shit. Using stolen CCs to purchase, trying to scam the support team, refund scams, identity theft… You name it and it happens.
- tekknik 5y ago
  When you create an account, and do nothing shady for years, in fact buying their products and spending money with them, and THEN you get cut off, that’s what we’re talking about here. And that their moderation needs to not be so digital and one sided.
- syshum 5y ago
  >>You have to look at it from the company’s point of view. No we actually do not, and should not. They are offering the product to the market, it is incumbent on them to fix the problem not just toss their hands up and say "Well it is too hard / expensive for us to solve so consumers just have to deal" This is similar to my complaint over the concept of "Identity theft" no one identity is ever stolen, no companies fail to implement proper fraud controls then shift the liability to the victim to "prove" their "identity was stolen", that is the exact opposite of how the burden should work Coming back around to the Apple situation, this is a result of allowing unconscionable contracts (aka severely one-sided and unfair) to permeate the digital goods world. The fact that Apple can terminate a contract in full, with one sided review with out having to notify the other party of the exact clause of the contract they alleged the other party violated, no recourse or notice to correct, no appeal or attempts to remedy, etc would not fly in most contract situations, the fact we allow it with "terms of service" is ridiculous
cjcole 5y ago
Their business model is literally profiting off of poor customer service (as a service). Get your credit card from a local credit union with at least one physical presence near you. Do your own backups or contract to an independent company whose primary occupation is doing backups. Manage your own email either directly or through an independent email provider. Buy a domain and use that for your email address to increase flexibility to move from one provider to another. Diversify. Anything else increases your risk of getting caught in a personal and financial wood chipper.

chefandy 5y ago

That's a tough policy to write fairly. Imagine Tom in Alaska buys a $10 downloadable pdf calendar off of designer David in Florida via Etsy. Tom claims the calendar somehow harmed him and sues David locally in Alaska, but is willing to settle remotely for $500. David knows it's bullshit and could beat it in a millisecond, but there's no way he could take time off to go to Alaska and avoiding a bench warrant is a pretty compelling reason to pay up the $500. That's not to say the current setup doesn't suck, but the solution isn't super cut-and-dried.

doctor_eval 5y ago
But this is happening on accounts with long standing. The thing that gets me is that Apple knows I’ve spent $10,000s with them over many years. Even if I somehow fuck up and use a dodgy card, I’ve brought so much money into the business that they should at least assume good faith on my part. I understand cutting relatively new accounts off permanently for abuse but this no-recourse shit for long standing accounts is bullshit.
- judge2020 5y ago
  I think they understand that, they’re just saying such a law either needs a regulating body doing the enforcement or needs to be worded very well to avoid frivolous cases.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  Reanimating of old accounts for fraud is very common from a fraud pov. Using a “dodgy card” ultimately is the problem.
Animats 5y ago
There are things you can do remotely. This happens all the time. I once sued a company in New South Wales in small claims court. It was done entirely online from the US, and if there had been a hearing, it would have been by phone. The company paid up within 24 hours of the filing.
- chefandy 5y ago
  That's been true for many (not all) international suits for some time, but you can't generalize that to everywhere. In the US, things like that are set up per-jurisdiction or per-court and they all have vastly different budgets for these things. Jurisdiction is also not entirely straightforward in these instances. It's not that cut-and-dried.

avianlyric 5y ago

This is something the EU is currently taking on with their Digital Markets Act, and the concept of digital gatekeepers. I pretty sure (I haven’t been following too closely so it might have changed) the Act requires digital gatekeepers to provide human customer support, and provide clear explanations for moderation activity and account closure. Along with a clear appeals process. In theory all of this should make it much easier for a normal person to appeal an account closure, and refer a company to a regulator, or sue them in court, if they fail to provide a fair appeal.

mmcnl 5y ago
This sounds promising. What's a good article that explains this in more detail?
- aembleton 5y ago
  https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/euro...
  - mmcnl 5y ago
    Thanks.

tsywke44 5y ago

You have to look at it from the company’s point of view. As the accounts can be created for free, every day millions of grifters are pulling shady shit. Using stolen CCs to purchase, trying to scam the support team, refund scams, identity theft… You name it and it happens.

tekknik 5y ago
When you create an account, and do nothing shady for years, in fact buying their products and spending money with them, and THEN you get cut off, that’s what we’re talking about here. And that their moderation needs to not be so digital and one sided.
syshum 5y ago
>>You have to look at it from the company’s point of view. No we actually do not, and should not. They are offering the product to the market, it is incumbent on them to fix the problem not just toss their hands up and say "Well it is too hard / expensive for us to solve so consumers just have to deal" This is similar to my complaint over the concept of "Identity theft" no one identity is ever stolen, no companies fail to implement proper fraud controls then shift the liability to the victim to "prove" their "identity was stolen", that is the exact opposite of how the burden should work Coming back around to the Apple situation, this is a result of allowing unconscionable contracts (aka severely one-sided and unfair) to permeate the digital goods world. The fact that Apple can terminate a contract in full, with one sided review with out having to notify the other party of the exact clause of the contract they alleged the other party violated, no recourse or notice to correct, no appeal or attempts to remedy, etc would not fly in most contract situations, the fact we allow it with "terms of service" is ridiculous

cjcole 5y ago

Their business model is literally profiting off of poor customer service (as a service). Get your credit card from a local credit union with at least one physical presence near you. Do your own backups or contract to an independent company whose primary occupation is doing backups. Manage your own email either directly or through an independent email provider. Buy a domain and use that for your email address to increase flexibility to move from one provider to another. Diversify. Anything else increases your risk of getting caught in a personal and financial wood chipper.