4 ms·

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 cale

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.

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.