8 ms·

From Tinder's ToS: > Tinder may terminate your account at any time without notice if it believes that you have violated this Agreement. Upon such termination,

by hvdijk 5y ago

From Tinder's ToS: > Tinder may terminate your account at any time without notice if it believes that you have violated this Agreement. Upon such termination, you will not be entitled to any refund for purchases. > For residents of the Republic of Korea, except in the case [...], we will without delay notify you of the reason for taking the relevant step. They openly say in advance that they'll ban users who they think violated their terms, regardless of whether they actually did, keep their money, and never tell them why, except in South Korea where they already know that crap doesn't fly. It's only a matter of time till that gets thrown out by more courts in more countries. Until then, it seems foolish to give them any money.

DrammBA 5y ago
I would definitely try to file a charge back with my bank, they sometimes exercise their own discretion on egregious cases like this and might be worth a shot.
- jordemort 5y ago
  In this case it's probably billed through the relevant app store, so you'd be starting a fight with either Google or Apple there, which could end up going even more badly than the interaction with Tinder did.
  - xiphias2 5y ago
    With Paypal and Herz it was quite easy for me: i filed a request, Herz didn't answer, I elevated to paypal to make the decision, Herz didn't care to answer and I got back my money. I guess it's the dame for Tinder, they don't care enough to manually review the chargebacks.
- bjustin 5y ago
  Contacting Apple would likely lead to a refund. No need to go to the trouble of doing a chargeback. This is one of the reasons developers don't like Apple's IAP policies: developers have no control over whether Apple decides to give a refund (or not).
savant_penguin 5y ago
If you vpn to Korea would you get an answer?
- 29083011397778 5y ago
  Considering Tinder rather explicitly checks your location to find people around you? I'd assume it wouldn't work, and might even lead to getting banned faster.
  - juancn 5y ago
    Root the phone and fake the location.
    - DaveExeter 5y ago
      Is that technically possible?
      - kingcharles 5y ago
        Yes.
    - LorenPechtel 5y ago
      What's the point? They're not looking for people in Korea.
stevespang 5y ago
tarboreus 5y ago
I'm not single and haven't been fora long time, but my understanding is that if you're single you can't really opt out of these apps, practically speaking. Even the norms around dating, picking people up in bars, etc. are changing because of these apps, so it's harder to find people in the real world. Not impossible, obviously, but getting banned from Tinder is kind of a big deal. (Also all these apps are owned by the same company, I think it's the Match Group.)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- csa 5y ago
  > my understanding is that if you're single you can't really opt out of these apps, practically speaking. This is definitely not true. > Even the norms around dating, picking people up in bars, etc. are changing because of these apps This is true. > so it's harder to find people in the real world. This is sort of true. By not using a dating app, a single person is relegating themselves to how things were pre-app. Some of those pre-app options are less common now, other new ways are more common. The apps widened the dating door for certain people, specifically for people who are not particularly keen on getting out and meeting people (probably quite a few folks like that on HN) as well as people who are looking to get married asap[1]. That said, for people who get out and do things, meeting people to date is not difficult at all. Getting banned from Tinder for those folks is, at worst, a loss of a time filler activity (swiping). I will also add that, of the apps, tinder might be one of the worst in terms of quality match ups. [1] Apps are also good for highly desirable dates since their pool goes from big to biggest, but those folks aren’t really the topic here since they aren’t short on access to dates with or without an app.
  - caminante 5y ago
    After checking reality, online dating's the #1 way people meet, and its market share (>50%) is growing. [0] [1] [0] https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/21/online-dating-popular-way-u-s-couples-meet/ https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/21/online-dating-popular-w... [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/06/10-facts-about-americans-and-online-dating/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/06/10-facts-ab...
015a 5y ago
"Take their money and run" is one of those standard operating practices in big tech that I think obviously needs legislation to curb. Once you start looking, you see it everywhere; whether its movies on iTunes, books on Kindle, or costumes in Fortnite. If you break their ToS, they're allowed to cancel your account, without recourse, and take away all the content you purchased. Its especially egregious in gaming, where a false accusation of cheating can cause your account to disappear; and because there's a "guilty until proven guilty" stigma against cheating, by-and-large gaming company support teams will not help. They'll auto-ban accounts, hardware signatures, even IP addresses. Content providers should have the right to cease service to customers who don't abide by their terms. I don't feel that's unreasonable. But, consumers need recourse for the monetary investment. I'd strongly support a law worded something like: Digital service providers who sell transactional content & goods must either (1) offer the goods in an exportable, unencumbered, similarly accessible & functional format, or (2) at the time of service-provider initiated account termination, for any reason, reimburse the user for the full cost of goods purchased. Many companies would argue: "we don't have the money anymore, we had to pay rights holders." I'd respond, that sounds like a You problem, and maybe you should consider clause (1). "The rights holders won't go for it"; again, that's a You problem. Work it out, or lose money; that's what consumer protection laws are for. They're not to protect your revenue streams. Some gaming companies would be especially hurt by this, because of the prevalence of blank-check anticheat enforcement and their general inability to meet clause (1) due to the latest Fortnite cosmetic not really being "equally functional" outside the context of Fortnite. Well, I'd first respond: Your reliance on unjust business operating practices is a You problem. But more critically: maybe this will be the kick in the butt these companies need to invest more heavily into more accurate & functional anti-cheat, better customer support, and even new innovative revenue models. I've long felt that gaming has underutilized subscription services, and preyed too heavily on "free to play, pay $100 for the cool stuff later". Battle passes are kind of like a subscription service, and if the terms & expectations of the purchase are rephrased to be more service-like, rather than transactional-like, its reasonable to me that those should escape the law. The best argument against a law like this is: consumers can, of course, break a company's terms at any time they wish. Most choose not to. But if they wanted to, the purchases with a content provider become something like a bank account, which they can utilize as they wish for as long as they wish, then get a full refund. Response: First, I think this should drive companies to clause (1). There's an out; you just need to work with the rights holders and accept that piracy will happen whether or not you try to control it. Second, again I think it comes back to mixing metaphors; Fortnite sells Goods, but they're only functional within the context of the Fortnite Service. Maybe they should sell the Service, and include the Goods. Third, this is a gap that insurance feels well-suited to help cover. Fourth, I think this would drive more companies to better KYC, so if anyone pulls this, at least they can only pull it once. That's not a bad thing. The point should be to align what customers expect with what providers sell. If Netflix cancels your account, it sucks; but you don't feel slighted. It was a service; you understood that if you stopped paying, the service goes away. In comparison, the goods Apple sells (Apps, Movies, Books, etc) feel a lot more like going to the DVD isle in Best Buy; and its not ok that companies are allowed to slight customers like they do.
hinkley 5y ago
if [Tinder] *believes* that you have violated this Agreement Belief and 'thinking' are funny things. They imply human judgement was involved in the process. Instead what most people seem to be complaining about are the egregious use of heuristics to do large scale account maintenance without retaining staff (humans) to make judgements on the particulars of each case. Until AIs win person-hood, there is no 'thinking' involved in this process. But I wonder if there is any case history on challenging the terminology used to describe these situations. I feel that these systems should be using something more akin to applitools, which flags discrepancies between real and expected, and then a human rejects or accepts the report on a line item basis. You can still screw up and click yes when you meant no, but at least you have a chance at getting a human involved before doing anything dire.
- john_moscow 5y ago
  "believes" is just legalese for "we won't show any proof and won't accept any appeal".
rq1 5y ago
These ToS are illegal. No service = no money.
cwkoss 5y ago
ToS's are usually wishful thinking and only legally binding against users in the weakest sense. Illegal business practices are not made legitimate because they were proscribed by the ToS.

by hvdijk 5y ago

DrammBA 5y ago

I would definitely try to file a charge back with my bank, they sometimes exercise their own discretion on egregious cases like this and might be worth a shot.

jordemort 5y ago
In this case it's probably billed through the relevant app store, so you'd be starting a fight with either Google or Apple there, which could end up going even more badly than the interaction with Tinder did.
- xiphias2 5y ago
  With Paypal and Herz it was quite easy for me: i filed a request, Herz didn't answer, I elevated to paypal to make the decision, Herz didn't care to answer and I got back my money. I guess it's the dame for Tinder, they don't care enough to manually review the chargebacks.
bjustin 5y ago
Contacting Apple would likely lead to a refund. No need to go to the trouble of doing a chargeback. This is one of the reasons developers don't like Apple's IAP policies: developers have no control over whether Apple decides to give a refund (or not).

savant_penguin 5y ago

If you vpn to Korea would you get an answer?

29083011397778 5y ago
Considering Tinder rather explicitly checks your location to find people around you? I'd assume it wouldn't work, and might even lead to getting banned faster.
- juancn 5y ago
  Root the phone and fake the location.
  - DaveExeter 5y ago
    Is that technically possible?
    - kingcharles 5y ago
      Yes.
  - LorenPechtel 5y ago
    What's the point? They're not looking for people in Korea.

stevespang 5y ago

tarboreus 5y ago

I'm not single and haven't been fora long time, but my understanding is that if you're single you can't really opt out of these apps, practically speaking. Even the norms around dating, picking people up in bars, etc. are changing because of these apps, so it's harder to find people in the real world. Not impossible, obviously, but getting banned from Tinder is kind of a big deal. (Also all these apps are owned by the same company, I think it's the Match Group.)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
csa 5y ago
> my understanding is that if you're single you can't really opt out of these apps, practically speaking. This is definitely not true. > Even the norms around dating, picking people up in bars, etc. are changing because of these apps This is true. > so it's harder to find people in the real world. This is sort of true. By not using a dating app, a single person is relegating themselves to how things were pre-app. Some of those pre-app options are less common now, other new ways are more common. The apps widened the dating door for certain people, specifically for people who are not particularly keen on getting out and meeting people (probably quite a few folks like that on HN) as well as people who are looking to get married asap[1]. That said, for people who get out and do things, meeting people to date is not difficult at all. Getting banned from Tinder for those folks is, at worst, a loss of a time filler activity (swiping). I will also add that, of the apps, tinder might be one of the worst in terms of quality match ups. [1] Apps are also good for highly desirable dates since their pool goes from big to biggest, but those folks aren’t really the topic here since they aren’t short on access to dates with or without an app.
- caminante 5y ago
  After checking reality, online dating's the #1 way people meet, and its market share (>50%) is growing. [0] [1] [0] https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/21/online-dating-popular-way-u-s-couples-meet/ https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/21/online-dating-popular-w... [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/06/10-facts-about-americans-and-online-dating/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/06/10-facts-ab...

015a 5y ago

"Take their money and run" is one of those standard operating practices in big tech that I think obviously needs legislation to curb. Once you start looking, you see it everywhere; whether its movies on iTunes, books on Kindle, or costumes in Fortnite. If you break their ToS, they're allowed to cancel your account, without recourse, and take away all the content you purchased. Its especially egregious in gaming, where a false accusation of cheating can cause your account to disappear; and because there's a "guilty until proven guilty" stigma against cheating, by-and-large gaming company support teams will not help. They'll auto-ban accounts, hardware signatures, even IP addresses. Content providers should have the right to cease service to customers who don't abide by their terms. I don't feel that's unreasonable. But, consumers need recourse for the monetary investment. I'd strongly support a law worded something like: Digital service providers who sell transactional content & goods must either (1) offer the goods in an exportable, unencumbered, similarly accessible & functional format, or (2) at the time of service-provider initiated account termination, for any reason, reimburse the user for the full cost of goods purchased. Many companies would argue: "we don't have the money anymore, we had to pay rights holders." I'd respond, that sounds like a You problem, and maybe you should consider clause (1). "The rights holders won't go for it"; again, that's a You problem. Work it out, or lose money; that's what consumer protection laws are for. They're not to protect your revenue streams. Some gaming companies would be especially hurt by this, because of the prevalence of blank-check anticheat enforcement and their general inability to meet clause (1) due to the latest Fortnite cosmetic not really being "equally functional" outside the context of Fortnite. Well, I'd first respond: Your reliance on unjust business operating practices is a You problem. But more critically: maybe this will be the kick in the butt these companies need to invest more heavily into more accurate & functional anti-cheat, better customer support, and even new innovative revenue models. I've long felt that gaming has underutilized subscription services, and preyed too heavily on "free to play, pay $100 for the cool stuff later". Battle passes are kind of like a subscription service, and if the terms & expectations of the purchase are rephrased to be more service-like, rather than transactional-like, its reasonable to me that those should escape the law. The best argument against a law like this is: consumers can, of course, break a company's terms at any time they wish. Most choose not to. But if they wanted to, the purchases with a content provider become something like a bank account, which they can utilize as they wish for as long as they wish, then get a full refund. Response: First, I think this should drive companies to clause (1). There's an out; you just need to work with the rights holders and accept that piracy will happen whether or not you try to control it. Second, again I think it comes back to mixing metaphors; Fortnite sells Goods, but they're only functional within the context of the Fortnite Service. Maybe they should sell the Service, and include the Goods. Third, this is a gap that insurance feels well-suited to help cover. Fourth, I think this would drive more companies to better KYC, so if anyone pulls this, at least they can only pull it once. That's not a bad thing. The point should be to align what customers expect with what providers sell. If Netflix cancels your account, it sucks; but you don't feel slighted. It was a service; you understood that if you stopped paying, the service goes away. In comparison, the goods Apple sells (Apps, Movies, Books, etc) feel a lot more like going to the DVD isle in Best Buy; and its not ok that companies are allowed to slight customers like they do.

hinkley 5y ago

if [Tinder] *believes* that you have violated this Agreement Belief and 'thinking' are funny things. They imply human judgement was involved in the process. Instead what most people seem to be complaining about are the egregious use of heuristics to do large scale account maintenance without retaining staff (humans) to make judgements on the particulars of each case. Until AIs win person-hood, there is no 'thinking' involved in this process. But I wonder if there is any case history on challenging the terminology used to describe these situations. I feel that these systems should be using something more akin to applitools, which flags discrepancies between real and expected, and then a human rejects or accepts the report on a line item basis. You can still screw up and click yes when you meant no, but at least you have a chance at getting a human involved before doing anything dire.

john_moscow 5y ago
"believes" is just legalese for "we won't show any proof and won't accept any appeal".

rq1 5y ago

These ToS are illegal. No service = no money.

cwkoss 5y ago

ToS's are usually wishful thinking and only legally binding against users in the weakest sense. Illegal business practices are not made legitimate because they were proscribed by the ToS.