5 ms·

Real advice: Use Upwork (or similar for legal, in the US there's Upcounsel) to find a lawyer in your country and post your job with a link to this article. Get

Real advice: Use Upwork (or similar for legal, in the US there's Upcounsel) to find a lawyer in your country and post your job with a link to this article. Getting a lawyer involved will straighten things out fast. Upwork should eat the loss, no question. It'll easily cost Upwork more than 12k in time and resources if they try to defend it. It'll cost you a few hundred USD at minimum but it'll be worth it.

ethbr0 5y ago
This is hilariously apropos. Kudos for the suggestion.
generalpf 5y ago
This is a great idea but what prevents Upwork from kicking him off the platform for pissing them off? Or maybe there’s an arbitration clause in the agreement too?
wpietri 5y ago
If I were Upwork, I wouldn't be measuring this against the cost to defend this one instance. I'd be measuring it against the cost of the next 10 years of instances of credit card fraud where there's insufficient evidence of people actually doing the work. If they are seen as soft on this, it opens them up to a class of fraud where freelancer and client collude to milk stolen credit cards. Or where a fraudster just pretends to be both sides.
- notahacker 5y ago
  Honestly, if I was a fraudster and I read a description of Upwork's actions here I'd be delighted. If I pay myself with a stolen card via two accounts through Upwork, their standard policy is to ignore the card fraud account and tell the freelancer account(s) the transaction was laundered through that they'll have to pay Upwork back out of future earnings, if any. That's a fraudster's dream antifraud policy, because they have no intention of using any freelancer accounts they create for real work so there's nothing lost, no police are involved, and Upwork doesn't even care if someone is willing to testify that someone admits to using someone else's card and knows where they live! Upwork's behaviour is no deterrent to actual multiple account fraudsters at all, and positive encouragement to fraudsters with stolen cards that can profit from selling on actual work done by actual freelancers. The only context it makes sense is if they're pretty sure the freelancer account is an innocent party they're happy to continue to use their platform, but figure it's cheaper and easier to squeeze them for the chargeback than chase the person who entered the fraudulent cards.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    I see your point, but you take it too far. Upwork's behavior generally seems to include significant anti-fraud deterrents. In this narrow case when the fraud has already happened, it's true that washing their hands of it doesn't act as a further anti-fraud defense. But it's a very narrow case where a credit-card owner is not going to notice thousands of dollars per month over a multi-month period and where the freelancer specifically doesn't use their time tracking system. Where it does help Upwork is helping freelancers see that a) they really need to follow the rules, and b) if they don't, complaining won't get them any more money.
    - notahacker 5y ago
      It's a very narrow case, but we're talking about how this case appears to fraudsters, not whatever their other policies might be. Fraud policies are necessarily somewhat opaque and often unfairly penalise innocent parties who come under suspicion but "we're so confident you didn't actually collude with this individual we're not even suspending your account, but we will take the $12.5k we lost off your future earnings with us because it's easier than attempting to pursue the fraudster" isn't even an anti-fraud policy. If the freelancer is telling the whole truth, it appears they did follow the rules, and Upwork's client committed a felony, and Upwork's response is to try to recover funds from the freelancer. If carders pay any attention at all which they probably don't that's a positive signal. HN coverage is probably more relevant to freelancers (and genuine paying clients). Its possible it'll scare a few more into using Upwork's spyware tool, but also likely it'll just persuade more to look elsewhere. Not sure the PR damage is necessarily less than $12.5k either..
      - wpietri 5y ago
        Again, I see what you're saying, but you take it too far. You have to look at the whole basket of outcomes if you want to evaluate the policies from Upwork's perspective. Is the PR damage less than $12.5k? Maybe. But the proper number to compare with is 12.5k * all the other times this happens or even could happen if the freelancer gets slack.
- lobocinza 5y ago
  They should also measure the loss of "sales" due to bad publicity.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> Getting a lawyer involved will straighten things out fast. Upwork should eat the loss, no question. It'll easily cost Upwork more than 12k in time and resources if they try to defend it. This may work with smaller companies that don’t want to have in-house counsel to engage in lengthy legal debates, but it’s not actually very effective against big companies with corporate counsel and clear-cut contracts. Unless you think you have an angle to show the upwork contracts 1) Don’t have any provisions covering this situation (extremely unlikely) 2) Are unenforceable due to specific laws Then it’s a dead-end to sue Upwork. You have to sue Robin, not Upwork. > It'll cost you a few hundred USD at minimum but it'll be worth it. Nope. Suing corporations with corporate counsel and well-tested contracts is not cheap. You might get a letter from a lawyer for a couple hundred, but then you’re just going to get a letter back from their lawyers. They will likely also threaten to collect on the reversed charges to raise the stakes. Don’t sue Upwork with a bargain lawyer. Sue Robin, the client, to collect payment.
- hajile 5y ago
  Writing severely one sided contracts can be cause for a judge to throw them out (unconscionable contracts). My understanding is that lack of bargaining power and understanding is the usual reason for this ruling. Pitting a megacorp with loads of lawyers vs a self-employed freelancer is definitely the right environment. The freelancer can’t possibly vet clients payment methods. A contract holding them financially responsible for the big corporation’s mistakes that they can’t prevent or even review seems like a textbook example of this. The question is if this freelancer (or a reasonable person in their position) would sign a contract like that if they knew what it could cost. I don’t think anything would. Upwork certainly would not.
  - gruez 5y ago
    > Writing severely one sided contracts can be cause for a judge to throw them out (unconscionable contracts). You still need to convince a judge that, which means lengthy court trial. Also, I suspect the law is slightly more complicated than "it seems pretty unfair to a bunch of HN readers so the contract is unconscionable", which means tons of billable hours searching up relevant court cases.
commandlinefan 5y ago
I’m surprised you can charge back charges from two years ago. To a certain extent, not noticing this fraud does fall on the card owner. They were paying fraudulent bills for years and they just now noticed? I’d think allowing even a three-month old chargeback would be generous.

ethbr0 5y ago

This is hilariously apropos. Kudos for the suggestion.

generalpf 5y ago

This is a great idea but what prevents Upwork from kicking him off the platform for pissing them off? Or maybe there’s an arbitration clause in the agreement too?

wpietri 5y ago

If I were Upwork, I wouldn't be measuring this against the cost to defend this one instance. I'd be measuring it against the cost of the next 10 years of instances of credit card fraud where there's insufficient evidence of people actually doing the work. If they are seen as soft on this, it opens them up to a class of fraud where freelancer and client collude to milk stolen credit cards. Or where a fraudster just pretends to be both sides.

notahacker 5y ago
Honestly, if I was a fraudster and I read a description of Upwork's actions here I'd be delighted. If I pay myself with a stolen card via two accounts through Upwork, their standard policy is to ignore the card fraud account and tell the freelancer account(s) the transaction was laundered through that they'll have to pay Upwork back out of future earnings, if any. That's a fraudster's dream antifraud policy, because they have no intention of using any freelancer accounts they create for real work so there's nothing lost, no police are involved, and Upwork doesn't even care if someone is willing to testify that someone admits to using someone else's card and knows where they live! Upwork's behaviour is no deterrent to actual multiple account fraudsters at all, and positive encouragement to fraudsters with stolen cards that can profit from selling on actual work done by actual freelancers. The only context it makes sense is if they're pretty sure the freelancer account is an innocent party they're happy to continue to use their platform, but figure it's cheaper and easier to squeeze them for the chargeback than chase the person who entered the fraudulent cards.
- wpietri 5y ago
  I see your point, but you take it too far. Upwork's behavior generally seems to include significant anti-fraud deterrents. In this narrow case when the fraud has already happened, it's true that washing their hands of it doesn't act as a further anti-fraud defense. But it's a very narrow case where a credit-card owner is not going to notice thousands of dollars per month over a multi-month period and where the freelancer specifically doesn't use their time tracking system. Where it does help Upwork is helping freelancers see that a) they really need to follow the rules, and b) if they don't, complaining won't get them any more money.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    It's a very narrow case, but we're talking about how this case appears to fraudsters, not whatever their other policies might be. Fraud policies are necessarily somewhat opaque and often unfairly penalise innocent parties who come under suspicion but "we're so confident you didn't actually collude with this individual we're not even suspending your account, but we will take the $12.5k we lost off your future earnings with us because it's easier than attempting to pursue the fraudster" isn't even an anti-fraud policy. If the freelancer is telling the whole truth, it appears they did follow the rules, and Upwork's client committed a felony, and Upwork's response is to try to recover funds from the freelancer. If carders pay any attention at all which they probably don't that's a positive signal. HN coverage is probably more relevant to freelancers (and genuine paying clients). Its possible it'll scare a few more into using Upwork's spyware tool, but also likely it'll just persuade more to look elsewhere. Not sure the PR damage is necessarily less than $12.5k either..
    - wpietri 5y ago
      Again, I see what you're saying, but you take it too far. You have to look at the whole basket of outcomes if you want to evaluate the policies from Upwork's perspective. Is the PR damage less than $12.5k? Maybe. But the proper number to compare with is 12.5k * all the other times this happens or even could happen if the freelancer gets slack.
lobocinza 5y ago
They should also measure the loss of "sales" due to bad publicity.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> Getting a lawyer involved will straighten things out fast. Upwork should eat the loss, no question. It'll easily cost Upwork more than 12k in time and resources if they try to defend it. This may work with smaller companies that don’t want to have in-house counsel to engage in lengthy legal debates, but it’s not actually very effective against big companies with corporate counsel and clear-cut contracts. Unless you think you have an angle to show the upwork contracts 1) Don’t have any provisions covering this situation (extremely unlikely) 2) Are unenforceable due to specific laws Then it’s a dead-end to sue Upwork. You have to sue Robin, not Upwork. > It'll cost you a few hundred USD at minimum but it'll be worth it. Nope. Suing corporations with corporate counsel and well-tested contracts is not cheap. You might get a letter from a lawyer for a couple hundred, but then you’re just going to get a letter back from their lawyers. They will likely also threaten to collect on the reversed charges to raise the stakes. Don’t sue Upwork with a bargain lawyer. Sue Robin, the client, to collect payment.

hajile 5y ago
Writing severely one sided contracts can be cause for a judge to throw them out (unconscionable contracts). My understanding is that lack of bargaining power and understanding is the usual reason for this ruling. Pitting a megacorp with loads of lawyers vs a self-employed freelancer is definitely the right environment. The freelancer can’t possibly vet clients payment methods. A contract holding them financially responsible for the big corporation’s mistakes that they can’t prevent or even review seems like a textbook example of this. The question is if this freelancer (or a reasonable person in their position) would sign a contract like that if they knew what it could cost. I don’t think anything would. Upwork certainly would not.
- gruez 5y ago
  > Writing severely one sided contracts can be cause for a judge to throw them out (unconscionable contracts). You still need to convince a judge that, which means lengthy court trial. Also, I suspect the law is slightly more complicated than "it seems pretty unfair to a bunch of HN readers so the contract is unconscionable", which means tons of billable hours searching up relevant court cases.

commandlinefan 5y ago

I’m surprised you can charge back charges from two years ago. To a certain extent, not noticing this fraud does fall on the card owner. They were paying fraudulent bills for years and they just now noticed? I’d think allowing even a three-month old chargeback would be generous.