12 ms·
Venmo forces binding arbitration unless you opt out by mail before June 22
- dopamean 5y agoOpt out by mail for a service you've only ever interacted with via an app on a phone shouldn't even be a thing.
- kodah 5y agoI wonder what kind of lawyer got out of law school and was like, "Damn, this is a fine liberal education. Time to destroy some lives." Edit: I guess similar to the one that got a math degree just to write dark patterns.
- pc86 5y agoI don't think the people "writing dark patterns," whatever that means, have math degrees.
- akhmatova 5y agoIf you don't know what it means (which is very easy to find out, btw) then why are you offering your advice and insight into the matter?
- pc86 5y agoI know very well what they are, and that math plays no role in them beyond being able to understand an A/B test.
- kodah 5y agoJuxtaposing the effort to get a math or law degree just to be a grifter was the intent!
- akhmatova 5y agoYou just said "people doing X, whatever that means" which strongly suggests that (at the time of writing) you either didn't know or care what X (in this case "dark patterns") means. And which is about as funny as this other snippet you just wrote: "Math plays no role in them beyond being able to understand an A/B test (i.e. to be able to understand math)" Anyway the commenter's point wasn't that writing software with dark patterns requires super-heavy math (or even a math degree specifically). But how ironic it is that people with (sometimes highly prestigious) STEM degrees -- and who are in fact objectively quite smart otherwise, sometimes almost intimidatingly so -- end up at allegedly prestigious companies that we don't need to name doing ... basically mindless and socially harmful work like this. And getting paid quite handsomely for it.
- 8ytecoder 5y agoI don’t think that’s how they’d view it at all. In their eyes it’s all these “spurious” lawsuits they’re protecting their client from within legal means. Arbitration is expedient and much cheaper.
- Finnucane 5y agoIt's mainly about trying to close out the possibility of class-action lawsuits. They figure individual users won't sue for small claims. One on one you can't compete with their legal departments. Some companies have actually backed off on this strategy when someone figured out how to generate massive numbers of arbitration requests.
- BoxOfRain 5y ago>I guess similar to the one that got a math degree just to write dark patterns. Or the programmer who finishes a top CS course only to go directly into undermining the democratic process by working for the likes of Cambridge Analytica, or the programmer giving teenagers depression through aggressive adtech. We're really in no position to be criticising lawyers for sending their industry's top minds to do morally questionable things!
- Aeolun 5y ago> We're really in no position to be criticising lawyers for sending their industry's top minds to do morally questionable things! You may not be. I’m just helping people replace their broken phones.
- BoxOfRain 5y agoI was using the royal we, as in 'we the software industry'. I'm quite picky personally.
- trey-jones 5y agoIf I may also be picky, the royal we should refer to oneself in the singular.
- BoxOfRain 5y agoI think I might have been using that term wrong my entire life!
- S-E-P 5y agoAt least you know that programmer is going to make it very hard for those who try to maintain their work after they are gone. :)
- rmbyrro 5y agoSince making money seems to be a thing of the devil nowadays, Lawyers are much worse than developers, just because they usually make a LOT more money. Also, developers very often confess their misbehaviors on social media and donate their time to OSS and money to charity or the social warrior politician du jour, while lawyers are infidels. This basically clears the bad record for developers, so they can continue working for Facebook et. al. with no remorse. This is perfectly reasonable, logical way of thinking in the year 1022. I mean, 2022. If you think of downvoting, be careful, as you may end up being sued for intolerance. I'm dead serious. Or lively joking. Your choice.
- JohnHaugeland 5y agoWhat purpose do you think adding your political position to a hypothetical villain serves The phrase "liberal education" does not have a valid real world meaning
- kodah 5y agoLittle L liberal isn't political. Western countries are "liberal" countries which generally translates to free market, democracy, individualism, etc
- JohnHaugeland 5y agoThere remains no such thing as the thing that they actually said
- kodah 5y agoThe "they" in this conversation is me, btw. Here's your reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_education
- neycoda 5y agoI thought arbitration doesn't remove your right to sue unless you agree to it... and an opt-out form from a by-default user terms notification isn't the same thing as agreeing to arbitration. It's like Venmo saying: we have a right to take everything you own unless you opt out of this agreement. Nnno you don't, that's literal stealing, like trying to rob people of their right to sue.
- zekrioca 5y ago* June 22, not July
- jameslk 5y agoThanks, updated the title! Good catch
- elliotec 5y agoWhat does this mean?
- teawrecks 5y agoIt means, should you ever want to sue them for something, now you can't. Instead, they just decide the outcome arbitrarily, and you have to accept it.
- monksy 5y agoThey're changing the way that you can handle issues with them. Normally you have the right to sue an organization for wrong doing. (I.e. they stole money from you, they literally reached into your bank account and drained it, etc.. you know civil stuff) However, with arbitration.. the corporation can remove your right to do so and force this disagreement to be settled through an organization that they pay. It limits your rights, it limits the amount of money you get get back from the situation you encountered, and they do not have to abide by any normal laws sorrounding civil litigation. But hey, you typically don't pay as much as you would of a lawyer upfront. This isn't an action that people are consenting to.. it's something they're being forced into.. unless they follow a difficult procedure to do avoid it.
- relyks 5y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but I believe it also means that a class-action lawsuit can't be started against Venmo
- thereisnospork 5y ago> be settled through an organization that they pay. This is a part I've never been quite clear on, do you know what governs venue selection for an arbitration? e.g. why their arbitrator and not my arbitrator?
- eesmith 5y agoIt's through the American Arbitration Association. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Arbitration_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Arbitration_Associati... . > The AAA does not itself arbitrate disputes, but provides administrative support to arbitrations before a single arbitrator or a panel of three arbitrators. Under its rules, the AAA may appoint an arbitrator in some circumstances, for example, where the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator or a party fails to exercise its right to appoint an arbitrator. The AAA has a "National Roster of Arbitrators". The AAA appoints an arbitrator from this roster. https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Consumer_Rules_Web_2.pdf https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Consumer_Rules_Web_2... R-15 and R-16. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_resolution)#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_res... for why that alone doesn't ensure impartiality.
- noja 5y agoHow is it possible to opt-out of a legal process? How is it possible for this to happen automatically without agreeing to it?!
- _moof 5y ago> How is it possible for this to happen automatically without agreeing to it?! When you initially agreed to the TOS, there was a clause that said Venmo/PayPal can modify the terms whenever they want: "We may revise this user agreement and any of the policies listed above from time to time. The revised version will be effective at the time we post it, unless otherwise noted. If our changes reduce your rights or increase your responsibilities we will provide notice to you of at least 21 days. We reserve the right to amend this agreement at any time without notice, subject to applicable law. By continuing to use our services after any changes to this user agreement become effective, you agree to abide and be bound by those changes. If you do not agree with any changes to this user agreement, you may close your account." https://venmo.com/legal/us-user-agreement/ https://venmo.com/legal/us-user-agreement/ Every TOS you've ever agreed to has a clause like this. These agreements are extremely one-sided.
- bjarneh 5y ago> When you initially agreed to the TOS, there was a clause that said Venmo/PayPal can modify the terms whenever they want That is the thing which really should be illegal. It doesn't even make sense. You agree to terms that we can be modified any time they want? What are you even agreeing to with a contract like that?
- solumos 5y ago> How is it possible to opt-out of a legal process? via contract > How is it possible for this to happen automatically without agreeing to it?! by accepting the Terms of Service
- yardstick 5y agoHas this been tested in court? It would seem the user was not given time for due consideration. Would a court agree or disagree that there was a meeting of minds?
- akoster 5y agoThe FTC needs to make a “click to register, mail to modify your preferences” illegal similar to how “click to subscribe, call to cancel” is now outlawed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29250063 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29250063 P.S.: At least can venmo be compelled to act or confirm our choice if we are forced to mail in their form? Can they claim they never received it, that it was printed incorrectly (since the form isn’t a PDF and can be easily rendered differently by various browsers) or missing some specific info?
- cgb223 5y agoThis isn’t the way it should be but if you want proof they received it you could send it via certified letter You get a receipt showing they received it
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago"you should have to spend your own time and money to prove that you did not agree to something that they tried to sneak past you" In an ethical world they would need a receipt that you agreed
- hayleox 5y agoThey could claim they never received it; if you do a lot of business on Venmo, it might be worth investing a few bucks in sending via certified mail. I don't think they'd have a leg to stand on in claiming that your version of the form was incorrectly rendered, as long as you provided all the requested information. If you failed to include every piece of information the form asks for, perhaps they'd have an argument to reject your opt-out; the contract does specifically say that every piece of info must be included and it must be signed.
- daniel-cussen 5y agoNo click to confirm, Venmo has to mail YOU to ask for binding arbitration by certified mail, asking YOU with a SASE to confirm by certified mail back. Then it would be consent.
- GoOnThenDoTell 5y agoWhats the mechanics for how they’re able to do this?
- kelnos 5y agoBecause when you signed up, you agreed to terms of service that said they could, just like you do when you sign up for pretty much any service.
- noja 5y agoDo you read the terms of service?
- happymellon 5y agoIt doesn't matter if you have read them or not, because they could have changed the ToS 30 mins later to be something completely different and it is assumed you agreed to that too.
- caconym_ 5y agoWhen every corporation attaches the same fifty thousand words' worth of abusive T&Cs to every service they offer, consumers have no choice: they can consent to being abused (in this case waiving their legal rights), or go live in the woods where they don't need a smartphone or a credit card. As usual, our impotent, incompetent, illegitimate government has utterly failed to protect us in this regard.
- shuckles 5y agoSeems like an opportunity for businesses like Do Not Pay. I'd pay $2 for this, and it can't cost that much to print and mail paper. I'd even pay a recurring fee to handle these sorts of dark patterns systematically.
- bigbacaloa 5y agoBad faith user agreements and TOS should not be binding. It's a legal fraud that users have agreed to the TOS when they have no alternative.
- greggsy 5y agoAbsolutely, but the backlash might trigger awareness and even reform around the way TOS are developed.
- UweSchmidt 5y agoAny TOS that's too long and convoluted for a layperson to read should not be binding. Our legal system is the church preaching in latin.
- klabb3 5y agoI've had an idea for a while, that I'll probably never get around to. The idea is to throw some ML or other appropriate analysis at privacy policies and eulas to monitor for changes and possibly offer alerts, explanations and practical advice to users.
- joosters 5y agoThere's https://tosdr.org/ https://tosdr.org/ which is similar. It monitors T&Cs of popular sites, analysing them and spotting changes.
- deelly 5y agoWho and how will define that TOS agreements are bad and that there no alternative?
- pessimizer 5y agoHow do we manage to have any laws? We should use that process.
- heliodor 5y agoThe alternative is to walk away. No one should be forced to do business with you on your terms, even when that someone is an unlikable corporation.
- foepys 5y agoDidn't quite a few tech companies stop using mandatory arbitration because some people basically flash mobbed them into paying millions in arbitration fees? I cannot find it somehow, maybe I am misremembering.
- andreareina 5y agoUber: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/uber-loses-appeal-block-92-million-mass-arbitration-fees-2022-04-18/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/uber-loses-appeal-b...
- ilikepi 5y agoAmazon is another: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27356550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27356550
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- voakbasda 5y agoThis needs to become a recurrent pattern. Once companies see serious red ink as the probable outcome, maybe we will see an end to this kind of bullshit.
- prasadjoglekar 5y agoDoordash, not sure if they've stopped it, or just made it harder to bundle requests. https://qz.com/work/1801652/doordash-is-learning-just-how-binding-arbitration-is/ https://qz.com/work/1801652/doordash-is-learning-just-how-bi...
- gxqoz 5y agoThe new agreement says: "provides that you will only be permitted to pursue claims against PayPal on an individual basis, not as a plaintiff or class member in any class or representative action or proceeding; provides that you will only be permitted to seek relief (including monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief) on an individual basis" I'm wondering if this language is to try to prevent that tactic?
- monksy 5y agoI just closed my Venmo account due to this. They can pound sand.
- SapporoChris 5y agoCan account with Venmo be closed without mailing? Seems like a good solution.
- nbingham 5y agohttps://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/963 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/963
- alichapman 5y agoI live in the UK and I've never come across any company that does shitty stuff like this. Is there some EU law we've still got that explicitly prevents this?
- solar-ice 5y agoYes, there's an EU directive which broadly considers arbitration clauses unfair in consumer contracts, and declares that unfair clauses in consumer contracts must be considered nonbinding in law - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31993L0013&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... (The basic relevant articles in the directive are Article 3, Article 6 and the Annex here.)
- rndgermandude 5y agoIndeed. At least for now, this is the law in the UK as well... EU directives have to be implemented into national law by member states, and this one is old enough that the UK actually implemented it. Now that the UK left the EU, and given the "conservative" (i.e. neo-con, market-liberal) government, I wonder if the UK laws concerning this kind of consumer protection will get watered down (or already have been).
- 7steps2much 5y agoPotentially this[1]: > Under EU law, standard contract terms must not: > * be contrary to the requirement of good faith; > * disadvantage consumers (in terms of rights & obligations), in relation to sellers/suppliers. There might be a more specialized law/regulation though. The EU is pretty bad with their public relations stuff so it's hard to tell. [1]: https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers/consumer-contracts-guarantees/consumer-contracts/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers...
- JumpCrisscross 5y agoUnless you reasonably see yourself starting a lawsuit (tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars) or paying to certify a class (hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars), arbitration is almost always better for the consumer. It’s cheaper, which renders benign the big-company dickhead move of forcing millions of dollars of legal preparation. It’s quieter, which renders benign the big-company dickhead move of airing embarrassing stuff in public filings. It’s faster; if you’re owed money you’ll get it quicker. There is concern arbitration may be more biased than the courts, but the evidence for anything systematic is scant, and the extra eyes don’t hurt. (There is even, now, precedent for collective antagonistic action [1].) For most users, considering the sorts of squabbles one is likely to get into with the likes of Venmo, releasing Venmo from binding arbitration may be a net negative move. (If you get screwed for anything less than hundreds of thousands, you’ve given up your right to pursue.) [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-19/trump-lawyer-sticks-uber-with-astronomical-arbitration-bill https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-19/trump-law...
- lostdog 5y ago> the evidence for anything systematic is scant Arbitration is secret, so what evidence are you talking about?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- eesmith 5y agoMost customers don't expect to sue someone. But the issue here concerns those cases where a lawsuit (or threat of a lawsuit) may be appropriate. Given how companies really want their customers and employees to switch to binding arbitration, I don't trust binding arbitration as being fair. Consider the following, from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJCMA-10-2019-0203/full/pdf https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJCMA-10... : > Despite the ubiquity of arbitration, consumers rarely use it. Wells Fargo’s near 3.5 million fraudulent accounts is an illuminating example. Using mandatory arbitration in its adhesion contracts, Wells Fargo managed to keep arbitration claims low despite the wide-spread fraudulent scheme. In reality, Wells Fargo only faced 250 consumer arbitration claims between 2009 and the first half of 2017 (Economic Policy Institute, 2017). A similar story exists for AT&T that has the largest consumer base in its sector with more than 150 million wireless subscribers, most, if not all, of whom are subject to arbitration. In the first three months of 2019, only 111 AT&T customers resolved their disputes with the company in arbitration (AAA Consumer Report Q1, American Arbitration Association, 2019). As to the "airing embarrassing stuff in public filings", we also know companies protect their public image. The customer (or their lawyer) may use the threat of a lawsuit, which will make the issue public, as leverage to get the company to resolve the issue. A confidential arbitration clause removes this form of leverage. > forcing millions of dollars of legal preparation Venmo's terms allow taking an issue to small claims. It's only for larger issues - and class action issues - where binding arbitration is required. So of course these are the ones that are more likely to require "millions of dollars of legal preparation." Just like how Wells Fargo could engage in widespread fraud without worrying about the millions of dollars it would have cost to lose a class action suit. > the extra eyes don’t hurt There are fewer eyes in the mandatory arbitration process than in the public court system. The latter is public (more eyes) and has a more extensive appeals system (more eyes).
- joshenders 5y agoI have an easier way to mitigate this: 1. In the Venmo app, go to the You tab by selecting the single person icon 2. Tap the Settings gear in the top right 3. Select “Account” under “Preferences” 4. Tap “Close Venmo Account”
- toomuchtodo 5y agoRight? Get a deposit account at a real bank that supports Zelle. You can accept both P2P and business payments. Stop using this turd of a service.
- nijave 5y agoExcept Zelle and a lot of banks also have forced arbitration clauses... Section 26 https://www.zellepay.com/legal/user-service-agreement https://www.zellepay.com/legal/user-service-agreement
- toomuchtodo 5y agoImportantly, banks and deposit accounts fall under financial regulatory requirements, FDIC, OCC, and whatnot. You have more recourse with a deposit account vs a PaypalVenmo account, full stop. https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1500993875627761666 https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1500993875627761666 (patio11 on Zelle and Reg E, for example)
- zootboy 5y agoZelle is a turd of a service, too. If your bank doesn't have it integrated, then the only way to accept a payment sent to you through Zelle is to sign up through an app. No website signups allowed. https://www.zellepay.com/faq/someone-sent-me-money-zelle-how-do-i-receive-it https://www.zellepay.com/faq/someone-sent-me-money-zelle-how...
- toomuchtodo 5y agoOnly if you’re at some no name bank or credit union. Even Charles Schwab supports Zelle. https://www.zellepay.com/get-started https://www.zellepay.com/get-started
- joosters 5y agoHacker News forces binding arbitration as part of its T&Cs, with no option of an opt-out at all - https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/ https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/ ...of course, no-one is using HN to transfer money, so it's not really a fair comparison (but just wait until YC introduces crypto/NFTs somehow :)
- unsupp0rted 5y ago"For only $12 million USD, you can own the infamous 'mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem' Dropbox comment." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 ... well not the comment, but the NFT to the comment.
- vmception 5y ago"NFT's!? You could use a MySQL database, who cares where the users are and what they like to do and are willing to pay for, thats one thing I'll never get about crypto/"web3" proponents! Its absurd that they would build for an audience and make revenue while using a system with tradeoffs that is easier to develop for." /s Sarcasm but I'm sure GPT-3 or similar could be trained from algolia search results and output that.
- yeetsfromhellL2 5y agoI can't for the life of me understand how you can sign away your rights like that in America. Binding arbitration? Who picks the arbiter, who pays them, and how do you appeal to a neutral third party? It's in an arbiter's best interests to side with their client, otherwise they get dropped. This is an obvious conflict of interest, but courts allow it partly because they're overburdened. We in America really need to do something about our courts. Justice through the legal system is already out of reach for most Americans, even if they have the money and an open and closed case, it's likely they don't have the time to persue something which may take years (delaying tactics are a real thing).
- philipov 5y agoOpt out by not using Venmo
- seltzered_ 5y agoCould be a new focus for paulgb 's unarbitrate.org - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15207151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15207151 (2017)
- dbg31415 5y agoWow, this is filthy. They're telling us that we have to physically mail in a form, or else we lose the ability to dispute charges in the future. Yup, they were an interesting service but I'm done. This is garbage.
- sigzero 5y agoThat has to be illegal.
- mwexler 5y agoI suspect we wouldn't be so adverse to binding arbitration if it were set up in a truly fair way: right of disclosure to both parties, ability to have class action, ability to assess records of similar cases with the arbitrator to assess their ability to be neutral, etc. But these start to raise costs and make arb similar to the formal court system, which it's designed to work around. Is there a benefit to one side or the other to have this lack of rigor and consistency? All the rules seem different for arb: no consistent rules of evidence, tons of decisions just left up to each individual arbitrator. One could say, I guess, that this is a marketplace freedom, like shopping around for the patent court friendly to original inventors, etc. In this marketplace, you can find an arb closest to how you hope your case will go, who will do things the way you want to, perhaps. But it's a forced marketplace, not one that I get to opt into or out of for so many interactions these days. Forced arb was supposed to make things better. Do we have any evidence that it does, and for whom?
- pessimizer 5y ago> Forced arb was supposed to make things better. Was it, though? It was supposed to make things better for the party that is forcing the arb, and it does. Everything that I force anyone but my kids to do is going to be for my own advantage. If is weren't better for them, they'd probably stop doing it, rather than doing it more and lobbying against restrictions on it.
- techsupporter 5y ago> Forced arb was supposed to make things better. The purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act was not to make things better for end customers like you and I. The law was passed because judges at the time (in 1926, for what it's worth) were reluctant to enforce decisions reached through arbitration in courts because judges saw arbitration as either a reduction of judicial authority or less fair and open than a judicial proceeding. Both views were held at the time, take your pick for which one you prefer. Arbitration was originally supposed to be about two parties of roughly equal negotiation and information-acquisition power being able to work out arguments between themselves. Inherently, this meant business-to-business complaints with each other. You and I are not on equal footing and with the overwhelming majority of entities with which we contract, nor can we easily negotiate the terms of those contracts, both of which were features of the entities who originally wanted to use binding arbitration. But over the years, businesses that provide services to individual customers figured out that getting sued was expensive and decades of "ambulance-chasing class action lawyers are unfair!" turned the tide against using courts as neutral forums. Supreme Court decisions relating to the arbitration act over the past thirty years or so have effectively slammed the door on using courts and some members of Congress don't seem motivated to change this. (Note that I am biased against binding arbitration agreements. I think them unconscionable, and I laugh endlessly when "well-intentioned" companies that do a Show HN here have them in their terms.)
- AlexandrB 5y agoI was curious what the legal status of mandatory arbitration clauses was in Canada and found this gem[1]: > The clause required Uber drivers to pay a large up-front administrative and legal filing fee of US$14,500, and to travel to the Netherlands to arbitrate their claims. It's amazing Uber thought this would hold up to judicial scrutiny. It's basically a "you can't do anything if we screw you over" clause for most of the population. Good thing the Canadian courts agreed: > The majority of the Supreme Court found that the arbitration clause was invalid under the doctrine of unconscionability as there was: (a) proof of unequal bargaining power between the parties; and (b) proof of an improvident bargain (i.e., gross unfairness). [1] https://www.mondaq.com/canada/arbitration-dispute-resolution/1033172/mandatory-arbitration-clauses-are-no-longer-presumptively-enforceable https://www.mondaq.com/canada/arbitration-dispute-resolution...
- singhrac 5y agoThis is incredibly unethical and makes me disgusted. Uber engineers, please complain about this and ask for a review of the decisions that led to this policy, or you have no moral ground to stand on. Or, if there’s an explanation for this that I don’t understand, please explain.
- metadat 5y agoIME, part of what Uber filters for (via "cultural fit") is engineers who won't make a fuss about such things. There is too much money at stake! [to let an engineer have that much power]
- TrapLord_Rhodo 5y agouhhh... that theey are an engineeer and not a lawyer... Do you read your companies terms and conditions wholesale?
- stjohnswarts 5y agoThat's great and all but how does a unwashed mass like me come up with enough money and time to fight such a thing all the way to the Supreme Court (of any Country)
- MiddleEndian 5y agoHow far does this sort of circus extend? Can I put on my website that you are forced into binding arbitration unless you do a sick kickflip?
- freeAgent 5y agoEveryone should do as they ask and send in a letter. I'm doing so, but I'm also making sure that it's in several fun fonts that will delight the people who process it.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoI can understand your sending it but the fonts won't affect anyone other the poor soul who has to read it, who is just another poor schlub like and mean. but putting plenty of clown faces and eggplants in there is probably acceptable.
- freeAgent 5y agoThe poor schlub who has to process these probably gets paid hourly and doesn't really care. It's about increasing the processing costs incurred by PayPal, which this will accomplish.
- nachbo 5y agoJust deleted my venmo account.