6 ms·

This sounds like a fun time to run an experiment with getting an injunction against Stripe. Next time it happens, rather than doing a chargeback, sue them for

by njovin 4y ago

This sounds like a fun time to run an experiment with getting an injunction against Stripe. Next time it happens, rather than doing a chargeback, sue them for the actual amount in addition to all of your time spent dealing with it. Then seek a preliminary injunction preventing them from charging your card any longer. You can probably do this on your own, although it will be time-consuming. At that point it becomes a legal problem for them and I suspect they'll be forced to take more serious action.

j-bos 4y ago
But then woudn't the poster be locked out of purchasing goods and services facilitated through Stripe?
zdragnar 4y ago
For such a small transaction, in the US you're stuck with small claims courts, and iirc you generally aren't going to get any damages for your time there unless it somehow interfered with your work hours.
- arbuge 4y ago
  > unless it somehow interfered with your work hours This doesn't sound like a particularly difficult bar to clear.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    It is if you're not an hourly employee. In small claims courts, you need a pretty clear demonstration of actual damages. You don't get to just make up a number that sounds nice. Therapy bills from stress, maybe, but this scenario seems like it would be taking up an hour or so of time in a month. In any case, small claims courts usually try to get you to go through arbitration first, and stripe would almost certainly cave with a small offer since it would cost less than an hour of a lawyers time.
- rvcdbn 4y ago
  Since this is HN I will characteristically take my precious private moments sitting on the toilet to correct this wrong understanding on the internet. Small claims court is an additional option if the defendant lives in the same state and the amount is small. Civil court is always also an option even if small claims court also applies. So this reply makes no sense. You’re wrong. I know it hurts so bad but it’s okay because we are all wrong sometimes. So we will let it go this once there is no need to delete your account and make a new one. Small claims court is great for some things: I sued my ex land lord who wouldn’t return my deposit. Lawyers aren’t allowed and it’s usually open and shut. Anyway hope you have a great Thursday!
kmeisthax 4y ago
The only time it makes sense to sue in civil court is either: - The damages in question would exceed hundreds of thousands of dollars - You want to make an example out of the defendant and have lots of money to burn - You are engaging in litigation as part of a settlement extortion scheme ala Prenda Law America does not award legal fees to the victor - in fact, it's considered so un-American that American lawyers literally call it the British Rule[0]. As a result, small actors - which you almost certainly are - will bankrupt themselves just getting to the discovery phase, regardless of if they are plaintiffs or defendants. In a few situations, this has become such a problem that US law either provides time-saving motions for common forms of nuisance lawsuits[1] or uses it as a way to encourage certain behaviors[2] out of litigants. However, this kind of fraud case will almost certainly not fall under such measures, and you are almost certainly too small to defend. Representing yourself in court is technically possible but practically a death sentence to your case. And an actual lawyer would tell you exactly what I've told you, except with actual attorney-client privilege[3] involved, and they'd charge you for telling you that. Except they'd probably also add in a bunch of stuff about class-action waivers and binding arbitration[4] that would make it nearly impossible for them to represent you. [0] I've also heard French Rule. [1] Such as Anti-SLAPP motions, though these are not in federal law yet. [2] The copyright registration system comes with a few key perks; notably statutory damages and the ability to recover attorney's fees. If you do not have either you cannot economically sue a copyright infringer, which sounds like a really good way to comply with Berne without complying with Berne. [3] I am not a lawyer. [4] For what it's worth, there are some crafty lawyers that have figured out a way to help people mass-arbitrate, but companies are trying to fight back against that too.
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  - You want to make an example out of the defendant and have time to burn Sue them in small claims court. You won't get significant money, but they'll have to burn a little money on lawyers. You have the chance at the moral victory of the judge saying you're right*. You probably have a decent chance of getting on the HN front page when you first file and when you win/lose. You have a noticably higher chance at being covered in the mainstream media than if you just complain on the internet. *The judge generally doesn't literally say you're right
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by njovin 4y ago

j-bos 4y ago

But then woudn't the poster be locked out of purchasing goods and services facilitated through Stripe?

zdragnar 4y ago

For such a small transaction, in the US you're stuck with small claims courts, and iirc you generally aren't going to get any damages for your time there unless it somehow interfered with your work hours.

arbuge 4y ago
> unless it somehow interfered with your work hours This doesn't sound like a particularly difficult bar to clear.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  It is if you're not an hourly employee. In small claims courts, you need a pretty clear demonstration of actual damages. You don't get to just make up a number that sounds nice. Therapy bills from stress, maybe, but this scenario seems like it would be taking up an hour or so of time in a month. In any case, small claims courts usually try to get you to go through arbitration first, and stripe would almost certainly cave with a small offer since it would cost less than an hour of a lawyers time.
rvcdbn 4y ago
Since this is HN I will characteristically take my precious private moments sitting on the toilet to correct this wrong understanding on the internet. Small claims court is an additional option if the defendant lives in the same state and the amount is small. Civil court is always also an option even if small claims court also applies. So this reply makes no sense. You’re wrong. I know it hurts so bad but it’s okay because we are all wrong sometimes. So we will let it go this once there is no need to delete your account and make a new one. Small claims court is great for some things: I sued my ex land lord who wouldn’t return my deposit. Lawyers aren’t allowed and it’s usually open and shut. Anyway hope you have a great Thursday!

kmeisthax 4y ago

The only time it makes sense to sue in civil court is either: - The damages in question would exceed hundreds of thousands of dollars - You want to make an example out of the defendant and have lots of money to burn - You are engaging in litigation as part of a settlement extortion scheme ala Prenda Law America does not award legal fees to the victor - in fact, it's considered so un-American that American lawyers literally call it the British Rule[0]. As a result, small actors - which you almost certainly are - will bankrupt themselves just getting to the discovery phase, regardless of if they are plaintiffs or defendants. In a few situations, this has become such a problem that US law either provides time-saving motions for common forms of nuisance lawsuits[1] or uses it as a way to encourage certain behaviors[2] out of litigants. However, this kind of fraud case will almost certainly not fall under such measures, and you are almost certainly too small to defend. Representing yourself in court is technically possible but practically a death sentence to your case. And an actual lawyer would tell you exactly what I've told you, except with actual attorney-client privilege[3] involved, and they'd charge you for telling you that. Except they'd probably also add in a bunch of stuff about class-action waivers and binding arbitration[4] that would make it nearly impossible for them to represent you. [0] I've also heard French Rule. [1] Such as Anti-SLAPP motions, though these are not in federal law yet. [2] The copyright registration system comes with a few key perks; notably statutory damages and the ability to recover attorney's fees. If you do not have either you cannot economically sue a copyright infringer, which sounds like a really good way to comply with Berne without complying with Berne. [3] I am not a lawyer. [4] For what it's worth, there are some crafty lawyers that have figured out a way to help people mass-arbitrate, but companies are trying to fight back against that too.

iudqnolq 4y ago
- You want to make an example out of the defendant and have time to burn Sue them in small claims court. You won't get significant money, but they'll have to burn a little money on lawyers. You have the chance at the moral victory of the judge saying you're right*. You probably have a decent chance of getting on the HN front page when you first file and when you win/lose. You have a noticably higher chance at being covered in the mainstream media than if you just complain on the internet. *The judge generally doesn't literally say you're right

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]