4 ms·

I don't think this is totally unreasonable. From their point of view, they offered a perfectly reasonable alternative to paying, which was ignored. By ignoring

I don't think this is totally unreasonable. From their point of view, they offered a perfectly reasonable alternative to paying, which was ignored. By ignoring (accidentally) the original email, the message sent back could be interpreted as: "We're not implementing your link back, and we're not paying for your service, but we're still going to use it anyway". Wait, what? So - if I ignore an unsolicited email, that suddenly becomes actionable if I don't do what the email says? I have a hard time seeing how that is not totally unreasonable. The only reasonable nuclear option for them that I see, would be to simply terminate the user account or service, if they did not respond.

brudgers 15y ago
Your argument hinges on the email being unsolicited. One could argue that the email was not unsolicited, if the email address was obtained during signup and acceptance of the Terms of Service. Since it is not uncommon for free online services to have Terms of Service which allow the provider to unilaterally change those terms, the argument that an email notifying the user of the change is unsolicited is further weakened. While I am not suggesting that the alternatives offered are or are not fair or reasonable, the follow up email did its job in getting the service consumer's attention and more importantly action in regards to the matter.
- skrish 15y ago
  Legally what you are saying could be right. But what if even this email was ignored as an unsolicited email? Is it right thing to sue them because they have sent 2 emails for a service that was offered free? Definitely not. The right thing to do would be to terminate the service for such a free user & get their attention.
  - dedward 15y ago
    It would seem to me that if the service was free, no money exchanged hands, therefore no contract exists that would make any sense in court. The only recourse they would have is to shut off access..... they'd have nothing to sue over.
    - feralchimp 15y ago
      Contracts do not live or die on the basis of whether money changed hands.
- nirvdrum 15y ago
  Email deliverability isn't a guaranteed thing though. Usually that's fine, but if the argument is we're going to charge you because you didn't take action, wouldn't you need to prove it was either sent or received? Maybe I'm just really old school, but I'd think registered mail or something would be required in that case.
  - Aqua_Geek 15y ago
    IANAL, but when I served on a jury most (if not all) of the emails relating to the case were not admissible as evidence because there was no way to prove authenticity, delivery, etc.
  - brudgers 15y ago
    >"wouldn't you need to prove it was either sent or received?" [IANAL] Probably not (in the US). In the US, anyone can sue anyone else over anything. [Not that I doubt email notification might present problems in court - but who is going to court over $6000?]
- palebluedot 15y ago
  OK - re-read my comment with the word 'unsolicited' removed. It is still unreasonable to send out legal threats because you did not receive a response from an email. You don't know if the email was read, or if it was even delivered to the user's inbox (it could have been flagged as spam, for instance). Or, as it appears to be in this case, it could have a poorly worded and misleading subject, causing it to be ignored. Furthermore, did you read the email that was actually ignored? It is linked in the article, and located here: https://gist.github.com/1833289 https://gist.github.com/1833289 Note that it specifically says that "if you agree to this arrangement" to implement the link back. There is actually nothing in that email that would suggest that any action was required; the next step sans link back was simply for Gigya to then send a price quote. While I am not suggesting that the alternatives offered are or are not fair or reasonable, the follow up email did its job in getting the service consumer's attention and more importantly action in regards to the matter. Well, naturally. I was not arguing that being unreasonable was not effective in forcing action on someone's part. I would argue, however, that it is unethical and counterproductive.
  - brudgers 15y ago
    >"It is still unreasonable to send out legal threats because you did not receive a response from an email." Hardly unreasonable universally - particularly when it comes to non-payment. And it is clear from the first email that the link back is an alternative to a license fee [from your link]: Hello, My name is Atara Herskovics, Senior Marketing Manager at Gigya. We're pleased that Muziboo.com has been enjoying Gigya's Wildfire share plugin for a while; however please note that as part of Gigya's business model, for the last couple of years we have been charging a license fee for the use of our social plugins. In recognition of the fact that you were one of Gigya’s first clients, we would like to provide you with an alternative option in the form of a link to Gigya that you would place on your homepage. If you agree to this arrangement, please implement the exact link below: <a href="http://www.gigya.com/">Social Media for business<a/> Alternatively, we can send you a price quote for your continued usage of our Wildfire product. Thank you, xxxx yyyyyy Senior Marketing Manager, Gigya

brudgers 15y ago

Your argument hinges on the email being unsolicited. One could argue that the email was not unsolicited, if the email address was obtained during signup and acceptance of the Terms of Service. Since it is not uncommon for free online services to have Terms of Service which allow the provider to unilaterally change those terms, the argument that an email notifying the user of the change is unsolicited is further weakened. While I am not suggesting that the alternatives offered are or are not fair or reasonable, the follow up email did its job in getting the service consumer's attention and more importantly action in regards to the matter.

skrish 15y ago
Legally what you are saying could be right. But what if even this email was ignored as an unsolicited email? Is it right thing to sue them because they have sent 2 emails for a service that was offered free? Definitely not. The right thing to do would be to terminate the service for such a free user & get their attention.
- dedward 15y ago
  It would seem to me that if the service was free, no money exchanged hands, therefore no contract exists that would make any sense in court. The only recourse they would have is to shut off access..... they'd have nothing to sue over.
  - feralchimp 15y ago
    Contracts do not live or die on the basis of whether money changed hands.
nirvdrum 15y ago
Email deliverability isn't a guaranteed thing though. Usually that's fine, but if the argument is we're going to charge you because you didn't take action, wouldn't you need to prove it was either sent or received? Maybe I'm just really old school, but I'd think registered mail or something would be required in that case.
- Aqua_Geek 15y ago
  IANAL, but when I served on a jury most (if not all) of the emails relating to the case were not admissible as evidence because there was no way to prove authenticity, delivery, etc.
- brudgers 15y ago
  >"wouldn't you need to prove it was either sent or received?" [IANAL] Probably not (in the US). In the US, anyone can sue anyone else over anything. [Not that I doubt email notification might present problems in court - but who is going to court over $6000?]
palebluedot 15y ago
OK - re-read my comment with the word 'unsolicited' removed. It is still unreasonable to send out legal threats because you did not receive a response from an email. You don't know if the email was read, or if it was even delivered to the user's inbox (it could have been flagged as spam, for instance). Or, as it appears to be in this case, it could have a poorly worded and misleading subject, causing it to be ignored. Furthermore, did you read the email that was actually ignored? It is linked in the article, and located here: https://gist.github.com/1833289 https://gist.github.com/1833289 Note that it specifically says that "if you agree to this arrangement" to implement the link back. There is actually nothing in that email that would suggest that any action was required; the next step sans link back was simply for Gigya to then send a price quote. While I am not suggesting that the alternatives offered are or are not fair or reasonable, the follow up email did its job in getting the service consumer's attention and more importantly action in regards to the matter. Well, naturally. I was not arguing that being unreasonable was not effective in forcing action on someone's part. I would argue, however, that it is unethical and counterproductive.
- brudgers 15y ago
  >"It is still unreasonable to send out legal threats because you did not receive a response from an email." Hardly unreasonable universally - particularly when it comes to non-payment. And it is clear from the first email that the link back is an alternative to a license fee [from your link]: Hello, My name is Atara Herskovics, Senior Marketing Manager at Gigya. We're pleased that Muziboo.com has been enjoying Gigya's Wildfire share plugin for a while; however please note that as part of Gigya's business model, for the last couple of years we have been charging a license fee for the use of our social plugins. In recognition of the fact that you were one of Gigya’s first clients, we would like to provide you with an alternative option in the form of a link to Gigya that you would place on your homepage. If you agree to this arrangement, please implement the exact link below: <a href="http://www.gigya.com/">Social Media for business<a/> Alternatively, we can send you a price quote for your continued usage of our Wildfire product. Thank you, xxxx yyyyyy Senior Marketing Manager, Gigya