5 ms·

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/regecg.htm http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/regecg.htm They would be in violation of this above Regulation fo

by mey 13y ago

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/regecg.htm http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/regecg.htm They would be in violation of this above Regulation for banking. Chargeback through your bank would be the quickest way to both get your funds back and penalize them. If you want to make it a federal case that is also an option.

Crito 13y ago
Is there any chance that they can weasel their way out of this by having their lawyers point to fine print?
- mey 13y ago
  In theory their ToS may cover something like this, but charging a customer for a recurring payment they did not agree too should be pretty clear cut. Additionally they did send a notification prior to the charge, but there is no prior authorization from the customer so that's shaky ground. IANAL etc, legal counsel could tell you if there is a case worth pressing. I only deal with this fun at work as a developer :) Edit: This is pretty clearly not an "error" in the system, so their legal team (if there is one) must consider the billing valid in some way. Full legal text http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-1350.html http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-1350.html Edit 2: A compliant either though your local attorney general or the FTC may be appropriate. http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0341-file-complaint-ftc http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0341-file-complaint-ftc
- _red 13y ago
  IANAL, however my whole family is. I doubt they could do that. People are often afraid of such fine print gotcha's but would almost always would not stand up in court. Contracts are assumed to be "In good faith, and neither for nor against any particular side". Meaning having a clause like 'oh yeah, in addition to your yearly fee of $10, we can also charge you any unlimited amount and you agree to pay' This would be easily deemed as not in good faith and completely in favor of them (as no sane person would agree to that). Hence judge would throw it out - which may or may not invalidate the entire contract depending on how shady the judge thought they were being.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Bluestrike2 13y ago
  http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/static-service-agreement.jsp#ii http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/static-service-agreeme... Their service agreement reads that they have the right to "change part of the Services provided under this Agreement at any time" in section 12. No doubt they're hoping that they'll be able to defend the charge based largely on this. But there's nothing to support the idea that the "Weblock Program" is a modification of the contracted services (domain registration) instead of a separate program. A couple glaringly obvious problems: First, the original email stated that the customer "will be protected via our WebLock Program," implying a distinction from the original services. Then there's the subject line, "Your domain is being enrolled in the WebLock Security Program," which is a fairly explicit assertion of the same. Second, you have the addition of Schedule II to the Service Agreement clearly stating that it's a separate service and not simply a change to the existing ones offered. In short, they don't really have any magical fine print to even point to (and that's before you start interpreting and responding to them) that can justify this new charge. But even if they somehow prevailed on the merits of any potential contractual claims, they're still going to get chewed up by their card processor as there isn't a merchant agreement in the world that can justify this behavior.

by mey 13y ago

Crito 13y ago

Is there any chance that they can weasel their way out of this by having their lawyers point to fine print?

mey 13y ago
In theory their ToS may cover something like this, but charging a customer for a recurring payment they did not agree too should be pretty clear cut. Additionally they did send a notification prior to the charge, but there is no prior authorization from the customer so that's shaky ground. IANAL etc, legal counsel could tell you if there is a case worth pressing. I only deal with this fun at work as a developer :) Edit: This is pretty clearly not an "error" in the system, so their legal team (if there is one) must consider the billing valid in some way. Full legal text http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-1350.html http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-1350.html Edit 2: A compliant either though your local attorney general or the FTC may be appropriate. http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0341-file-complaint-ftc http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0341-file-complaint-ftc
_red 13y ago
IANAL, however my whole family is. I doubt they could do that. People are often afraid of such fine print gotcha's but would almost always would not stand up in court. Contracts are assumed to be "In good faith, and neither for nor against any particular side". Meaning having a clause like 'oh yeah, in addition to your yearly fee of $10, we can also charge you any unlimited amount and you agree to pay' This would be easily deemed as not in good faith and completely in favor of them (as no sane person would agree to that). Hence judge would throw it out - which may or may not invalidate the entire contract depending on how shady the judge thought they were being.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Bluestrike2 13y ago
http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/static-service-agreement.jsp#ii http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/static-service-agreeme... Their service agreement reads that they have the right to "change part of the Services provided under this Agreement at any time" in section 12. No doubt they're hoping that they'll be able to defend the charge based largely on this. But there's nothing to support the idea that the "Weblock Program" is a modification of the contracted services (domain registration) instead of a separate program. A couple glaringly obvious problems: First, the original email stated that the customer "will be protected via our WebLock Program," implying a distinction from the original services. Then there's the subject line, "Your domain is being enrolled in the WebLock Security Program," which is a fairly explicit assertion of the same. Second, you have the addition of Schedule II to the Service Agreement clearly stating that it's a separate service and not simply a change to the existing ones offered. In short, they don't really have any magical fine print to even point to (and that's before you start interpreting and responding to them) that can justify this new charge. But even if they somehow prevailed on the merits of any potential contractual claims, they're still going to get chewed up by their card processor as there isn't a merchant agreement in the world that can justify this behavior.