Hacker News Reader

Comment by Retric | Hacker News Reader

Do it anyway. You get your money back, it costs them more money, and the more they ban people over stuff like this the faster you run shitty companies out of business.

To do anything else promotes them doing the same thing to you in the future and other people.

View on HN

And soon enough you don't have any apps to use.

Sometimes you gotta pick your fights. Chargebacks to gatekeepers are the worst because life is long and you will always lose.

it's why you take them to small claims court. Unfortunately, the terms and conditions have made sure they are clear of small claims by forcing you to do arbitration, which is more expensive for you than them (in relative terms, unless they also put into the T&C to pay for your arbitration costs - which some companies have done iirc, such as epic games).

Chargebacks are the last resort - only really worth doing if it is a large amount that you will miss if not charged back.

Chargebacks are the reverse of these kinds of small thefts. A company is free to take you to small claims court over a chargeback, it’s really not worth their time though.

As such it’s often preferable for an individual vs arbitration.

> it’s really not worth their time though.

no, but a company has more levers than just small claims court - such as banning you from doing business with them, and removing all existing relationships.

Google, for example, could ban you off gmail, remove your storage in gdrive, and take away all of your youtube videos.

A big enough company with your data/process/utility that you must rely on and is locked in, would have enormous leverage over you that a small claims court won't have.

Google can do that to you, they can’t do that to a billion people without serious repercussions on their business.

This is why they don’t delete Google accounts of everyone using an add blocker for example.

no, they cannot do it to all their customers, but they dont need to. The threat of having it done to you makes you compliant. It's why consumer laws need to exist, and need to have teeth.

The threat of being kicked off of Google isn’t enough to make me or likely billions of other people to stop using an add blocker on the web.

The only time they actually push people on that issue is with YouTube due to their very strong market position.

Both Uber's and Lyft's arbitration agreements explicitly allow you to use small claims court.

This is true, but when there's only a couple options in town you have to assess if you're going to need to use that service in the future. That said, I find it a bit strange that it's legal to retaliate for making use of a right afforded to you by law. It would be like taking them to small claims court, winning, and being banned as a result. (Now that I wrote that I'm wondering if it's a thing that happens.)

It might actually be a good thing to get banned. Possibly it's in your interest not to continue to do business with companies like this, but on any given evening you might abandon your long term interest for the sake of short term convenience and use the bad car ride service.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com