Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
elix

EVERYONE CALM THE FUCK DOWN ABOUT PAYPAL

by
TL;DR you're getting worked up over basically nothing, so worry about things that really matter.

Okay, so apparently almost nobody has ever worked customer service for a US company when a class action suit's been settled. I have, and my responsibilities included possibly fielding calls from customers who were involved in the suit. Let me explain what and why Paypal is actually changing, and why this basically doesn't affect you at all.

First of all, you need to understand what's being "taken away" from you by this change. Let's start by looking at the actual text that Paypal published:

" Paypal wrote:
Unless you opt out: (1) 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 and (2) you will only be permitted to seek relief (including monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief) on an individual basis.

Sounds scary, eh? It isn't. All that's changing is that Paypal is making it part of the User Agreement that you're not permitted to join or initiate a class action lawsuit. It does not, however, prevent you from filing individual suit or other alternative remedies that might be useful. But they're still taking something away, so that's bad, right?

Nope. Let me tell you all about class action suits. I'd like to first start with the disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer and I am not qualified or interested in giving you legal advice. I cannot be held responsible for anything that happens because you got a dumb idea based on what I write in this post.

Class action lawsuits are built to handle situations where a very small number of defendants (say, Paypal, a corporation) has allegedly wronged a very large number of plaintiffs with the same action. Since everyone's case is basically the same, it's treated as a single bulk case instead of spreading hundreds or thousands of people across individual cases that would choke up the entire legal system.

Because of this, class action lawsuits involving large national corporations, such as Paypal, tend to be very big. BIG. Because, if the company has done something so badly that a class action is being put together and lawyers are out there looking for names of people who've been affected, it's probably affected ten thousand people or more. That's big.

However, this is where things hit a snag. Three snags, really.

1. Americans are lawsuit-happy. While this might also be the case elsewhere in the world, and not ALL Americans lawyer up anytime something goes wrong, America has a reputation for LOVING the courts. In my time in the trenches of customer service, I had someone threaten me (not just the company, me personally) with legal action because he went over his plan, racked up $200 in charges, admitted he made all the calls, but was refusing to pay and was asserting nonexistent legal rights stating that we couldn't suspend his account even though he hadn't paid us anything at all in six weeks, even before the huge bill.

Seriously. Some people really are that immature, petty, self-centered, and idiotic. I'm sure that quite a lot of Americans are not like that at all, and that's great. But there are still way too many people alive that are, and they're still calling up lawyers. I read a short article in the paper once about six years ago or so, about this guy who bought a diet book based on the Atkins Diet. However, he must've only skimmed the first half of the first chapter, because he decided that all he had to do was avoid carbs and he'd lose weight. Which is why he settled on a diet of pastrami and cheesecake. After the emergency triple-bypass operation to save his heart from his superglued arteries, he sued the book publisher for misleading him. The judge threw it out.

I'm going to move on, but keep this tidbit in mind: A certain percentage of the US population is legally entitled to make use of the courts and is incapable of solving any of their own problems themselves. Greed also plays a factor.

2. Speaking of greed, let's talk about lawyers. Okay, there are a few good lawyers, but let's move on past the insults. Remember how I mentioned that class action lawsuits against big corporations are filled with hundreds or thousands of people? Yeah, those cases take a lot of work to manage. And, even though a class action may have a thousand people attached to it, you can't have a thousand lawyers managing it all. Rather, you have a very small group of lawyers working on it and managing the whole deal. And making bank every second of the way, because SOMEONE is going to pay, be it the company when it loses, or the thousand people when they lose.

Don't forget the lawyers for the company, too. Their legal department is just as engaged in the situation as the consumer side's lawyers are. And that's even more money being spent on lawyer work.

For this reason, lawyers love class action suits. They can walk away with tens of millions from a really good one.

I want to stop for a quick digression. Cash payouts aren't the only outcome of a class action. It's possible for a class action to have basically the same outcome as any court case, it's just a case with a small group of lawyers representing too many people to fit in the courthouse. There are very valid and legitimate reasons to begin class action against a company if it needs to be forced to change its behaviour. I'm not talking about these, here, and, besides, the restriction probably doesn't matter for these cases as I'll explain later.

3. The consumer usually gets fuck all. Typically, the class action suit of a bunch of consumers versus a service company (such as Paypal) is over a situation where the company charged people a huge pile of money that they legally shouldn't have, or they didn't pay out the money they legally should have. Lots of money is involved, sometimes millions (not including paying the lawyers, mind you!). But something tends to happen in these suits when the company loses and has to pay out the big bucks: Most of the payout is absorbed by the lawyers to cover their huge legal fees for handling all these people. Whatever's left (sometimes as little as 10%) gets divided up among the plaintiffs.

You end up in a situation where Company X improperly charged thirty thousand customers $100 each, and after the lawyers are done, thirty thousand customers get a $15 credit on their bill, or a check for $15 if they aren't a customer by the time the lawsuit's finished.

In this type of situation, class action lawsuits are usually counterproductive. And bad for everyone but the lawyers.

It's bad for the company because, they have to pay their own lawyers huge amounts of money, and if they lose, they'll be paying out more huge amounts of money to the other side. The class action participant loses because the company did something bad to them, it spent two years going through the legal system, and not much came back to them when it was all said and done. The consumer loses because that's millions and millions of dollars that the company spent on lawyers, not customer service or other ways of improving what they actually DO as a company, and there might be other consequences, such as price increases to pay for the settlement.

But it's good for the lawyers on both sides of the case. And this is why ambulance chasers are everywhere. Class action lawsuits are meal tickets if the case is strong enough, so it's in the lawyer's interests to encourage people to participate in class action if they qualify. And there are a lot of people who'll run to lawyers if a fly lands on their hat, so there's no shortage of suckers.

Still here? Good. After all that, it's time to address why this is no big deal.

Paypal's change takes away the right to a class action lawsuit. But here's the thing. Not all jurisdictions allow you to sign away your legal rights. And even if there's no law specifically forbidding it, a judge can decide that the restriction is unenforceable and allow the suit to proceed anyway. And again, the only change Paypal made was regarding class action, not individual action.

As I explained above, class action suits generally are fairly useless, so you're not actually really losing anything, and if it really is important, a judge can tell Paypal to sit down and shut up and allow the class action to proceed anyway in case you live in a jurisdiction where it's legal to waive your rights like that.


Story time with Elix
I worked for T-Mobile for five years, and during this time, three class action suits were settled. The first went to court before I was hired, the situation that caused the second occurred before I was hired and became a class action after I got the job, and the third happened entirely while I was there. I was not involved in the actual process at all, since that was for the lawyers and big shots, not lowly service drones like us, but I had to know how to respond if someone called up asking for info or looking for their settlement.

The three cases each involved thousands of people. Millions of dollars were spent on lawyers, money that could've been spent building towers and improving the rest of the customer experience. One of the settlements involved customers who were incorrectly charged early termination fees when they should've been waived (that's $200 per phone line), and if I remember correctly, the settlement was for millions of dollars. After all the legal staff got paid, customers got about $15 back for their $200 and their time.

Each of the three cases was like this. Millions go out, the lawyers take a big chunk, and what's left gets split among the customers. It was never more than a small amount.

So, seriously. Stop worrying about not being able to launch a class action lawsuit against Paypal. There are far worse things to pick on Paypal for. They act like a bank to their customers, but they hide from claiming they're a bank when the government and the banking regulators look at them. They reserve the right to basically do whatever they want to your account and tough rocks if you don't like it. They leveraged eBay's popularity to forcefully wedge Paypal into the market by making their millions of customers accept Paypal no matter what else they might be allowed to accept. This change is trivial as far as most furs are concerned.
Viewed: 160 times
Added: 6 years ago
 
JeffyCottonbun
6 years ago
You, sir, are a hero. <3
FlynnRausch
6 years ago
Yes. Not enforceable. People like to throw around contracts like you get stricken down for violating them without any thought that the contract's contents may not even be legal. Calling something a contract doesn't automatically make it inviolable.
elix
6 years ago
I never seemed to find many people who were in the reasoned middle ground. It was almost always one extreme or the other: Obsessed about the contract and desperate to claw back as much of it as possible AFTER it's already been signed (good luck)... or denying that it says what it does because they're now severely inconvenienced (example that happened more times than I can count: someone in the family racked up a huge overage bill, we won't credit them back, they get mad and cancel all the family's lines... at $200 per line because they all got shiny new phones and new contracts six months ago) and they don't think it's fair that the rules apply to them even if they get the short end of the stick.

Of course, in almost every single case, they read the contract about as much as anyone on the Internet reads the user terms before clicking "I agree" to sign up for an account on anything at all. That has a lot to do with it.
FlynnRausch
6 years ago
I did cellphone sales for about a year. It was pretty shocking how little people understood, even after a discussion of the contract's contents. "Of course you can't unilaterally cancel your contract and weasel out of cancellation charges. It says so right here in this contract, which you signed as acknowledgement of your understanding of said contract."
C0baltblaze
6 years ago
hell i would say even in some cases phones became seized and or legal measures taken when people try to weasel out, in fact i believe it would be in peoples best interests to deny cancellation until payment can be received so as to make sure people pay their dues. it would not only be legal and right but for those idiots who think it wont affect them will end up with a rude awakening when ntheir shit gets seized by the IRS or some other big time debt collecting group.
Teko
6 years ago
THANK YOU for a healthy dose of calm-headed logic and actual facts rather than hair-on-fire screaming.
FlynnRausch
6 years ago
I'm gonna borrow "hair on fire screaming", if you don't mind. That's such a colorful term I could use to describe so many things in my daily life :p
Catwheezle
6 years ago
The point about the class action lawsuit is not that you get $15 - it's that a big corporation learns it cannot get away with screwing you. Or maybe it doesn't learn, but at least it doesn't *profit* out of screwing you. It's about justice, not money.

Focusing on the $15 (or even the $200, which really isn't worth going to court over if it were just about the money) suggests that you don't get what the problem is about in the first place, or why someone might want to get involved in such a suit.

That said, I have no problem with PayPal myself, and understand and sympathize with their reasons for putting in this new rule. But I also understand, sympathize with, and cater for, those who do not wish to use it for transactions.
elix
6 years ago
Maybe you didn't read my whole post, because I clearly acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons for class actions to exist other than a cash payout. Please try again.

And besides, justice comes in a number of forms, and class action is only one of them.
Catwheezle
6 years ago
I did read the whole post. And I just re-read it. NOwhere in the post do you "clearly acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons".

Instead, it basically says "no big deal, as CAS' don't get much cash". Really. Read your own post again if you don't believe me. Maybe someone edited it while your back was turned.

To help you, let's look at your points in turn:

" TL;DR you're getting worked up over basically nothing, so worry about things that really matter.


You think that a company defaulting its customers to not being able to class-action is "basically nothing" and does not "really matter".

On the contrary, it's a Really Bad Thing, and if allowed to stand will become default business practice for any business; it will become boilerplate in any legal document you ever sign. In essence, we will all lose a right we once had, through our failing to defend it. That's how rights are generally lost.

" 1. Americans are lawsuit-happy.

True but irrelevant. Also a "poisoning the well" attack, stating some people sue due to being "incapable of solving any of their own problems themselves" and adding "Greed also plays a factor".

" 2. Speaking of greed, let's talk about lawyers.

Lawyers make money, yup. This section irrelevant if it's not about the money.

" 3. The consumer usually gets fuck all.

This section irrelevant if it's not about the money.

" In this type of situation, class action lawsuits are usually counterproductive. And bad for everyone but the lawyers.

Flat out wrong, if it's not about the money.

The company was punished for its misdeeds, did not profit therefrom, and made not to do it again.

Every victim was better off than they would have been without the class action, both financially and morally, knowing that this company (and others) can't screw them freely.

All potential future victims of this malpractice were saved from it.

Even the company itself was better off, because it had a bad practice highlighted and excised. It became a better company for it.


In sum, the vast majority of your post was about the money. But then it gets interesting!


" Still here? Good. After all that, it's time to address why this is no big deal.
Paypal's change takes away the right to a class action lawsuit.


Taking away a right - any right - from millions of people, *is* a Big Deal.
Doing it quietly, by default, to tens or hundreds of millions? A Huge Fucking Deal.

" But here's the thing. Not all jurisdictions allow you to sign away your legal rights.


Oh, that's OK then. They can only fuck over people in most jurisdictions. Well, let them go straight ahead, then, because everyone else can't be important... no!

What on earth were you thinking with this argument? How the heck does "some jurisdictions understand that this is evil" translate in your head to "it's fine to do it in the other ones, then"?

" a judge can decide that the restriction is unenforceable


We should make it legal to steal all the money we like, because after all, if we steal TOO much, the courts might decide to overrule that law.

How does this slim possibility of a magic pixie judge of goodness and light sprinkling "this clause does not apply" dust on your case, make it OK to remove the right in the first place? Please, explain your reasoning.

" And again, the only change Paypal made was regarding class action, not individual action.

So, we're only harming the peasants. If you're rich enough to bring a big case against them on your own, then you're fine. That's OK, then.
Individual action is not a threat to them; class action is. Their misdeeds are generally in the hundreds and not worth suing for, for a single case.

" class action suits generally are fairly useless, so you're not actually really losing anything

Apart from the right to use them, when they are NOT useless.
elix
6 years ago
I'm not going to bother to read or address the rest of your post until you explain to me how you missed this entire paragraph:
" I wrote:
I want to stop for a quick digression. Cash payouts aren't the only outcome of a class action. It's possible for a class action to have basically the same outcome as any court case, it's just a case with a small group of lawyers representing too many people to fit in the courthouse. There are very valid and legitimate reasons to begin class action against a company if it needs to be forced to change its behaviour. I'm not talking about these, here, and, besides, the restriction probably doesn't matter for these cases as I'll explain later.
Catwheezle
6 years ago
*bows head, shamed* Conceded, sir! :) I was blind, and I happily admit it. I read the whole damn thing twice, the second time in response to your suggestion I re-read it, when I was specifically looking for that paragraph, and was making an effort to parse every sentence and not skim-read.

And yet somehow... I cannot explain why my brain elided that paragraph. I am now kicking myself and blushing for not hitting ctrl-F for 'legit', to triple-check.

[Edit: I seriously don't even remember *seeing* that paragraph. It was completely unfamiliar to me when you pasted it to me. I know you didn't add it in an edit, though: I'm entirely convinced that my brain is the one playing tricks on me, here, because it will not tell me, even though I remember reading it though carefully, what it *thinks* that section ended with. My brain really weirds me out, sometimes.]

[Edit2: And SORRY FOR BEING AN ASS AND THINKING IT WAS YOU THAT WAS WRONG! Yes. I forgot to say that. But sorry.]

Given that, if you choose to address my points above, be wary of any other blindnesses on my part: please do call 'em out and laugh at them, if you find any :)


"There are very valid and legitimate reasons to begin class action against a company if it needs to be forced to change its behaviour. I'm not talking about these, here" - the fact that you understand this, baffles me even more, then.

The thing is: they don't drop huge stinky bombs. They drop *little* stinky bombs. They retain a few hundred here, a few hundred there. They lock your account for a claimed ToS violation and keep the money in it, if someone sent you the money with some porn-related keyword in it: "don't spend it all on hookers and blow!" perhaps. You have no recourse, and the money is lost. Or locked up for months, during which time they get money for interest on it.

And they do this *all the time*. Say they do it to only 1% of accounts. Say they retain, on average, only $100. None would sue individually for that. But that's over a hundred million dollars of profit.

And rather than fix their business practices, they're trying to make it harder to sue them, instead.

So, I'd assert that Paypal's malpractices, by the very nature of their business in handling relatively small payments, almost all fall under the the category of "things that legitimately need a Class Action to fix".

"the restriction probably doesn't matter for these cases as I'll explain later." - I fear that your explanation of this was baffling, but that might be because I am apparently a complete durpface today. Anyway, I went into that above.
elix
6 years ago
To address the apparent discrepancy you raised, which is where I state that there are legitimate uses of class actions, and then finish (before a story) with saying that class actions are somewhat pointless, let me explain a bit more.

My point is, a judge ultimately holds the decision on whether or not a user agreement has the legal justification to bar you from filing or joining a class action. The same goes for almost any other aspect of the contract, really. They say all that, and it's the rules that they intend on playing by, but it doesn't really count until it holds up in court.

Now, that's not exactly a good standard to set, and it's not my idea. It's kind of what happens in practice. Company A asserts right X over consumer Y in their small print. Consumer Y later gets massively burned by company A's money-hungry practices and starts the dispute process (which SHOULD BEGIN according to the company's rules, if at all possible, since you should make an attempt to reach a solution before involving the courts; not always possible). Company A has some sort of arbitration process, consumer Y is still not satisfied because company A is still being a big bag of dicks. Consumer Y should now look at legal options and talk to a lawyer, and let the judge decide if the terms of service would be obstructing justice in the consumer's complaint.

If a company has wronged a massive number of customers by some action, and they need to be spanked in the way that only a class action suit can deliver, it shouldn't be too hard to build a strong enough case to convince a judge to grant class status to the complaint and allow the process of locating and accumulating more affected people under the action. However, the words "class action" paired with a company as current events (even just a group or entity CONSIDERING filing a class action) is a PR and stock price hit almost every time. No company wants to see a notice in the newspaper with their name on it with a phone number to call a lawyer if you were a customer of company X between XX/XX/XXXX and YY/YY/YYYY and you were affected by blah da blah -- even if the case never goes through, investors and the industry'll see that and go, oh shit, they might land in hell for this. Stability goes down. It all comes back to money, see? That's why they want to take it away.

Corporate lawyers and finance officers are the most risk-adverse people this side of the boy in the bubble. If a perceived vulnerability exists in the legal moat around a company's business model, it could literally harm growth and innovation, because the lawyers'll stomp on things that could possibly cause problems. I'm not saying that we should allow anyone to revoke rights arbitrarily, especially for the sleeping comfort of a for-profit company's legal department, but it's important to understand the mindset.

That, and pick your battles. Paypal's already playing a slightly dangerous game by being an Internet bank of sorts but not having any of the regulatory oversight that comes with it. They might do our work for us if they keep being hamfisted with customers.
elix
6 years ago
I should point out that, rereading my own comment as I skimmed over the whole thread again, it strikes me that there's an opinion that forms the underlying basis to this whole argument that I didn't disclose, and it'd probably be beneficial for everyone.

Simply put, I'm trying to walk the line of a pragmatic realist. Publically-traded corporations have, first and foremost, a fiduciary duty to turn a profit for their shareholders -- their owners, literally. This is literally the reason why you have companies engaging in human rights abuses (think sweat shops, not waterboarding) or other shady business business practices even when it's plainly obvious to everyone involved, including them, that there are better, higher-quality options available with proper labour standards. Consumers will buy cheap products; thanks to Wal-Mart there's a cultural obsession with getting the best deal (pile that on the American dream and the massive recession as well, it's a complex issue); and you just can't make a consumer gadget for the same price in a safe, inspected, union shop in America as you can in a giant, "inspected" (long enough to pick up the bribe) third-world factory with unskilled labour working long hours in hazardous conditions for prison wages.

I really don't like corporations, especially after Citizens United and corporate personhood. If corporate personhood came with the threat of the corporate death penalty for particularly heinous records of transgressions, I'd be at peace with the world a lot more.

However, corporations are going to do what they do. The best that we can do is pick our battles and accept compromises when necessary. Realistically, you have three choices if you don't like what Paypal's done. You can not do anything, you can opt out of the Class Action waiver, or you can stop using Paypal and terminate your account. I didn't make it clear, and I should have, that I encourage people to spread the word and opt out if they feel that Paypal's not playing by the rules. I also encourage people to leave Paypal entirely if they find this unacceptable. I'm not Paypal's friend, here. I've been screwed around by them a few times myself.

However, I was trying to throw a bucket of cold water over the flames of self-sustaining drama over the whole situation, because people were blowing it out of proportion and going off the rails. There needs to be time to look at things rationally before you make a decision. Ignore my stated opinions about this not being a very big deal, that's fine, but please pay attention to my attempt to bring the discussion back to a rational place.

It's not exactly playing Devil's Advocate. More Devil's Wingman, going, hey man, before you throw this punch, I want to remind you of a few things.
Catwheezle
6 years ago
I agree that drama is unwarranted. Sony, Microsoft, NetFlix, Valve... they all have this clause. The horse has bolted already. :(

*sigh* :(
Ramblo
6 years ago
I would say when it comes to $15 the justice comes from people hating the company and telling all their friends how terrible the company is and going somewhere else. If we are in fact talking about $200, and $200 is a lot of money to you, then take the time to sue in small claims court so you can represent yourself and actually get your $200, not 15/200 of it.
IrritatedCharizard
6 years ago
*makes a lawsuit against you for making him an irritated charizard* :U
elix
6 years ago
How did I irritate you? I didn't make you read my journals. :P

At least, not recently...
IrritatedCharizard
6 years ago
hehe x3   I told you I won't forget it lol

For I shall ever be know as 'The Irritated Charizard' XD
elix
6 years ago
Oh! That.

I'm kind of proud of that, but I don't show it off everywhere. ;3
IrritatedCharizard
6 years ago
Well of course, an inside joke for the four of us. ;3
biggerstaff
6 years ago
My biggest concern is why are they trying to stop people from joining together to sue them? I mean, it could be nothing, but they could have some new policy or rule in the works that is going to royally piss off and/or shaft a huge number of their users, and if this little ploy of theirs works, the average user isn't going to have any feasible legal recourse. Yes, they can sue individually, but lets face it - the majority of people using paypal are not rich, and they can't afford the kind of lawyers a corporation can. They'll get steamrolled in court.
elix
6 years ago
If Paypal dropped a huge stinky bomb on their customers after doing this, I think you'd see their shit collapse hard. Not immediately, but never underestimate the power of social networks for getting word of mouth out. If a competitor was ready to fill Paypal's shoes and had the chops to be everywhere, they'd sink from a huge dick move like that.

Remember, in almost any service agreement or contract, you have the recourse to discontinue the service if you don't like it (though there may be fees involved if you're under a contract, say for a smartphone). Consumers might not be able to launch a class action against Paypal, but they can sure as hell leave.
biggerstaff
6 years ago
True, but it would be better if we could convince them to stop being dicks without ruining the finances of hundreds of people, minimum.
XValentine
6 years ago
Thank you for the point of view of someone who has been trained by a company not to like these things.  As catwheezle stated though, the point to these things isn't about money, its about Making sure that people don't get away with doing whats obviously wrong, and paypal is asking us to sign away our rights.  It doesn't really matter if what they're doing is legal or not, because if enough people only knows whats in the contract that they can't take to a large-form class action lawsuit, or if theres trouble finding lawyers because the case might be thrown out because of this contract, then thats enough of a problem for people to be worked up about.

Brief argument disection (as per your argument points)
1) Based on a vague generalization and holds little real ground.
2) ...okay you actually have a point here
3) and he're you're missing the point entirely, its not about the money, its about people's ability to take action.  They could hand each person no more than a penny, and if it meant that the company didn't profit from doing something corrupt than I know plenty of "Greedy" Americans who would be fine with that.

Most importantly though, don't go around giving law advice when you're not a lawyer, especially big vague general stuff.  It might make you popular with the absent minded drones around here, but really in the long run just makes you look asinine.  Don't worry, i don't blame you though, you've been work trained to have this opinion.
elix
6 years ago
Uh, no, I wasn't "trained" to not like them. I was trained for about 5 minutes on what the right phone number/URL/whatever is for people to contact regarding the class action proceedings. I formed my opinions on my own, thank you.

And that would be exactly why I made a very clear disclaimer that I am not a lawyer and I am not giving legal advice. You also completely skipped over my paragraph, JUST LIKE CATWHEEZLE DID, where I acknowledge that class action lawsuits have very valid and legitimate uses to correct a company's behaviour, and that is not what I'm discussing here. Please try and keep up.

And I would appreciate it if you would leave the condescending smarmy bullshit on your side of the monitor next time.
XValentine
6 years ago
oh no, I'm not prasing your words, how dare I?  There are certain things to keep under consideration, such as the mere fact that people think that they can't do something means that they won't try.  I didn't skip over any conversation, you just weren't making a valid point.  So come off of your highhorse mr. king of everything, I'd "appreciate it"
elix
6 years ago
I have no stock in your opinion either way. However, I take offense to the attitude lurking in sentences like "Don't worry, i don't blame you though, you've been work trained to have this opinion."

Let's see... what's wrong with that?
1: You're the authority and I'm a silly little fuzzlehead booperbutt who doesn't know how the world works! Yaaaaay!
2: I formed my opinion about class action suits by blithely absorbing everything I was supposedly trained to learn and then parrot unquestioningly.
3: Don't worry, it's not my fault, I'm just naïve and gullible!
4: Oh, I look asinine when I express my opinions on current events because I'm not a reknowned expert in the field.

You're welcome to your own opinion. You don't have to agree with me. You don't have to praise anything. But if you're going to treat me like a child, you're not welcome here.
lucashoal
6 years ago
So wait, you don]t want to be treated like a child now? But...but I thought you were a cub!
elix
6 years ago
Oh, you.
lucashoal
6 years ago
:3c
FlynnRausch
6 years ago
You obviously didn't read any of this page in any great detail. Far be it for anyone to try and educate someone who already knows everything.
XValentine
6 years ago
First off, I read the entire page.  Second off, when and where did this become your conversation.  Far be it for anyone to try and have a differing opinion when there are busybodies.
elix
6 years ago
If you don't want anyone else to comment, you should communicate with me via private PMs. This journal is public, deal with it.
XValentine
6 years ago
publicly able to get jumped by your fanboys for telling you to do something positive with your leadership skills instead of giving bullshit advice on a matter you're not qualified for.  God bless the internet.
FlynnRausch
6 years ago
No see, you didn't. How I know this is because you advised him not to give legal advice, when he admitted not having a law background and not being qualified to give legal advice.

You posted this publicly. If you want to spout ignorant bullshit without being called out for being an actual idiot, you should probably keep a private journal. This is the internet. People can and will say whatever the fuck they want to you and about you. You don't get any special treatment here like you were used to in highschool.

In closing, you still come off like an ignorant prick and you missed the point so completely that you must be doing it on purpose. Oh you. Fact and opinion being the same thing. That's just adorable.
XValentine
6 years ago
Several things wrong with what you just said?
1) why is it ignorant to tell a lawyer not to give legal advice?
2) you don't know me, so don't make guesses about me in highschool, I haven't been there.
3) Judging from the fact that you just got everything wrong, you're the one who sounds like an ignorant prick.  Then again, this is why theres really no room for fanboys.  And I never said fact and opinion were the same thing, but everything I say is obviously shaped by my opinion.  In closing, mind your own business if you're just going to be a mindless fuck
elix
6 years ago
" XValentine wrote:
Several things wrong with what you just said?
1) why is it ignorant to tell a lawyer not to give legal advice?
...
3) Judging from the fact that you just got everything wrong, you're the one who sounds like an ignorant prick.  Then again, this is why theres really no room for fanboys.  And I never said fact and opinion were the same thing, but everything I say is obviously shaped by my opinion.  In closing, mind your own business if you're just going to be a mindless fuck

Who's a lawyer here? I don't even think you know what you're arguing about anymore, you sad little sack of resentment.

You and your insults are no longer welcome in this journal. This conversation thread is locked, and please don't start another one here; I will block you and I will turn over any more insults to the mods as harassment.

Seriously. Go away.
RhymeFur
6 years ago
Class action suits suck for everyone but the lawyers, you basically get nothing but a few bucks and a pat on the head.
Klorsis
6 years ago
A lot of my thoughts have already been spelled out in one post or another, but here's something to think about.

The ever present threat of a class action possibility acts as a deterrent for business that are considering knowingly doing things that would end up reviewed in a class action case.  A business is less likely do succeed in defending a shady business practice when weighed in a class action suit, than against individual people.  It is far easier for that business to discredit a person as disgruntled and sue happy, than a larger group.
shadycat
6 years ago
I saw your post in Wolfblade's journal the other day on this subject. Well reasoned and well written. Well done.
elix
6 years ago
Thank you. :3

*looks around for some matches*
starling
6 years ago
Except you can't contract away a legal right. If Paypal do something that people have a legal right to start a class action against, then Paypal are fucked.
elix
6 years ago
Mmmmmyep. Starpuppy gets it in one. They can go ahead and say that they're making that change, but good luck following through on enforcing it.
starling
6 years ago
It may protect them from civil action (I'm going to sue you!) under contract law, however. Civil court is basically utterly random and arbitrary and doesn't really have any rules about what can/can't be brought so long as it's not a criminal matter. In that case a judge could decide the contract protects Paypal.  I'm sure civil cases are all they expect the contract to protect them from.

But I'm not sure if loss of money due to negligence or even deliberate mistreatment by Paypal is a criminal matter or strictly civil. I think if you could claim serious commercial negligence, fraud or theft you could make it a criminal case easily enough.

The other thing they're probably hoping for; if you convince the client that they can't sue you due to the contract (even if it's not true), then you win anyway.
vixenchan
6 years ago
TL:Yet I did read. And will just say 95% of the updates Dont phase me at all cause when it comes to paypal if you pay alittle attention and read what they actualy are putting out they are makeing some good changes like soon they will impliment FOB for ALL payment options so you can decied who pays the fee that they put on there transactions.
Shokuji
6 years ago
Well said, Elix. =3 I'm not too surprised people got upset about something like this though as people seem to (on some level) enjoy being upset about something. Ah well, just human nature I suppose, and no one likes signing away perceived rights (unless it's the patriot act, apparently).
C0baltblaze
6 years ago
seriously who was raging LOL class action suits are never smart against company's as big in user base as is their wallet that creates more stress  than is good always assume you are an individual and file a regular lawsuit against the company and always find out whether there are more than one person. and never take class action just as a recommendation,  i am surprised some of the people who complain about this are even able to function from the mere stupidity they exude!

if i am going to be suing anyone its basically gonna be treated individually with my recomendation they build courtrooms and courthouses specifically designed for class action lawsuits so as to prevent court blockage and people being constantly turned down for not being able to procure a court date.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.