Disputing A Bogus Charge Is A Violation Of Terms Of Service?
from the how-does-that-work? dept
Consumerist has the story of how a guy who's account on some pay porn site got hacked, with $450 charged to his account. When he threatened to have his credit card company dispute the charge, the site warned him that doing so was a "serious violation of our terms of service." They also refused to return the money (though they said he could get credit at the site). Of course, he still had his credit card company dispute the charges and got his money back. Still, it takes quite an amazing sense of entitlement to (a) claim that you're not giving a guy whose account was hacked his money back and then (b) threaten him with a TOS violation for disputing the charge.
30 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- DOJ Two Step: It Should Be A Criminal Offense To Lie About Your Age On Facebook... But We Probably Won't Go After You For It
- Judge Orders Divorcing Couple To Swap Facebook And Dating Site Passwords, Breaking Facebook's Own Rules
- Senate Committee Recognizes That Violating Terms of Service Shouldn't Be A Crime
- Congress Debating If Putting A Fake Name On Facebook Should Be A Felony
- Thou Shalt Not Sue Sony





Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Twisted Logic
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Twisted Logic
You're gonna be the guy who punctuates a reference to that woman with a "LOL!"...
Wow.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
online meds are similar
A lot of newspapers online and off have done exposes on this, and they all come to the same conclusion -- online med sites are mostly scams.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Twisted Logic
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Charged!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Twisted Logic
Remember: things are only offensive **if you let them be** so take the power away from it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Not a redhead, but...
Claiming you can simply "take the power away" from an offensive comment doesn't make it ok in a civilized society. I certainly hope never to live in a place where that sort of comment is acceptable in everyday language and can honestly say I have never heard it before to the best of my knowledge.
There's little question as to why that may be since most of the people I associate with would never be so bigoted.
As for the article - come on. It's a porn site. Might have been note worthy if they actually tried to go after him for the ToS violation but a simply claim??
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
ot
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not a redhead, but...
The phrase "beat you like a red-headed step child" is a widely used phrase. You probably have heard it but just don't remember.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Force?
I didn't say "You can't say that". Just that that is not appropriate and IS offensive, for good reason.
So long as people can't respect each other enough not to make such off-colour humour people will continue to think it's ok to hate someone based on their race, hair colour, sexual orientation, whatever.
That's not cool.
All I'm saying.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Force?
> by the way - advocating violence based on
> someones hair colour is a hate crime in
> many places).
Not in the USA it isn't. Any such law would be a bright line violation of the Constitution and the 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence that illuminates it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Really?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Force?
> hate someone based on their race, hair
> colour, sexual orientation, whatever
I have no idea what you actually mean by "think it's okay", but in terms of the law, it *is* perfectly okay to hate people for any reason at all. The government can't punish you for your thoughts and emotions. Anyone can hate anyone else for whatever reason they choose.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Won't somebody think of the children??
Business Plan (patent pending)
1. Setup online porn site, charge minimal subscription to generic material with extensive 'additional cost' specialty material available.
2. Get users with free 1 month subscription
3. Once enough users are signed up, change TOS so disputing charges results in all disputed purchases being made entirely public, including all material purchased being provided to 'law enforcement' for investigation purposes.
4. 'Hack' users accounts (by providing 3rd party with user ID's and passwords) and charge ridiculous amounts to usres accounts for access to pictures of disgusting and generally disapproved type material (beastiality, goatsee, etc)
5. Sit back and wait for disgusted and frustrated users to complain (when they do provide them with the relevant portion of the TOS and see what happens) or dispute the charges, if they do dispute the charges send copies of the pictures to their e-mail and post the information on a public access forum.
6. Profit and laugh......
Anyone making use of this business model without paying the $1 million dollar licensing fee is required to provide me with their first born child (see I'm thinking of the children, anyone who would do something this despicable doesn't deserve to be a parent). The terms of this agreement can be changed at any time, solely at my discretion without any prior notice.
Man, my tinfoil hat is really giving me helmet hair today....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Force?
1)if i kick your ass, its assault.
2)if i kick your ass and call you a red headed step child, its now a hate crime?
why would i kick your ass if i did not hate you?
i hate those damn sneaky ToS
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Force?
It's okay everyone, Justme is from the UK. Their knickers come pre-bunched, I'm told. :P
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Shitty business practice since it'll drive away customers, but it's certainly doable.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Hate
"Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation."
If you want to say "I hate you because you have red hair" no one cares, you're just an a$$.
If you hit someone = assault
If you hit someone BECAUSE they have red hair = Hate Crime
...even in the entire US of A.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Force?
Please use the reply to comment so it stays in the chain.
Thanks
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Twisted Logic
2. Learn to read; "LOL" puntuates a statement referring to the porn site's ToS and the absurd clauses therein.
3. The post has nothing at all to do with Lori Drew's actions (whatever you may think of them); it has to do with her trial and more specifically the labarynthine route taken by prosecutors in that trial to find something (anything) with which to charge her.
4. All of the above notwithstanding, I'm still gonna be that guy. Grow up and deal with it; political correctness has gotten way out of hand.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hate
Race? Nope, not with red-hair being an elective hair color.
Religion? Certainly not.
Sexual Orientation? Not applicable.
Disability? Debatable, but ultimately no.
Ethnicity? See Race.
Nationality? Nope.
Gender? Again, no.
Gender identity? Same as gender.
Political affiliation? Not even related.
So... none of them apply to your definition and I'll repeat the question: which protected class is a "red-headed step child" a part of, exactly?
Also: Get off the soap box and pull the 2x4 out, nobody cares.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hate
> hair = Hate Crime ...even in the entire
> US of A.
Nope. Hate crimes only encompass certain statutorily defined groups and hair color is not one of them.
Kill someone because he's Hispanic, that's punishable as a hate crime.
Kill someone because he's a Dallas Cowboys fan, that's not punishable as a hate crime.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Twisted Logic
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
some loser attempting to avoid paying for his porn. probably his wife found the item on his credit card bill.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hate
...even in the entire US of A.
Nope. Gingers aren't a protected class in the US. Anti-discrimination laws in the US are very discriminatory in what groups they protect. Funny that, huh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment