Wag's new TOS charges users $1000 for going off Wag

216 点作者 moonka超过 5 年前

22 条评论

This points to a basic issue with Wag's business model. If 'contractors' have an incentive to take on clients directly and cut out Wag, then they will do so. You can't stop that with an unenforcable TOS, because they're contractors. What a normal business would do at that point is admit Uber for dog walking was a bad idea, implement a reasonable finders fee system and pivot to connecting/reviewing/vetting/handling contracts/payments for owners and walkers. The business would be worth X to XX million dollars and everyone would be happy.Wag, however, has over 300 million dollars in funding. So they're probably @#$%ed.<s> Here's an idea for a startup, 'Uber for Uber for X'.How many times have you acquired 300 million dollars in funding only to realize you missed a silly detail that will bankrupt your overvalued Uber for X startup? Never again!Now anyone can easily build their own Uber for X in days! Use our centralized customer network for immediate network effects! As the network was the only real value your sheisty middleman-ware provided anyway, you're obviously now a contractor. If it turns out we don't add value to your Uber for X experience, taking on customers directly will of course result in a hefty fine. It's buried in the TOS because it's legally unenforceable, but we'll still try to bill you anyway!Uber for Uber for X. Overvalued since 2019. </s>

评论 #20856233 未加载

评论 #20868924 未加载

ShroudedNight超过 5 年前

Here is the clause in Section 11:As a Pet Owner, you acknowledge that Wag! is in the business of connecting Pet Owners and Pet Care Providers, and that said business is how Wag! earns its income. As a result, Pet Owner agrees that if Pet Owner solicits a Pet Care Provider to provide off-platform pet care services to Pet Owner whom Pet Owner first met and/or learned about through the Wag! platform, Wag! is entitled to charge both the Pet Owner and the Pet Care Provider a referral fee. This referral fee will be charged once per specific Pet Owner/Pet Care Provider services relationship utilized outside of the process provided for within the Wag! platform. Pet Owner’s referral fee will be $1,000. Pet Owner will first be notified in writing of Pet Owner’s obligation to pay the referral fee. Thereafter, Pet Owner hereby authorizes Wag! to charge any of your payment methods for the referral fee.

评论 #20855762 未加载

评论 #20854361 未加载

评论 #20855586 未加载

评论 #20854330 未加载

评论 #20855498 未加载

评论 #20858937 未加载

评论 #20856461 未加载

评论 #20856823 未加载

Nextgrid超过 5 年前

For reference, Wag is the same scummy company which can't even handle accidents in a professional way and required an NDA to be signed before they'd compensate the victims[1] so this new twist is no surprise.[1]: <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/wag-killed-our-dog-and-tried-to-buy-our-silence/" rel="nofollow">https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/wag-killed-our-dog-and-tried-t...</a>

goldcd超过 5 年前

I'm just imagining one of the wag investors asking "What's to stop your walker who lives nearby the dog's owner, just doing the walk independently with the person they've built trust with?"And the answer is "you have a shitty business model and this should have killed it years ago"

评论 #20854449 未加载

评论 #20854394 未加载

DannyBee超过 5 年前

It's really interesting to watch how much of HN armchair lawyers this and assumes it will not hold up for, well, no apparent legal reason that i can see.With my actual lawyer hat on, I'll place my bet on the other side -This is not a non-compete, and these clauses are quite commonplace in almost all placement agencies (IE nannies, employees, etc). Charging a fee to facilitate two people meeting and making a transaction is perfectly normal, and I'm not aware of any court striking them down. In fact, the opposite - i'm aware of plenty of court cases of employers recovering placement fees, etc, from employees, for example.The only prohibition i'm aware of in california is payment of fees to unlicensed real estate agents for things licensed real estate agents would normally do.The only interesting restriction you will find on recovery is whether the agency (wag here) was compliant with relveant licensing/etc statutes, and whether the two people actually met using wag.If they did, ...Folks are welcome to meet through other means, and it does not restrict anyone working for anyone.

评论 #20856682 未加载

评论 #20856652 未加载

BooneJS超过 5 年前

If I recall correctly, when an employer signs up with a headhunter service to bring resumes, you're also agreeing to a 1 year term of exclusivity. Often resumes are shared without a name or other basic identifying information until you agree to meet with them. If you end up hiring them anytime from then to 1 year out, you pay the headhunter their fee. Seems fair, only because the headhunter needs to make a buck.Based on neighborhood traffic on Nextdoor and Facebook, dog walking is still a "hire your neighbor's kid" market, and Wag seems to be trying to elevate it to the gig economy where dogs are walked by those that need to put food on their own table.Headhunters don't profit forever from every job they connect their clients with, and it seems Wag is trying to get away with changing those rules.

评论 #20854395 未加载

评论 #20855283 未加载

crankylinuxuser超过 5 年前

Sigh.Did it take this long to realize that "gig economy" was all about employee arbitrage and the destruction of the bottom 1/5 of employees to 'day laborer with requirements of employees'?Uber steals tips by 'lowering pay' of a ride. Same with Lyft. Same with that food delivery service. They're all alike: 'abuse the worker cause they're here - they don't have other choices'.And all the while people "agree" to these abortions of contracts. Contracts usually have to be agreed to by someone of sound mind. So why isn't the threat of being hungry, homeless, medical care-less, and such not considered a invalidation of contracts? It's akin to a gun pointed at your head; it instead leads to poverty and homelessness.That has longer and just as severe ramifications.

评论 #20855627 未加载

rwmj超过 5 年前

I'm certainly not defending it, but these clauses can also be found in UK rental contracts made by estate agents. The clause will usually state that if you continue in the house after the term of the contract without renewing through the agency (and paying their exorbitant annual fees again) they will charge you a "finders fee" on the basis that you found the landlord through them originally.No idea on the legality of it, but I guess it's likely legal since rental contracts are things that you read through and can even negotiate and amend, quite unlike the "contracts" that you click through when you sign up to a dog walking service.

评论 #20854977 未加载

评论 #20855192 未加载

评论 #20856201 未加载

bedros超过 5 年前

Homejoy the house cleaning startup has a very similar business model to Wag. and as Homejoy failed because clients would directly hire the cleaners vs going through Homejoy; Wag will be destined to the same failure unless they use scare tactics to block clients from hiring contractors directly

评论 #20855521 未加载

评论 #20867448 未加载

评论 #20856211 未加载

评论 #20855260 未加载

crispyporkbites超过 5 年前

Do people really let strangers walk their dogs?It’s crazy, my dog is my best friend, there’s no way I’m trusting a random person with his life. If I can’t find someone to take care of him, I change my plans. If you can’t prioritise your dog you shouldn’t have one.

评论 #20855671 未加载

jdeibele超过 5 年前

We board our dog with somebody we used through DogVacay before it merged with Rover.To me, there's definitely some value was added by the service by doing some screening. I didn't ever pick somebody who had no reviews. But that's valuable for the first time, worth much less afterwards. We've used 6 or 7 different "sitters" because the first, first 2, first 3, etc. were booked or not available.Our primary sitter went private. He's got magnetic signs advertising dog sitting on his truck. He charges the same rate as when we booked through DogVacay but we pay him in cash, not via credit card on the website. I text him to see if he's available and so far he has been. I think he's less busy than he was using the website but the flip side is that he's not paying a fee so I bet he nets out better or the same. Plus he's dealing primarily with repeat customers - dogs that he's familiar with, dogs that are familiar with him.The matching has some value. It's too bad there isn't a fair way that he could have us as a repeat customer - which is due to him being somebody we think is trustworthy - but pay less to Rover. Something like 25% (or whatever they charge) for a first-time stay, 10% for repeats.

评论 #20867138 未加载

michaelmrose超过 5 年前

Brought to you by the morons whose employee killed someone's dog and offered to pay for the dogs final expenses only if they agreed on pain of lawsuit not to talk about it.Can they go bankrupt already?

SamReidHughes超过 5 年前

The title should be fixed, it’s for using a provider you met through Wag.

breeny592超过 5 年前

This falls back to the classic thing - if your market is commoditised, then your product needs to be an experience to drive your revenue. And in all likely-hood, dog walking is not an industry "ripe for disruption" with enhanced experiences. Ride sharing took off because the experience of cabs was (in my experience) pretty much universally abysmal across the globe, and Uber/Lyft etc. actually provided a service that gave you a better experience.The reality, as the commenters said in the linked reddit discussion, is that Wag has no real way to enforce this. Unsure on laws in the USA, but that provision would be highly illegal under Australian competition laws as exclusive sourcing is a finable offence, so have to assume similar provisions exist over there too in one way or another.

whoisjuan超过 5 年前

Pff. I don't know what lawyers they have but they are shitty as fuck. Of course, this is 100% unenforceable. If I was hit with one of these I would immediately sue in a small claims court. Those walkers are contractors. If they want to do this type of shit and have at least a small chance to earn those fees, start by hiring them as W-2 workers with benefits. This is just hypocritical.

评论 #20855612 未加载

irjustin超过 5 年前

Wag is sitting in the exact same space as Homejoy which has the same fundamental problem - there is a natural relationship between both sides.Beyond discovery there is no reason to keep the relationship on the platform.Comparisons to Uber or AirBnB don't really work here as there is no natural relationship with your Uber driver and the lack of repeat visit to the same destination keeps repeats/relationships down.Wag is fighting a capitalistic force. Beyond the initial discovery/relationship build - once the end user and dog walker has found someone they really like, what value is being added by staying on platform?They're just taking money...

评论 #20868585 未加载

paultopia超过 5 年前

I actually don't think this is all that bad. (I'm not sure if it would be enforceable---the classic common law rule is that liquidated damages clauses have to actually be a genuine estimate of the party's damages, not punitive... but it's also been a while since I've done contract law.)It seems like the defense of this is fairly simple.(1) People ought not to be able to use their matchmaking services without giving them a cut, that's shitty, and why not use contracts to enforce it---just the same as other kinds of matchmaking services, like job placement agencies, do.(2) Also, it's probably safer for consumers to use their platform to have things like built-in verification of transactions, maybe(?) insurance(?) etc. anyway. Same reason it's a bad idea to take the AirBnB or Ebay or whomever transaction off-platform, because that's how crooks siphon away recourse for their frauds.So why not use a little bit of coercion for everyone's good?

pbecotte超过 5 年前

I mean, if I hire a contractor that I got through a staff augmentation agency, I have to pay a fee. That is part of the agreement with the agency. This seems the same?

jimmaswell超过 5 年前

I'd never let strangers walk my dog anyway. Heard too many bad stories. Put out pads if they really need to go during the day.

microtherion超过 5 年前

IANAL, but this sounds like tortious interference to me.

Simon_says超过 5 年前

It's like if Tinder tried to charge for every time I fucked my girlfriend.

deogeo超过 5 年前

It's time to stop viewing contracts as an inherent good that must be obeyed, and instead as merely useful tools to help society. Until (more) limits are placed on them to protect individuals, we will continue descending deeper into a "well you agreed to it when you clicked OK" dystopia.

评论 #20854311 未加载