I'm curious at what point it makes sense for them to just pay out the $3430 difference to make this story have a happy ending. I'm a photographer that would love to make a little extra cash or to rent a lens from someone else through this service but I never will because of how poorly they handled this whereas if they had owned up and made it right instead of hiding behind legalese I probably would be more likely to use it.
At what point it how many lost users like me does it take to make paying out cheaper than loss of business?
There is absolutely no way the bad press they're getting is worth saving a measly 3430. HOWEVER, from this 1 point alone (and the thread from last year about the same issue with kitsplit), we can deduce that kitsplit probably has enough thefts that they can't afford to "pay off" all the people being stolen from.
Their claim that "99.99% of people aren't scammed" seems awfully smelly, as they could use their modest 20% cut from rentings to pay off all the people who are stolen from.
At what point it how many lost users like me does it take to make paying out cheaper than loss of business?