Band together with your new friend to take both parties to small claims court.
Argue the representations made on their website were misleading and induced you into using the service. That due to the unequal bargaining power, any ambiguities in their Terms must be resolved in your favor. Research precedent, including anything judges have said about click-wrap vs browse-wrap agreements in your jurisdiction.
Maybe you can find a sympathetic lawyer from a prestigious firm who's willing to write them on your behalf on their firm's letterhead. All this might simply scare them into settling - it's far cheaper for them than paying a lawyer to litigate (and less toxic publicity), and eliminates the risk that if you manage to win (small-claims is a bit more unpredictable than big-boy court) it sets a precedent that could come back and bite their business model.
Hi, Lisbeth Kaufman here (CoFounder and CEO of KitSplit). I feel terribly for Yohahn and the other owner who had their gear stolen. I wanted to personally respond to let you know that we are fixing this and making them whole- and then some.
We are launching a new insurance product for our owners: the KitSplit Theft Protection Owner Guarantee. It’s something we’ve been considering for a while, and with this latest theft it’s clearly time.
The Owner Guarantee means that KitSplit owners will be covered in all scenarios, whether damage, loss, or theft. To make good on this promise, we’re starting by reimbursing the Yohahn and the other owner.
We are the first rental platform to offer coverage of this kind. It fills a major insurance loophole, and it’s the right thing to do for our customers.
This isn't good enough for me. While I'm glad for this action, and for OP...too many times I've been in a similar situation, basically told to sod off. People suggest lighting up Twitter or other social media, which frankly, I do not use and isn't worth my time. So this poor fellow had to deal with CS, be rejected, go through all sorts of mental hell before deciding to write a diatribe, just so your company could finally decide to do what it should have done all along as a form of damage control. Don't you realize how much cheaper it would have been to do the right thing when first presented with the option?
Unfortunately, KitSplit couldn't go back in the past and write policies like this.
Reminds me of a quote from Fight Club -
"Sometimes you've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette" ~ Tyler Durden
Yes, it was a huge oversight, but the past is the past. A bad thing had happen. But, KitSplit has now taken corrective actions to fix this as well as prevent this from happening in the future.
I don't think this is the time to disparage their service because of one incident. It was unfortunate, but .. come'on the author is a big boy as well. He could've read the complete TOS before hand. After all, he's parting ways with a $3,500 piece of equipment. He didn't have a problem writing a blog about this and expected people to read what he wrote. So, why not see exactly what you're getting into.
The internet has been around for quite a while now, and there's always scammers out there (on both ends).
Moving forward, I would hope that KitSplit not only ensures these insurance policies but do some trail-blazing a little bit on this type of thing.
A couple of ideas -
1. Maybe have their policies clearly written on their platform. Or better yet, address this on the homepage and create a "how-to" video on this so people know how the new policy will be enforced.
2. Trackability - Add a required tracking mechanism to be placed on the device, so if it is stolen/manipulated it can be easily reported to the an authority
3. Fraud form - Create an easy to use form for reporting stolen items. This data can then be sent to the local police, etc to try to find and capture the culprit. Basically, it could do the things that are in KitSplit's policy.
4. Expose a monthly report on incidents like that and the amount refunded/recouped.
These are just at the top of my head. I'm sure they could think of more ways to ensure that everyone on all sides are being honest.
Again, the victim got fully compensated only after making a big enough stink, and the top comment calls out KitSplit's advertising as misleading.
I have a hard time calling it an "oversight" that KitSplit puts statements like "Always Insured - Your gear is always covered" front and center, while you have to go dig for the reality that there is no coverage against the renter walking away with the gear.
How many of your renters have suffered "voluntary parting" since you began, and will you be seeking out and reimbursing all of them or just the ones with large internet presences?
(Also, was the less than 0.01% number accurate? Especially as you write 1/1000 elsewhere, which is 0.1% - ten times as much! To achieve less than 0.01%, even with just these two incidents, you must have done more than twenty thousand rentals. Is that correct? Can you give a more accurate percentage now you've looked into this?)
Just wondering why this wasn’t part of the product in the first place?
Come on, we know full well incidents like this were considered in the first place when launching your business and you nevertheless decided to go along with your fraudulent “insurance” policy (not covering “voluntary parting” which is the main risk in this case - in fact I’m struggling to think of an incident that wouldn’t fall under voluntary parting when using your platform).
The only reason you’re here and you’re launching this new insurance policy is that the story blew up and you’re doing damage control. There’s clearly zero intention in compensating the affected renters otherwise you would’ve done that from the start instead of sending them canned responses.
I am not an expert, you are strongly advised to take legal advice in your own jurisdiction. You need to have a lawyer review all the text on your website not just the terms and conditions as it all forms part of the ‘invitation to treat’ and you can be held to it in court.[0] In the UK the caselaw suggests that more prominent text takes precedence over hidden terms and conditions. So if you say one thing prominently in your advert and other in your terms you could be held to the terms implied by the ad not your T&C. The UK caselaw precedent is old enough that it likely applies in other English speaking common law jurisdictions like Australia, New Zealand etc. It would not surprise me if there is a similar precedent in the US.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Bal...
There is something that I don't understand. In this case the total price of the rent was $89, that is $70 for the lender and $19 for KitSplit and taxes. Is the "KitSplit Theft Protection Owner Guarante" and additional insurance with an additional fee?
After this is implemented, how would the price be:
(let's assume for the calculations that the additional guarantee is $2)
* $70 for the lender and $19 for KitSplit and taxes and guarantee (no additional fee)
* $70 for the lender and $21 for KitSplit and taxes and guarantee
* $68 for the lender and $21 for KitSplit and taxes and guarantee
What does this sentence of the blog post mean?
> When an owner gets a rental request they will be offered the chance to opt-into the waiver.
The owner can opt-in to get the additional protection, or the owner can opt-it to avoid the additional protection?
Why is it a good idea to opt-in/opt-out? Does the additional protection have a fee?
Or the claim that "Exclusive to KitSplit members, our insurance options are full-coverage" from https://kitsplit.com/add-listing-landing, which is front-and-center with the reality hidden far below the fold.
As far as I'm concerned, you are (were?) intentionally deceiving your customers, even after it had publicly blown up in your face the last time.
Your first three paragraphs are legit criticism. Your last paragraph crosses into personal attack and breaks the site guidelines. That is not ok on this site. Would you mind (re-)reading https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and following them when posting here in the future?
There doesn't seem to be an edit button on that post (I assume the ability to edit times out after some short time), so I'll clarify here: Yes, that was directed at the company, and I assumed that would be clear from the context.
I was responding to a post of an official speaking behalf of the company, the parts I was responding to were written as 'we' in the original post, and especially given this, I hope you'll agree that I am expecting the company and not the CEO personally to reimburse the user, which should make clear how the "you" in that post is meant.
Possibly, but given that the comment was a reply to a person using a personal name, I think the default is to interpret "you" personally. So the onus is on the replier to make the distinction if they don't mean it that way.
You don't see any pitfalls of separating people from the business they run and have control over the decisions made there?
I'm curious too if you read the article and if you see any discrepancy or dishonesty of KitSplit in the presented evidence - which is what this commenter is referring/replying to in their 4th paragraph?
Shame isn't inherently a bad thing: if someone does something bad and obvious like deceptive and dishonest practices, and there is proof of it - like the deception pointed out by the author - then that being pointed out has a purpose and value. Bullying for example should be shamed, no? Shaming someone for how they dress, something out of their control, their sexuality, and so on, however of course isn't okay and is harmful. I wonder do you and HN mods group all shame together or are you aware of and understand this nuanced difference?
I feel for you that moderating a community is difficult, however blanket decisions like calling out all shame as illegitimate can be more harmful for more than one reason - even if it makes moderation easier because there's less consideration or feeling it out given, even if erring on the side of caution feels prudent and relieving because you're taking action vs. not taking action - quelling feelings of potential uncertainty by expressing something.
In conclusion, being in a position of authority, as a mod on HN, and threatening to ban someone for expressing themselves, their anger, and legitimate highlighting of deception - which in multiple places in this thread you state and are lumping together as defending as a cause against a "culture of shame" - is highly damaging - though you're not likely to experience or see the damage it causes especially as most people aren't likely to respond under the pressure or fear because of your mod position, and they are now going to feel repressed.
I had the banhammer wielded on me for a similar reason, and now understand HN is an irony free zone moderated by snowflakes. I expected so much better after being here for years.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it's not hard to get unbanned if you want to use the site as intended. You just need to email hn@ycombinator.com and say so in a good-faith way.
Thanks for responding here in spite of all the criticism.
While I don't know how much of this is PR damage control vs. genuine heartfelt atonement, I do appreciate the frankness at the end of your blog post:
I’m sorry. This really sucks. Both what happened to you and our initial response. As the founder and CEO of KitSplit, please accept my sincere apology....I’m also sorry that it took you complaining loudly on the internet for us to get our heads straight on this one and do the right thing.
I hope the OP comes back to share his thoughts on how this all turned out (or any others who may have slipped through this gap over the years).
It's pretty disgusting that you knew that this was a gap in policy, had been considering it for some time, and ultimately decided to run with it anyway and even took measures to obfuscate the truth.
What's the point in pretending to be honorable by offering a service one can pay for to prevent your misdeeds? Any reasonable person here can see straight through you and your business.
If you want to be ethical going forward, rewrite your user agreement and offer this insurance baked into your product. If it turns out you cannot profit from running your business in an ethical manner, then perhaps you should consider a different line of work. Or, at the very least, don't offer your fake sympathy when a user uses your product and falls victim to your personal shortcomings.
Personal attacks are not ok. Whatever substantive criticism you have, it can be made without denunciatory rhetoric, so please do it that way from now on. This site is no place for the online callout/shaming culture—there are many other homes for that on the internet. Here the rules include "Be kind" and "Assume good faith". Why? Because it determines the kind of community this is.
Personal attacks and the online shaming culture are not welcome on HN. Maybe you don't owe better to the individual, but you owe better to this community if you want to keep posting here.
I have trouble following your line of argument. One is not allowed to ask questions using the pronoun "you" as in "How you are doing?"
And I don't see it as a rhetorical device, but effectively asking the question "Why didn't you offer the right compensation prior to being publicly shamed?" which IMHO is a very valid question for anybody dealing with the said company, as the responses can vary from "We didn't understand the damage it would do us and we want to contain it" to "We're seeing the errors in our approach and we'll do better from now on".
Right now the response in somewhere in between these two, and clarification is important.
He's literally responding to an explanation the company's representative (in this case, the founder) gave. How else is he supposed to respond without using basic english pronouns such as "you".
That's not necessarily the worst thing, the cost of arbitration to the company is likely more than 0 (and maybe not even less than small claims) so I'll guess most companies would eagerly settle for at least the cost of the arbitration--they really can't lose. Uber is famously dealing with this right now, and it's costing them around $10K apiece[1] so it seems possible the cost to KitSplit would be more than this camera's worth.
It all depends on who the arbitrator is. Many arbitration clauses are there because the business has relationships with arbitration organizations. If the arbitrator is an impartial third party, it will be much less costly than going to court.OTOH, $3500 is a small claims court amount and most small claims courts will honor any 'fine print' in the contract.
GoFundMe even used to support funding for legal purposes. They got rid of it because of one legal-defense funding campaign that they disagreed with politically.
Argue the representations made on their website were misleading and induced you into using the service. That due to the unequal bargaining power, any ambiguities in their Terms must be resolved in your favor. Research precedent, including anything judges have said about click-wrap vs browse-wrap agreements in your jurisdiction.
Maybe you can find a sympathetic lawyer from a prestigious firm who's willing to write them on your behalf on their firm's letterhead. All this might simply scare them into settling - it's far cheaper for them than paying a lawyer to litigate (and less toxic publicity), and eliminates the risk that if you manage to win (small-claims is a bit more unpredictable than big-boy court) it sets a precedent that could come back and bite their business model.